That the real division is no longer between political parties, or even between party factions, is apparent to the observer who has given the question any attention at all.

Not once, for example, did the California Legislature of 1909 divide on a party question; nor did it have to deal with any problem that had not at one time or another been endorsed by both parties. Both Democrats and Republicans in either State or county platforms had declared for the passage of an Anti-Racetrack Gambling law, for an effective Direct Primary law, for an effective Railroad Regulation law, for the submission to the people of a Constitutional Amendment granting the people the privilege of initiating laws. In the same way, county conventions of both parties - and county conventions are the closest to the people and most representative of them - had declared for local option, for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, for amendments to the codes that should simplify proceedings in criminal cases, for effective railroad regulation. Estimating the purposes of the two parties by their county and State platforms, none of these reforms can be regarded as any more Democratic than Republican, and these were the issues with which the Legislature of 1909 was called upon to deal.

A glance at the tables of votes in the appendix will show that the Assemblymen and the Senators who voted against the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, generally speaking, voted against the effective Stetson Railroad Regulation bill and for the ineffective Wright bill, opposed the provision in the Direct Primary bill giving the people an effective part in the selection of United States Senators, supported the passage of the Change of Venue bill, opposed the passage of the Local Option bill, opposed the submission of the Initiative amendment to the electors of the State. This negative element, opposed to policies which the normal citizen regards as making for the State's best interests, has in these pages been called the machine[107].

As has been shown in these pages, the interests of the several beneficiaries of the system are in effect pooled; one element helps the other. The managers of the several elements, the political agents, if you like, of the tenderloin, Southern Pacific, racetrack, and public-service monopolies generally; in a word, all who seek to evade the law or to secure undue special privileges or to continue secure in the possession of such privileges already secured, recognize that they must hang together or submit to a reckoning with the public, which must necessarily result in the breaking of the particular monopoly which each enjoys, be it in transportation, nickel-in-the-slot graft, or traffic in the bodies of young women. Should the political bureau of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, for example, lose the support of the tenderloin, or of the racetrack gamblers, or of any other powerful group of its political associates, the corporation could no longer continue its strangle-hold upon the State. But none of its associates would dare thus offend. Such is the machine, which, in the name of a protective tariff, "sound money," Abraham Lincoln, or Theodore Roosevelt, has organized the Legislature of California for sixteen years. Previous to 1895, there were California Legislatures organized in the name of Thomas Jefferson. But the machine has not taken the name of Thomas Jefferson in vain in California for many years[108].

Nevertheless, although acting under the name Republican, the machine is quite as dependent upon "Democrats" as upon "Republicans," and as dependent upon either as upon the tenderloin, the brewery trust or the racetrack gambling element. It monopolizes neither party, but it divides both parties. Or it may be described as a canker that has eaten into both, diseased both, rendered both unwholesome, until a condition exists in the dominating parties that requires that the uncorrupted element of both unite to cut the diseased portion away[109].

As the machine divides the parties, so did it divide the Republican and Democratic delegations in the Senate and the Assembly of the California Legislature of 1909. Hare and Kennedy, for example, Democratic Senators, voted constantly with Wolfe and Leavitt, Republican Senators, for machine policies. Nor was the opposition restricted to party lines. Black and Boynton and Cutten, Republican Senators, were found voting constantly with Campbell and Holohan, Democratic Senators, against the machine. Between Black and Wolfe, Republicans, there was nothing in common during the entire session; nor was there anything in common between Campbell and Kennedy, Democrats. On practically every important issue, however, Kennedy, Democrat, and Wolfe, Republican, made common cause, while Black, Republican, and Campbell, Democrat, opposed them.

The same comparisons could be made in the Assembly, where such Democrats as Wheelan and Baxter were found with Mott and Coghlan, Republicans, supporting machine policies, while opposed to them were anti-machine Republicans of the character of Bohnett and Callan, and anti-machine Democrats like Polsley and Mendenhall.

Thus, for practical purposes, the Legislature can not be divided on party lines. The only practical line of division is between the machine element, and the anti-machine element. Such, at the session of 1909, was the division on every important issue; such will it be at the legislative session of 1911. Why should not the same division govern the organization of Senate and Assembly?

As a matter of fact, the machine disregards party lines even in organizing. In making up its committees it considers fealty to machine interests above party name. For example, Hare and Kennedy were the Democratic Senators who this year affiliated with the machine. Kennedy was appointed to practically every important committee, at least to those before which important fights were to be made. Thus we find him on the Committee on Commerce and Navigation, Contingent Expenses, Elections and Election Laws, Prisons and Reformatories, and Public Morals, Hare was appointed to the Committee on Commerce and Navigation, Elections and Election Laws, Labor, Capital and Immigration, Municipal Corporations, Printing, and Public Buildings and Grounds. In committees, as well as on the floor of the Senate, Hare and Kennedy were found as a general thing casting their influence and their votes on the side of machine policies.

Had the anti-machine Democrats and the anti-machine Republicans in Senate and Assembly, who worked together for the same ends and voted together on practically every important issue, taken the same course, and united for the organization of the two Houses, reform measures which were defeated by narrow margins would have been made laws, and machine measures which became laws defeated.

Such being the case, is it not the duty of the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Democrats who may sit in the Legislature of 1911, to organize both Senate and Assembly to resist machine purposes and policies?

This can be done comparatively easily in the Assembly, where a movement to elect the Speaker such as was started by Drew of Fresno this year, if carried out, would take the Assembly out of machine hands. Although the organization of the Senate looks more difficult, because the Senate has no voice in the selection of its presiding officer, nevertheless, even though a Warren Porter occupy the post of Lieutenant-Governor, at the session of 1911 the reform element can elect its President pro tem., and appoint the Senate committees. In other words, a majority of the Senate, may if it see fit, take the appointing of the committees out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor.

There are two important precedents for this course, one established by a Democratic Senate; the other by a Republican Senate.

The Democratic precedent was established in 1887. In that year Robert W. Waterman, a Republican, was Lieutenant-Governor and presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate was made up of twenty-six Democrats and fourteen Republicans. The Democratic majority organized the Senate under the following rule, which will be found in the Senate journal of that session:

"All Committees of the Senate, special and standing, and all joint Committees on the part thereof, shall be elected by the Senate unless otherwise ordered."

The Republican precedent was made in 1897. In that year, William T. Jeter, a Democrat, was Lieutenant-Governor, while a majority of the Senators were Republicans. Instead of leaving the appointing of the committees to the Democratic Lieutenant-Governor, the Republican Senators adopted a rule that "all standing committees of the Senate shall be named by the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, and the first named shall be chairman thereof. All other committees shall be appointed in such manner as the Senate shall determine."

In other words, the Republican majority of the Senate named the Senate committees of the session of 1897, taking their appointment out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor as the Democrats had done ten years before. There is no good reason why the members of the anti-machine majority in the Senate should not have taken the same course in 1909, and named the committees. Had they done so, and named the President pro tem., they would have organized the Senate in the interest of those policies in advancing which they were soon in open revolt against Lieutenant-Governor Porter, the machine Senators and the machine lobby. Failing to do so, they placed themselves under a handicap which they were unable to overcome.

The reform element of the Legislature of 1911 will have in the experience of the reform element of the session of 1909, an important lesson. And The People of California, who will elect that Legislature, have a lesson as important. The successes of the machine at the session of 1909, where a clear majority of both Houses opposed machine policies, demonstrated that the well-being of the State requires that the opponents of the machine in Senate and Assembly, regardless of party label, organize the Legislature. But back of this is the even more important requirement that there be elected to the Legislature American citizens, with the responsibility of their citizenship upon them, rather than partisans, burdened until their good purposes are made negative, by the responsibility of their partisanship.



[105] See, for example, Speaker Stanton's ruling on the Direct Primary bill when the Assembly was considering the question of receding from its amendments.

[106] The machine recognizes the real division, if the reform element does not. The machine, for example, calls itself Republican, and as such controls the patronage of the San Francisco water front. The appointments to water front jobs are, of course, partisan, but the writer is reliably informed that as many "Democrats" as "Republicans" are employed there. Senators Hare and Kennedy, we have seen, although Democrats, got appointments to holdover committees. The machine recognizes but one line in politics, that which divides those who support machine policies from those who stand for good government and the square deal. When those who stand for good government and the square deal become as clear sighted, the fight against the machine will not be quite so unequal.

[107] The term "machine" is, as a general thing, rather lightly used. It is made to stand for everything, from what might be and should be perfectly legitimate party organization, to the Southern Pacific political bureau. The Southern Pacific political bureau is, as a matter of fact, the dominating factor in machine affairs, which gives some reason for dubbing the machine Southern Pacific. But it is nor more the Southern Pacific machine than it is the Tenderloin machine or the Racetrack gamblers' machine, or the United Railroads machine, or the Electric Power Trust machine.

[108] Bryce in his American Commonwealth, more than a quarter of a century ago, showed the hollowness of the contention of the machine element for arty consideration. "The interest of a Boss in political questions," said Bryce in one of his admirable chapters on this subject, "is usually quite secondary. Here and there one may be found and who is a politician in the European sense, who, whether sincerely or not, purports and professes to be interested in some principle or measure affecting the welfare of the country. But the attachment of the ringster is usually given wholly to the concrete party, that is, to the men who compose it, regarded as office-holders or office-seekers; and there is often not even a profession of zeal for any party doctrine. As a noted politician happily observed to a friend of mine: 'You know, Mr. R., there are no politics in politics.' "

[109] One has a wider view of this condition if he look out beyond the Sacramento Capitol, into the Senate Hall at Washington. The following is from an editorial article which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, of June 12 last:

"The Iron trade is still in a depressed state. Output is much below the capacity of the mills, and prices have not recovered from the demoralization of early spring. Yet the other day the common stock of the Steel Trust sold higher than ever before. When issued, this common stock was rather thinner than water, and it represented mostly a capitalization of the Trust's tariff graft. At the new high price the market valuation of the graft, therefore, is some three hundred million dollars. A few days before this new high price was made, eighteen Democratic Senators voted with the Aldrich Republicans to take iron ore from the free list - where the House bill had put it - and protect it by a substantial duty. This action was generally regarded as insuring a continuation of the Trust's tariff graft. Hence a record price for the common stock was logical enough, although the iron trade was not exactly flourishing at the moment.

"Similar acts by Democratic Senators were denounced by President Cleveland as party perfidy and dishonor; but the regrettable fact is there is only one party in the United States Senate - just one party, with some scattering Republicans and Democratic Insurgents. For the purpose of getting elected and making stump speeches, different labels and catchwords are employed; but when it comes down to real business in the matter of taxing eighty-odd million users of iron and steel products for the benefit of an opulent trust, we find forty-three Republican Senators and eighteen Democratic Senators staunchly voting aye, against fourteen Republicans and ten Democrats who vote nay.

"With over half of the Democratic members of the Upper House fondly recording themselves as Little Brothers to Protection, there is slight danger that the tariff will be revised otherwise than by its friends."



Appendix



Tables of Votes.

The test votes given in the several tables record in every instance the result of a contest between the machine and the anti-machine forces in Senate or Assembly. It is quite evident that a unanimous vote cannot be counted a test vote. Thus the unanimous vote by which the Reciprocal Demurrage bill passed the Senate cannot be regarded as a test, although the machine fought the demurrage principle viciously in 1907.

Nor can a vote on a measure be taken as a test vote, where the vote was taken without the members fully realizing what was before them. Thus the votes on the Wheelan bills do not appear in either Senate or Assembly tables. These measures were slipped through Senate and Assembly without the members of either House fully realizing what the bills were, their purpose, or far-reaching effects. To be sure, a member of the Legislature should know what he is voting on, but when one considers the incidents of the whirl-wind close of the session of 1909, the injustice of holding a member accountable for inadvertently voting for a measure which he had intended to oppose, becomes apparent.

Following this rule, a vote on a given measure may be a test vote in one House and not in the other. The Change of Venue bill is an example in point. The Change of Venue bill was slipped through the Assembly, without the members fully realizing its import, and hence without opposition. But in the Senate the issue was fought out. The Senate vote on the Change of Venue bill, then, is taken as a test vote, while the Assembly vote on the same measure is not so regarded. In the same way, the vote on the substitution of the Wright bill for the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill was a test vote in the Senate. But in the Assembly there was no test vote taken on the railroad regulation measures, for the Wright bill was put through practically without opposition. The test railroad vote in the Assembly came on the Sanford resolution providing for government steamships on the Pacific. There was no test vote on this in the Senate, for in the Senate it was adopted practically without opposition.



Table A - Records of Senators.

The records of the members of the Senate on sixteen test votes are shown in Table A. The names of the Senators are arranged in the order of the number of times their votes were recorded on the side of progress and reform, the name of the Senator with the most positive votes to his credit appearing at the top of the list, and the Senator with the least number at the bottom.

While few will quarrel with the fact that Senator Bell's name leads the list, while Senators Finn and Hartman divide negative honors at the bottom, nevertheless the arrangement is not, strictly speaking, fair, although it is probably as fair as it could be made.

Senator Walker, for example, has only one anti-reform vote registered against him, but it was, perhaps, the most important test vote of the session, that on the Railroad Regulation measures. Senator Cutten, on the other hand, voted on the reform side of every question with the exception of the measure intended to work political reform by removing the party circle from the election ballot. Senator Cutten is recorded twice against this bill, it being necessary, in justice to all the Senators, to give both the votes taken on this measure. But considering the relative importance of the Railroad Regulation bills and the Party Circle bill, all must admit that Senator Cutten made a better record than Senator Walker, although Cutten's name appears below that of Walker.

Unavoidable absence from the Senate Chamber cut down the records of several of the Senators. Black and Stetson, whose severe illness kept them from Sacramento toward the end of the session, furnish examples of this.

Then again, the Party Circle bill and the Local Option bill were measures on which several of the strongest of the opponents of the machine differed with the majority of their anti-machine associates. With the four votes taken on these two issues out of the reckoning, Bell, Thompson, Roseberry, Cutten, Campbell, Boynton, Sanford, Cartwright, Black, Holohan, Birdsall, Stetson, Rush and Strobridge, have not one vote for a machine-backed policy against them. Caminetti's vote to amend the Stanford bill excludes him from the list, but as this measure was of the same character and policy as the Local Option bill, Caminetti's name should in justice be included among those of the Senators who made practically clear records. Looking at the table in a broad way, the first nineteen Senators of the list made anti-machine records. Of the eleven caucus Republicans among them, only one voted against admitting Bell to the Republican caucus.

The nineteen voted for the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, they voted every time against the machine on the Direct Primary issue, only two of them voted for the Change of Venue bill, only two of them voted against the Railroad Regulation bill. These comparisons can be carried out indefinitely, and always to the advantage of the nineteen.

Senator Wright is twentieth on the list; Senator Anthony is twenty-first. Those who followed these two Senators through the Direct Primary bill fight will see immediately that Wright has crowded into undeserved standing. There is a very good reason for this. In the Senate, the roll of Senators is called alphabetically, and Senator Wright's name is the last on the list. A glance at the table will show that Senator Wright did not vote once against the machine when his vote would have decided the issue. He voted for the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, but before him thirty-two Senators had voted for the bill, and only seven against it. Wright's thirty-third affirmative vote counted for nothing. On the other hand, when Wright's name was reached on roll call on the Change of Venue bill, with the vote standing nineteen for the bill and sixteen against, and twenty-one votes necessary for its passage, Senator Wright cast the twentieth affirmative vote, thus ensuring the measure's passage. In the same way, Senator Wright's vote the following day, tied the score on the motion for a call of the Senate, thus defeating the motion, and preventing reconsideration of the Change of Venue bill which would have meant its defeat.

The query is: Had the vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill stood nineteen against the bill, and twenty for, when Wright's name was reached, with twenty-one votes necessary for its passage, would Wright's vote have been cast for or against it? Any person who has any doubt on the question, is referred to Senator Wright's part in the passage of the amended Direct Primary bill, and in the defeat of the Stetson bill.

It is most advantageous to have one's name at the bottom of a roll call. Senator Wright's position above that of Senators Anthony and Burnett, emphasizes the necessity of considering these tables in connection with the chapters dealing with the several issues involved. From the first days of the session Senators Anthony and Burnett gave indications that had the anti-machine forces been organized, they would have been found consistently against the machine. At any rate, their records are admittedly more creditable than that made by Senator Wright.



The Sixteen Test Votes.

Senator Bell did not vote in the Senate Republican caucus, nor did the nine Democratic Senators. Thus in the sixteen votes recorded, Bell and the Democratic members voted only fifteen times. An outline of each of the several issues involved follows:

Senate A - The first test vote of the Republican majority which came in the Republican caucus described in Chapter II, on motion to admit Senator Bell to caucus privileges. Lost by a vote of 16 to 14.

Senate B - Vote on proposed McCartney Amendments to Direct Primary bill. Amendments defeated by vote of 27 to 13. See Chapter IX.

Senate C - Senate vote on Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.

Senate D - Vote on Wolfe's motion to send the Local Option bill back to the Judiciary Committee. See Chapter XVIII.

Senate E - First vote on Senate Bill 220, abolishing the party circle on the election ballot. Measure was defeated by vote of 15 to 23.

Senate F - Vote by which the above Senate Bill 220 was passed on reconsideration. Note the Senators who changed to the side favoring the measure.

Senate G - Test vote on Senate Bill 1144, known as the "Stanford Bill," which prohibited the sale of intoxicants within a mile and a half of a University. The measure was aimed at the low groggeries maintained in the vicinity of the campus at Stanford. It was fought by the same tenderloin element that had opposed the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. Senator Wolfe moved to amend the measure to exclude fraternal club houses and hotels of fifty bed-rooms or more, from its provisions. The amendment would have delayed and perhaps defeated the bill. Wolfe's motion was defeated.

Senate H - Vote by which the above Senate Bill 1144 was finally passed.

Senate I - First test railroad vote in the Senate - Senator Stetson moved that Stetson bill be substituted for the Wright bill. The motion was defeated by a vote of 16 to 22. Had Rush and Roseberry been present they would have voted on the side of the Stetson measure. This would have made the vote twenty-two for the Wright bill, and eighteen for the Stetson bill. See Chapter XIII.

Senate J - Vote on the Initiative Amendment. See Chapter XIX.

Senate K - Vote on the Local Option bill. See Chapter XVIII.

Senate L - Vote on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4, to eliminate ambiguities from those sections of the State Constitution which prescribe the powers and duties of the Railroad Commission. See Chapter XIV.

Senate M - Vote on Assembly amendments to the Direct Primary bill. Wright moved that the Senate concur in the amendments. The motion was lost, but on Wolfe's motion to reconsider the vote, the Senate was held in deadlock for more than a week. See Chapters X and XI.

Senate N - Vote on Change of Venue bill. See Chapter XVI.

Senate O - Vote on motion to reconsider vote by which Change of Venue bill was passed. See Chapter XVI.

Senate P - Vote on Burnett's motion that the investigation into the causes for the increase of freight and express rates be continued after the Legislature adjourned. See Chapter XIV.



Tables B and C - Record of Assemblymen.

The two tables showing the votes of the members of the Assembly include eleven test votes. The names of the Assemblymen are arranged as in the case of the Senators with the names of those who made the best records at the top.

It will be seen that fourteen Assemblymen voted against the machine on every roll call, eight were absent on one roll call each, but voted the ten times they were present against the machine, while three members voted 'once each with the machine, and ten times against it. These twenty-five members, voting 267 times, cast 264 votes on the side of progress and reform, and three votes for machine policies. The record indicates what might have been done in the Assembly had the reform forces been organized. Indeed, the forty leading Assemblymen, casting 421 votes, cast only 48 votes for machine policies and 373 against.

The same considerations governed the selection of test votes in the Assembly as in the Senate. The votes are as follows:

Assembly A - The first test vote in the Assembly was on Drew's resolution to reject the report of the Committee on Rules. The resolution was adopted, and the machine's plan to force "gag rules" on the Assembly failed. See Chapter III Organization of the Assembly.

Assembly B - The test vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. The Committee on Public Morals had recommended that the bill "do pass." Mott moved that the bill be re-referred to the committee. Motion lost by a vote of 53 to 23. See Chapter VII.

Assembly C - Vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.

Assembly D - Vote on motion to reconsider the vote by which the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill was passed. See Chapter VII.

Assembly E - The test railroad vote in the Assembly came on Drew's motion to recall Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 from committee. The resolution called for a line of government-owned steamships on the Pacific from San Francisco to Panama. The resolution, having been adopted by the Senate, went to the Assembly and was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. To hasten action on the resolution, Drew moved that it be recalled from the committee. A two-thirds vote was necessary for Drew's motion to prevail. The motion failed to carry by a vote of 36 for to 29 against.

Assembly F - Vote on motion to strike out of Senate joint Resolution No. 3-considered under E - those sections which referred to Commissioner Bristow's report recommending that the Government steamship line be established, and criticizing the combinations made between the several transportation companies. The motion prevailed by a vote of 43 to 30.

Assembly G - Assembly test vote on the Direct Primary bill. Vote taken on Leed's motion that vote on United States Senators be advisory and by districts. The motion prevailed by a vote of 38 to 36. See Chapter X.

Assembly H - Vote on proposed amendments to the Islais Creek Harbor bill. Motion was made to amend by substituting 44 blocks for the 63 necessary for the improvement. Had this been done, the work would have been made impracticable. Motion lost by a vote of 30 to 45. See Chapter XXIII, "Influence of the San Francisco Delegation."

Assembly I - Leeds moved that Senate Bill 220 removing the party circle from the election ballot be denied second reading. The motion prevailed by a vote of thirty-six for, to thirty-five against.

Assembly J - Vote on Senate Bill 1144 (the Stanford bill), to prohibit the sale of intoxicants within a mile and a half of Stanford University.

Assembly K - Vote on the Judicial Column bill. This measure provided that the names of candidates for the Judiciary be placed in a separate non-partisan column on the election ballot. The bill passed the Senate, but was defeated in the Assembly.



The Other Tables.

Table D shows the six votes on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.

Tables E and F - Show the records of the San Francisco delegation in the Senate and Assembly. See Chapter XXIII.

Table G - Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the twenty Senators whose terms of office will have expired before the next session convenes. See Chapter XXVII.

Table H - Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the twenty Senators who were elected in 1908, and who hold over to serve in the session of 1911. See Chapter XXVI.

Table I - Shows records of the members of the Assembly on the four principal votes arising out of the fight for the passage of the so-called Anti-Japanese bills. See Chapter XX.



Table A-Records of Senators on Sixteen Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G To Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No 1 Bell * * * * * * 2 Thompson * * * * 0 * * 3 Roseberry * * * * 0 * * 4 Walker * * * * * * * 5 Cutten * * * * 0 0 * 6 Campbell * * * * * 7 Boynton * * * 0 * * 8 Sanford * * 0 * * * 9 Cartwright * * * * * 10 Caminetti * * 0 * * 0 11 Estudillo 0 * * * * * * 12 Black * * * * 0 * * 13 Holohan * * 0 * * 14 Miller * * * * * 15 Birdsall * * * 0 0 * 16 Stetson * * * * * 17 Rush * * * 0 * * 18 Curtin * * * 0 * 19 Strobridge * * * 0 0 0 * 20 Wright 0 * * * * * * 21 Anthony * * * 0 0 * 22 Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 23 McCartney 0 0 * 0 * 24 Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 25 Lewis 0 * * 0 0 0 26 Willis 0 0 * * * * 0 27 Welch * * * 0 0 0 28 Bates 0 0 * * 0 0 * 29 Price 0 * * 0 0 0 * 30 Savage * 0 * 0 0 0 * 31 Bills 0 0 * * 0 0 * 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 * * * * 33 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 34 Hurd 0 * * 0 0 * 35 Martinelli 0 * * 0 0 0 0 36 Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0 37 Reily * 0 0 0 0 0 38 Weed 0 0 0 * 0 0 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 14 16 13 27 33 7 20 15 16 22 23 15 8 22



H I J K L M Second Test Vote Local Assembly Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment Stanford Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct Bill. Primary. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No 1 Bell * * * * * * 2 Thompson * * * * * * 3 Roseberry * * * * * 4 Walker * 0 * * * * 5 Cutten * * * * * * 6 Campbell * * * * * * 7 Boynton * * * * * 8 Sanford * * * 0 * * 9 Cartwright * * * * * 10 Caminetti * * * 0 * * 11 Estudillo * 0 * * 0 * 12 Black * * * * * 13 Holohan * * 0 * * 14 Miller * * 0 * * * 15 Birdsall * * 0 * * 16 Stetson * * * 17 Rush * * 0 * * 18 Curtin * * 0 0 * * 19 Strobridge * * 0 * * 20 Wright * 0 0 * * 0 21 Anthony * 0 * 0 0 * 22 Burnett * 0 0 * 0 23 McCartney * 0 * 0 * 0 24 Kennedy 0 0 * 0 0 0 25 Lewis * * 0 0 0 0 26 Willis * 0 0 0 0 0 27 Welch 0 * 0 0 0 28 Bates * 0 0 0 29 Price * 0 0 0 0 0 30 Savage * 0 0 0 0 31 Bills * 0 0 0 0 0 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Hare 0 0 * 0 0 34 Hurd 0 0 0 0 0 35 Martinelli * 0 0 0 0 36 Wolfe * 0 0 0 0 0 37 Reily 0 * 0 0 0 38 Weed 0 0 0 0 0 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 29 5 16 22 20 15 12 25 19 16 20 19



N O P ___________ To Test Totals Change To To of reconsider investigate For Against Absent Venue Change of Freight Reform Reform Bill. Venue Bill. Rates. ___________ Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No ___________ 1 Bell * * * 15 0 0 2 Thompson * * * 15 1 0 3 Roseberry * * * 14 1 1 4 Walker * * 14 1 1 5 Cutten * * * 14 2 0 6 Campbell * * 13 0 2 7 Boynton * * * 13 1 2 8 Sanford * * * 13 2 0 9 Cartwright * * 12 0 3 10 Caminetti * * * 12 3 0 11 Estudillo 0 * * 12 4 0 12 Black * * * 11 1 4 14 Miller 0 * 11 2 2 15 Birdsall * * * 11 3 2 16 Stetson * * 10 0 6 17 Rush * 10 2 4 18 Curtin * * 10 3 2 19 Strobridge * * 10 4 2 20 Wright 0 0 0 9 7 0 21 Anthony 0 0 7 8 1 22 Burnett * 5 7 4 23 McCartney 0 0 5 8 3 24 Kennedy * 0 5 9 1 25 Lewis 0 * 0 5 10 1 26 Willis 0 0 0 5 11 0 27 Welch 0 0 4 9 3 28 Bates 0 0 0 4 10 2 29 Price 0 0 4 11 1 30 Savage 0 0 0 4 11 1 31 Bills 0 0 0 4 12 0 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 4 12 0 33 Hare 0 0 3 10 2 34 Hurd 0 0 0 3 11 2 35 Martinelli 0 0 0 3 12 1 36 Wolfe 0 0 0 3 13 0 37 Reily 0 0 0 2 12 2 38 Weed 0 0 0 1 13 2 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 15 1 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 16 0 ____________ Totals 21 16 18 18 12 16 311 259 60



Table B-Records of Assemblymen on Eleven Test Votes

Forty Members Making Best Records

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F Drew's To Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall amend Reject Walker-Otis Walker- reconsider S. J. R. S. J. Committee's Bill to Otis Walker-Otis No. 3 from R. No. Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. 3. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No 1 Bohnett * * * * * * 2 Callan * * * * * * 3 Cattell * * * * * * 4 Costar * * * * * * 5 Gibbons * * * * * * 6 Hewitt * * * * * * 7 Johnson, P. H. * * * * * * 8 Mendenhall * * * * * * 9 Polsley * * * * * * 10 Preston * * * * * * 11 Telfer * * * * * * 12 Whitney * * * * * * 13 Wilson * * * * * * 14 Young * * * * * * 15 Cogswell * * * * * 16 Drew * * * * * * 17 Gillis * * * * * 18 Juilliard * * * * * 19 Kehoe * * * * * 20 Maher * * * * * 21 Sackett * * * * * * 22 Wyllie * * * * * 23 Flint * * * * * * 24 Hinkle * * * * * * 25 Stuckenbruck * * * * * * 26 Gerdes 0 * * * * 27 Holmquist 0 * * * * * 28 Otis * * * * * 0 29 Irwin * * * * * 30 Rutherford * * * * * 0 31 Griffiths 0 * * * * 32 Odom * 0 * * * 33 Hayes * * * * 0 * 34 Lightner * * * * 0 35 Melrose * * * * * 0 36 Silver * * * * * 0 37 Beatty * * * 0 38 Cronin * * * * * 0 39 Barndollar 0 * * * * 0 40 Rech * * * * 0 0 Totals 32 4 1 38 40 0 0 40 33 2 9 28



G H I J K Totals To To deny Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial For Against Absent Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column Reform Reform Harbor Second Bill. Bill. Reading. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No 1 Bohnett * * * * * 11 0 0 2 Callan * * * * * 11 0 0 3 Cattell * * * * * 11 0 0 4 Costar * * * * * 11 0 0 5 Gibbons * * * * * 11 0 0 6 Hewitt * * * * * 11 0 0 7 Johnson, P. H. * * * * * 11 0 0 8 Mendenhall * * * * * 11 0 0 9 Polsley * * * * * 11 0 0 10 Preston * * * * * 11 0 0 11 Telfer * * * * * 11 0 0 12 Whitney * * * * * 11 0 0 13 Wilson * * * * * 11 0 0 14 Young * * * * * 11 0 0 15 Cogswell * * * * * 10 0 1 16 Drew * * * * 10 0 1 17 Gillis * * * * * 10 0 1 18 Juilliard * * * * * 10 0 1 19 Kehoe * * * * * 10 0 1 20 Maher * * * * * 10 0 1 21 Sackett * * * * 10 0 1 22 Wyllie * * * * * 10 0 1 23 Flint * * 0 * * 10 1 0 24 Hinkle * * 0 * * 10 1 0 25 Stuckenbruck * 0 * * * 10 1 0 26 Gerdes * * * * * 9 1 1 27 Holmquist * * * * 0 9 2 0 28 Otis * * 0 * * 9 2 0 29 Irwin * 0 * 0 * 8 2 1 30 Rutherford 0 * * * 0 8 3 0 31 Griffiths * * 0 * 7 2 2 32 Odom * 0 * * 7 2 2 33 Hayes * 0 0 * 7 3 1 34 Lightner 0 0 * * * 7 3 1 35 Melrose 0 * 0 * 0 7 4 0 36 Silver * 0 0 * 0 7 4 0 37 Beatty 0 * * 0 * 6 3 2 38 Cronin 0 * 0 0 6 4 1 39 Barndollar 0 * 0 * 0 6 5 0 40 Rech 0 * 0 * 0 6 5 0 Totals 7 33 6 34 10 28 36 2 31 7 373 48 19



Table C-Records of Assemblymen on Eleven Test Votes

Forty Members Making Poorest Records

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

(a) - Changed Vote from no to aye to give notice to reconsider. Was against the bill.

A B C D E Drew's Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall Reject Walker-Otis Walker- reconsider S. J. R. Committee's Bill to Otis Walker-Otis No. 3 from Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No 41 Hammon * * * * 42 Hawk 0 * * * * 43 Stanton 0 * * * * 44 Transue 0 * * * 45 Hanlon * * * * 0 46 Wagner * 0 * 0 * 47 Webber * 0 * * 0 48 Butler * * * 0 49 Collum * 0 0 50 Dean 0 * * * 0 51 Perine 0 * * * 52 Pulcifer 0 * * * 0 53 Collier 0 * * * 0 54 Moore 0 0 * 0 55 Leeds 0 * * * 0 56 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 57 Fleisher 0 * * * 0 58 Flavelle 0 * * * 0 59 McClelland 0 * * * 0 60 Beardslee 0 0 * 0 0 61 Hans 0 * * * 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 0 0 * 0 0 63 Baxter 0 0 0 64 Wheelan * * 0 65 Schmidt 0 0 0 0 66 Black * 0 0 0 67 O'Neil * 0 0 0 0 68 Coghlan 0 0 0 0 69 Hopkins * 0 0 0 70 Johnson, T. D. 0 0 * 0 0 71 Pugh 0 0 0 0 0 72 Feeley 0 * 0 0 73 Johnson, P. A. 0 0 * 0 0 74 Greer 0 0 * 0 0 75 Mott 0 0 * 0 0 76 Cullen 0 0 0 0 77 Beban 0 0 0 0 78 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 79 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 9 28 22 15 27 10 19 17 3 27 Totals from Table B 32 4 1 38 40 0 0 40 33 2 Grand Total 41 32 23 53 67 10 19 57 36 29



F G H I J K To To To deny amend Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on S. J. on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial R. No. Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column 3. Harbor Second Bill. Bill. Reading. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No 41 Hammon 0 0 0 * 42 Hawk * 0 0 0 0 43 Stanton 0 0 * 0 0 44 Transue 0 0 * 0 * 0 45 Hanlon 0 0 0 0 * 0 46 Wagner 0 0 * 0 * 0 47 Webber * 48 Butler 0 0 * 0 49 Collum 0 0 * * 0 * 50 Dean 0 * 0 0 51 Perine 0 0 0 0 * 52 Pulcifer 0 0 0 * 53 Collier 0 0 0 0 * 54 Moore 0 * * 0 0 * 55 Leeds 0 0 * 0 0 0 56 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 0 57 Fleisher 0 0 0 58 Flavelle 0 0 0 0 59 McClelland 0 0 0 0 0 60 Beardslee 0 * 0 0 * 0 61 Hans 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 0 0 0 * * 0 63 Baxter 0 0 * * 64 Wheelan 0 0 0 0 65 Schmidt 0 * * (a) 0 66 Black 0 0 * 0 0 67 O'Neil 0 0 0 * 68 Coghlan 0 0 * * 0 0 69 Hopkins 0 70 Johnson, T. D. 0 0 0 71 Pugh 0 0 * 0 72 Feeley 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 Johnson, P. A. 0 0 0 0 0 74 Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Mott 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 77 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 79 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 34 2 31 3 24 11 26 7 9 15 4 22

Totals from Table B 9 28 7 33 6 34 10 28 36 2 31 7

Grand Total 43 30 38 36 30 45 36 35 45 17 35 29



Totals ________ For Against Absent Reform Reform ________ Assemblymen ________ 42 Hawk 5 5 1 43 Stanton 5 5 1 44 Transue 5 5 1 45 Hanlon 5 6 0 46 Wagner 5 6 0 47 Webber 4 2 5 48 Butler 4 4 3 49 Collum 4 5 2 50 Dean 4 5 2 51 Perine 4 5 2 52 Pulcifer 4 5 2 53 Collier 4 6 1 54 Moore 4 6 1 55 Leeds 4 7 0 56 Nelson 4 7 0 57 Fleisher 3 5 3 58 Flavelle 3 6 2 59 McClelland 3 7 1 60 Beardslee 3 8 0 61 Hans 3 8 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 3 8 0 63 Baxter 2 5 4 64 Wheelan 2 5 4 65 Schmidt 2 6 3 66 Black 2 7 2 67 O'Neil 2 7 2 68 Coghlan 2 8 1 69 Hopkins 1 4 6 70 Johnson, T. D. 1 7 3 71 Pugh 1 8 2 72 Feeley 1 9 1 73 Johnson, P. A. 1 9 1 74 Greer 1 10 0 75 Mott 1 10 0 76 Cullen 0 9 2 77 Beban 0 10 1 78 Macauley 0 10 1 79 McManus 0 10 1 _______ Totals 107 258 64 Totals from Table B 373 48 19 Grand Total 480 306 83



Table D-Record of Assemblymen on Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill (Walker-Otis Bill)

F shows vote For the Bill

A shows vote Against the Bill

A B C D Assembly Vote Motion to Reconsider Butler's Motion to on Walker-Otis Return Bill Defeat of Motion Put Bill Bill. to Mott's to Amend on its Committee. Motion. Bill. Passage. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Barndollar F F F A Baxter A A A A Beardslee A A A A Beatty F F F Beban A A A A Black A A A A Bohnett F F F F Butler F F A A Callan F F F F Cattell F F F F Coghlan A A A A Cogswell F F F Collier F F F F Collum A A A A Costar F F F F Cronin F F F F Cullen A A A Dean F F F F Drew F F F F Feeley A A A Flavelle F F F F Fleisher F F F F Flint F F F F Gerdes F F F F Gibbons F A F Gillis F F F F Greer A A A A Griffiths F F F F Hammon F F F F Hanlon F F F F Hans F F F F Hawk F A F F Hayes F F F F Hewitt F F F F Hinkle F F F F Holmquist F F F F Hopkins A A A A Irwin F A A A Johnson, G. L. A A A A Johnson, P. A. A A A A Johnson, P. H. F Johnston, T. D. A A A A Juilliard F A A A Kehoe F F F F Leeds F F F F Lightner F F F A Macauley A A A A Maher F F F A McClellan F A F A McManus A A A A Melrose F F F F Mendenhall F F F F Moore A A F A Mott A A F A Nelson A A A A Odom A A F A Otis F F F F O'Neil A A A A Perine F F F A Polsley F F F F Preston F F F F Pugh A A A A Pulcifer F F F F Rech F F F F Rutherford F F F F Sackett F F Schmitt A A A A Silver F F F F Stanton F F F F Stuckenbruck F F F F Telfer F F F F Transue F F F F Wagner A A F F Webber A A A A Wheelan A A A Whitney F F F F Wilson F F F F Wyatt Wyllie F F F F Young F F F F Totals 23 53 30 48 23 52 44 32



E F Totals Assembly Vote Vote Vote on For Against on Walker-Otis on Motion to the the Absent. Bill. Bill. Reconsider. Bill. Bill. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Barndollar F F 5 1 Baxter A 5 1 Beardslee F A 1 5 Beatty F F 5 1 Beban A A 6 Black A A 6 Bohnett F F 6 Butler F F 4 2 Callan F F 6 Cattell F F 6 Coghlan A A 6 Cogswell F F 5 1 Collier F F 6 Collum A 5 1 Costar F F 6 Cronin F F 6 Cullen A A 5 1 Dean F F 6 Drew F F 6 Feeley F A 1 4 1 Flavelle F F 6 Fleisher F F 6 Flint F F 6 Gerdes F F 6 Gibbons F F 4 1 1 Gillis F F 6 Greer F A 1 5 Griffiths F F 6 Hammon F F 6 Hanlon F F 6 Hans F F 6 Hawk F F 5 1 Hayes F F 6 Hewitt F F 6 Hinkle F F 6 Holmquist F F 6 Hopkins A A 6 Irwin F F 3 3 Johnson, G. L. F A 1 5 Johnson, P. A. F A 1 5 Johnson, P. H. F F 3 3 Johnston, T. D. F A 1 5 Juilliard F F 3 3 Kehoe F F 6 Leeds F F 6 Lightner F F 5 1 Macauley A A 6 Maher F F 5 1 McClellan F F 4 2 McManus A A 6 Melrose F F 6 Mendenhall F F 6 Moore F 2 3 1 Mott F A 2 4 Nelson F F 2 4 Odom F F 3 3 Otis F F 6 O'Neil A A 6 Perine F F 5 1 Polsley F F 6 Preston F F 6 Pugh A A 6 Pulcifer F F 6 Rech F F 6 Rutherford F F 6 Sackett F F 4 2 Schmitt A 5 1 Silver F F 6 Stanton F F 6 Stuckenbruck F F 6 Telfer F F 6 Transue F F 6 Wagner F A 3 3 Webber F F 2 4 Wheelan F 1 3 2 Whitney F F 6 Wilson F F 6 Wyatt Wyllie F F 6 Young F F 6 Totals 67 10 19 57 321 137 16



Table E-Records of the San Francisco Senate Delegation on Sixteen Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G H To Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First Second Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill. Bill. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Anthony * * * 0 0 * * Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 * Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 0 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 0 Reily * 0 0 0 0 0 Welch * * * 0 0 0 Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0 * Totals 3 4 6 3 4 5 9 0 3 6 4 5 5 0 3 4



I J K L M N O

Test Vote Local Assembly Change To Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment of reconsider Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct Venue Change of Primary. Bill. Venue Bill. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Anthony 0 * 0 0 * 0 0 Burnett 0 0 * 0 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 * 0 0 0 0 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 * 0 0 0 * Reily 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 Welch 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 Wolfe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 0 9 5 2 0 9 1 7 8 1 7 1 0 7



P Totals To investigate For Against Freight Reform Reform Rates. Senator Aye No Anthony 0 7 8 Burnett * 5 7 Finn 0 0 15 Hare 3 10 Hartman 0 0 16 Kennedy 0 5 9 Reily 0 2 12 Welch 0 4 9 Wolfe 0 3 13 Totals 1 6 29 99



Table F-Records of San Francisco Assembly Delegation on Eleven Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

(a) - Changed Vote from no to aye to give notice to reconsider. Was against the bill.

A B C D E F Drew's To Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall amend Reject Walker-Otis Walker- reconsider S. J. R. S. J. Committee's Bill to Otis Walker-Otis No. 3 from R. No. Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. 3. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Beatty * * * 0 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 Black * 0 0 0 Callan * * * * * * Coghlan 0 0 0 0 0 Collum * 0 0 0 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 Gerdes 0 * * * * Hopkins * 0 0 0 0 Lightner * * * * 0 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 0 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 0 O'Neil * 0 0 0 0 0 Pugh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perine 0 * * * 0 Schmitt 0 0 0 0 Wheelan * * 0 0 Totals 7 10 12 5 7 10 10 6 2 7 14 1



G H I J K Totals To To deny Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial For Against Absent Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column Reform Reform Harbor Second Bill. Bill. Reading. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Beatty 0 * * 0 * 6 3 2 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 Black 0 0 * 0 0 2 7 2 Callan * * * * * 11 0 0 Coghlan 0 * * 0 0 2 8 1 Collum 0 * * 0 * 4 5 2 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 Gerdes * * * * * 9 1 1 Hopkins 1 4 6 Lightner 0 0 * * * 7 3 1 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 Nelson 0 * * 0 0 4 7 0 O'Neil 0 0 * 2 7 2 Pugh 0 * 0 1 8 2 Perine 0 0 0 * 4 5 2 Schmitt 0 * a* 0 2 6 3 Wheelan 0 0 0 2 5 4 Totals 15 2 9 8 5 9 5 9 5 7 57 108 33



Table G-Records of Out-Going Senators on Sixteen Test Votes

Must Be Re-Elected to Sit in Next Senate

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G To Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Anthony * * * 0 0 * Bates 0 0 * * 0 0 * Bell * * * * * * Black * * * * 0 * * Boynton * * * 0 * * Caminetti * * 0 * * 0 Cartwright * * * * * Curtin * * * 0 * Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 Leavitt 0 0 0 * * * * McCartney 0 0 * 0 * Miller * * * * * Price 0 * * 0 0 0 * Reily * 0 0 0 0 0 Sanford * * 0 * * * Savage * 0 * 0 0 0 * Weed 0 0 0 * 0 0 Willis 0 0 * * * * 0 Wright 0 * * * * * * Totals 5 8 9 11 16 4 10 8 10 9 12 6 4 12



H I J K L M Second Test Vote Local Assembly Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment Stanford Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct Bill. Primary. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Anthony * 0 * 0 0 * Bates * 0 0 0 Bell * * * * * * Black * * * * * Boynton * * * * * Caminetti * * * 0 * * Cartwright * * * * * Curtin * * 0 0 * * Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennedy 0 0 * 0 0 0 Leavitt 0 0 0 0 0 0 McCartney * 0 * 0 * 0 Miller * * 0 * * * Price * 0 0 0 0 0 Reily 0 * 0 0 0 Sanford * * * 0 * * Savage * 0 0 0 0 Weed 0 0 0 0 0 Willis * 0 0 0 0 0 Wright * 0 0 * * 0 Totals 14 3 8 12 9 10 6 12 9 9 11 9



O P Totals To To reconsider investigate For Against Change of Freight Reform Reform Venue Bill. Rates. Senator Aye No Aye No Anthony 0 0 7 8 Bates 0 0 4 10 Bell * * 15 0 Black 11 1 Boynton * * 13 1 Caminetti * * 12 3 Cartwright * 12 0 Curtin * 10 3 Hartman 0 0 0 16 Kennedy 0 5 9 Leavitt 0 0 4 12 McCartney 0 5 8 Miller * 0 11 2 Price 0 4 11 Reily 0 0 2 12 Sanford * * 13 2 Savage 0 0 4 11 Weed 0 0 1 13 Willis 0 0 5 11 Wright 0 0 9 7 Totals 7 11 4 10 147 140



Table H-Records of Holdover Senators on Sixteen Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G To Test To refer To do Second admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Bills 0 0 * * 0 0 * Birdsall * * * 0 0 * Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 Campbell * * * * * Cutten * * * * 0 0 * Estudillo 0 * * * * * * Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 Holohan * * 0 * * Hurd 0 * * 0 0 * Lewis 0 * * 0 0 0 Martinelli 0 * * 0 0 0 0 Roseberry * * * * 0 * * Rush * * * 0 * * Stetson * * * * * Strobridge * * * 0 0 0 * Thompson * * * * 0 * * Walker * * * * * * * Welch * * * 0 0 0 Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0 Totals 9 8 4 16 17 3 10 7 6 13 11 9 4 10



H I J K L M Second Test Vote Local Assembly Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment Stanford Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct Bill. Primary. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Bills * 0 0 0 0 0 Birdsall * * 0 * * Burnett * 0 0 * 0 Campbell * * * * * * Cutten * * * * * * Estudillo * 0 * * 0 * Finn 0 0 0 0 0 Hare 0 0 * 0 0 Holohan * * 0 * * Hurd 0 0 0 0 0 Lewis * * 0 0 0 0 Martinelli * 0 0 0 0 Roseberry * * * * * Rush * * 0 * * Stetson * * * Strobridge * * 0 * * Thompson * * * * * * Walker * 0 * * * * Welch 0 * 0 0 0 Wolfe * 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 2 8 10 11 5 6 13 10 7 9 10 9



N O P Totals Change To To of reconsider investigate For Against Venue Change of Freight Reform Reform Bill. Venue Bill. Rates. Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Bills 0 0 0 4 12 Birdsall * * * 11 3 Burnett * 5 7 Campbell * * 13 0 Cutten * * * 14 2 Estudillo 0 * * 12 4 Finn 0 0 0 15 Hare 0 0 0 3 11 Holohan * * * 11 2 Hurd 0 0 0 3 11 Lewis 0 * 0 5 10 Martinelli 0 0 0 3 12 Roseberry * * * 14 1 Rush * 10 2 Stetson * * 10 0 Strobridge * * 10 4 Thompson * * * 15 1 Walker * * 14 1 Welch 0 0 0 4 9 Wolfe 0 0 0 3 13 Totals 9 9 11 7 8 6 164 119



Table I-Records of Assemblymen on Four Test Votes on Anti-Japanese Bills

F shows vote For the Bill

A shows vote Against the Bill

* Leeds changed his vote from "no" to "aye" to give notice of reconsideration.

A B C D Assembly Vote on Assembly Assembly First Vote Second Vote Walker-Otis Bill. Bill No. Bill No. Assembly Bill Assembly Bill 78. 32. No. 14. No. 14. Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Barndollar A A A A Baxter F F F F Beardslee A A A A Beatty F F F F Beban A F F A Black F F F F Bohnett A A F A Butler A A F F Callan F F F F Cattell A A A A Coghlan A A Cogswell A A A A Collier A A A A Collum F F F F Costar A A A A Cronin F F F F Cullen F F F F Dean A A A A Drew F F Feeley A A A A Flavelle A Fleisher A A A A Flint A A A A Gerdes F Gibbons F F F F Gillis F F F F Greer A A A A Griffiths A A A A Hammon A A A A Hanlon A A A A Hans A A A A Hawk A A A A Hayes A F F F Hewitt A A A A Hinkle A A F A Holmquist A A F A Hopkins F F F F Irwin F A F F Johnson, G. L. F F F F Johnson, P. A. A F A A Johnson, P. H. F F F F Johnston, T. D. A F F F Juilliard F F F F Kehoe A F F F Leeds A A F* A Lightner A F F F Macauley F F F F Maher F F F F McClellan A A A A McManus A F F F Melrose A A A A Mendenhall F F F F Moore A A A A Mott A F F F Nelson F F F F Odom F F F Otis A F F F O'Neil F F F F Perine A F F A Polsley F F F F Preston F A F A Pugh F F F F Pulcifer A A A A Rech A A A A Rutherford A A Sackett A A A A Schmitt A F F A Silver A F F A Stanton A A A A Stuckenbruck F F F F Telfer F F F F Transue A A A A Wagner A A A A Webber F F F Wheelan F F F F Whitney A F F F Wilson F F F F Wyatt Wyllie A A F A Young A A A A Totals 28 48 39 35 46 28 37 41



Outline of and Arguements in Favor of the Postal Direct Primary.



By Senator L. H. Roseberry, Who Introduced the Postal Direct Primary Bill at the Session of 1909.



In order to understand the full purpose and effect of the proposed Postal Direct Primary law, it is necessary to ascertain the purpose of any system of nominations by a Direct Primary.

The sole complaint against the present system of nominations by conventions is based upon the objection that party nominations are made by a few interested parties, and that the popular choice is absolutely ignored. To remedy this evil the system of direct nominations by the voters has been suggested at primary elections. It therefore follows that that system, or primary, which will get out the largest number of votes or the greatest expression of the people on the choice of candidates is, of necessity, the best primary law. If it is true that all present direct primaries, which provide for voting at a certain time and place in person, in the form that general elections are now conducted, only draw out a little over one-half of the registered vote of all parties, it then follows beyond question, that all present direct primary laws are only half successful. Upon an examination of statistics gathered from the various States in which direct primary laws are now in operation, it is seen that only 55% to 60% of the registered vote within those States has ever been cast at any single primary election. For instance, at the primary election held in the State of Oregon in the fall of 1908, 55% of the registered Republican vote was cast, and less than 25% of the Democratic vote. In the State of Washington about 57% of the registered vote was cast in 1908, the only vote yet taken under the new Direct Primary law. In the State of Wisconsin, while 60% of the total registered vote was cast in 1906, only a little over 40% was cast at the primary election held In the year 1908. Other statistics could be offered from all the other States, having the direct primary system of nominations, from which it would appear that practically a little over 55% or even less of the registered vote has been secured at any direct primary election. Therefore, based upon these figures, it becomes patent that the present form of direct nominations, to wit: voting at a certain time and place in person only, under the same rules and regulations as at general elections, is only half successful.

It was for the purpose of bringing out at least a part of this great unvoted 45% of qualified electors, to take a part in naming the candidates who should go before the people at the general elections, that the Postal Direct Primary law was conceived.

While there is no present example of the working of a system of direct nominations through a ballot cast through the mails for public officials, there are a number of instances in which ballots are being taken by mail with wonderful success and completeness. Formerly, labor unions, fraternal societies, chambers of commerce, Granger organizations, alumni associations, and other civic, religious and benevolent associations, balloted on propositions submitted to their membership in the form that primary and general elections are now held in public elections. The vote secured from their memberships was so meager and unsatisfactory that the system of voting by mail was inaugurated, and with such splendid results, that now it is being used exclusively by a majority of the above organizations, as a method of voting upon propositions and officers coming before them for election. Where only 10% to 15% of the votes were cast under the old plan of voting in person at a particular time and place, 75%, and even 90% of the votes are now cast through the mails, and it is significant to note that the plan of voting by mail has been found by the organizations using it to be free from any objections. This fact, together with the unanimous vote cast, led to the idea of casting votes by mail at direct primaries for the nomination of public officers by political parties. The system that has been proposed is extremely simple, and it appears highly reasonable and practicable. A short outline of the provisions of the bill will assist in an understanding of the arguments offered in its favor and those advanced to refute the objections urged against this Postal Direct Primary Act.

In the first place, each elector, at the time of registering, declares his party allegiance, and this is entered upon his original affidavit of registration. At the same time, he is given a party voting number, which is written or printed upon his affidavit of registration. The Secretary of State, every four years, declares the color of ballots to be used by each party separately. For instance, all Republican ballots throughout the State, at every election must be printed upon pink colored paper and none other; the Democratic ballot upon white colored paper and none other, and so on among the other political parties.

In order for a candidate's name to be proposed to go on to the primary ballot, it must be proposed by a prescribed number of qualified electors, within the district in which that candidate is to be elected, which names must be subscribed to a verified petition. This entitles the candidate's name to be printed upon the primary ballot. Within ten days before the primary, or return day, the clerk of the board or body which is delegated by law to prepare for election matters must print, prepare and send out, primary election ballots for each separate political party through the United States mails in the following manner: To each elector within the jurisdiction is mailed a plain unmarked envelope, addressed to the business or home address of each separate elector, containing a self-addressed and stamped return envelope, returnable to the Board of Election of that precinct, together with one party primary election ballot, for the use of that elector. If the elector happens to be a Republican the color of his ballot will be pink, and only the names of the Republican candidates will be printed thereon. On the outside end of the ballot is printed the elector's party voting number, which voting number is separate and distinct from every other voting number in that precinct. On the outside end of the return envelope is a line left for the original signature of the elector to whom the ballot is mailed, whereon he must either subscribe his signature in ink, or if he be an incapable voter, and is assisted, must have his own name subscribed thereon, together with the names of two freeholders in that precinct, who assisted him in voting. Upon receipt of the envelope containing his ballot, the voter marks a cross (X) at the names of the candidates for whom he votes, and then folds his ballot so that all the names thereon are turned inside and out of sight, and his party voting number appears on the outside end of the envelope. (In the same manner that he now folds his ballot at a general election.) He then encloses this ballot in the stamped return envelope, seals the same, signs his name on the end of the envelope, and deposits it in a postoffice box. It then goes to the postoffice directed by law, addressed to the Primary or Return Board, who alone are authorized by law to receive these envelopes from the postmaster, and then only on the day and hour designated by law and in public. Upon return day, the Board receives all of these primary election envelopes from the postoffice, takes them to a public place, and after counting the number received, and comparing with the number originally sent out, compares each signature on each envelope with the same signature subscribed on the original affidavit of registration, and if it be genuine, opening the envelope, removing the ballot therefrom, without opening the same, observing that the color of the ballot corresponds to the party color to which that elector belongs, then tearing off the voting number, which appears on the end of the ballot, after comparing it with the voting number written on that elector's affidavit of registration, and then finally depositing the ballot into a general ballot box, into which all the ballots of each political party are deposited. It will thus appear that every ballot has been checked in three ways to identify it as being the original ballot sent to that elector, and as the one cast personally by him: First, it was contained in an envelope bearing his original signature; it bore his own party voting number, which was separate and distinct from every other party voting number in that precinct, and was printed under the authority of law only upon one ballot, namely, the ballot he receives; and finally it was upon the color of paper which only the political party with which that elector was affiliated was allowed by law to use. Every other political party's ballots were printed upon different colored paper.

This makes it practically impossible for any ballot to be cast or counted other than the one lawfully mailed and regularly received and voted and mailed in person by the elector to whom it was sent.

Even the most prejudiced opponents of the Postal Direct Primary bill admit that there are no practical reasons why it would not operate very successfully in the rural districts and the smaller cities and towns. Such an admission is a very far-reaching argument for the bill as a general working measure for direct nominations. It is an open confession that the plan is workable and meritorious. The only objection that has been urged with any semblance of force is the argument that the ballot could be easily corrupted in large cities, where the opportunities for fraud are great, and where the intelligence and honesty of certain classes of voters is low. It is suggested with considerable merit that among the foreign and ignorant classes in the great centers of population, corruption of suffrage is a matter easily accomplished; that there would be many of such voters willing to lend themselves to any scheme to deliver their primary ballots to certain persons to be voted as they desired under the names of the Individual electors.

At first blush, this argument appears to have some force, but upon close reading of the provisions of the bill, and its necessary effect upon the Practical operation of a primary campaign, it must be admitted that this sole objection is largely argumentative. In the first place, as pointed out above, each ballot must be cast by the person to whom it was sent, for it is contained in an envelope bearing the elector's own known signature. Therefore none other can vote the ballot. In the second place, the bill provides for extreme penal penalties for any one tampering with ballots, assisting a voter in the marking of a ballot (other than incapable voters), standing about and watching an elector mark his ballot, or in any wise influencing, or observing a voter in the marking of his ballot at the time it is voted, sealed in the envelope and dropped in the postoffice. All the penalties are for imprisonment and not for fines. This, then, will force any plan to secure ballots or corrupt the same to be done secretly and illegally. It must appear that there can be no extensive system of vote corruption carried on without discovery. It must further appear that there would be extremely few who would care to general or direct any extensive plan of corrupting or influencing primary ballots. It would be too risky a proceeding. If then votes were corrupted, it would have to be done very secretly and amongst only a trusted few. Therefore the percentage influenced in this manner could not be large.

Another bar to any tampering with ballots would be the check which each political party and each candidate would have upon the other. It would be a matter of political capital for one party to detect leaders or organizations within another party tampering with or corrupting the vote at its primary election. The various candidates for the different offices within the same party would watch one another with extreme vigilance to detect any attempt to influence or corrupt the ballots against them.

Lastly, it is suggested that because of the fact that these primary election ballots would be sent at the same time to thousands of different places throughout the precinct and city, and would be opened in offices and in homes on the same day, and in all probability fully 75% of them would be voted and remailed on the same day received; that it would be practically impossible to devise any system that would reach out and get these countless ballots in a thousand different places within a space of a few hours or a day. They would be too scattered to be gotten hold of or traced with any degree of success.

It must appear from a broad-minded consideration of the practical workings of this Postal Direct Primary law that there is no valid reason why it would not work with splendid success even in the congested and illiterate districts of our larger cities. But even admitting for the sake of argument that a certain percentage of the ignorant and vicious vote could be corrupted by the bosses, it certainly could not be large. It could not possibly exceed ten per cent of the registered vote. In light of the fact that this system would bring out at least twenty-five per cent more votes than any other primary law has ever succeeded in bringing out, it is seen at a glance that the corrupted vote would be far outweighed and overbalanced by the much larger percentage of decent vote that would be secured for the first time by means of this postal system of voting. The argument, then, is unanswerable in favor of this Postal Direct Primary law.

And it would for the first time give the intelligent and honest elements in all political parties the direct control of the power of nomination for public offices. Moreover, the mere fact that it would cause a larger number of people to vote would be of inestimable value, for it would tend to rouse and awaken public interest in civic affairs and by thus doing would educate and train the minds of the better classes in election affairs, and could not help but raise the honesty and power of popular suffrage. In other words, it would accomplish in the fullest degree, the results sought to be obtained by every direct primary law, namely, a popular choice of candidates for public office, with the power of selection for once actually in the hands of the honest electors.

In conclusion, it might be well to mention that this system of voting by mail would protect the suffrage of many of our best citizens, who, under present laws, are practically disfranchised. Such men are travelers, the sick, sailors, trainmen, and other men who, by reason of their occupation or misfortune, are forced to be absent from the place of their voting precincts on election day, but who could and would vote if an opportunity was extended to them to vote by mail. This would constitute no small class of voters.



Dr. Montgomery's Report.

55 Dr. Montgomery's report to the Senate was as follows:

Palo Alto, Cal., March 22, 1909.

Lieutenant-Governor Warren R. Porter,

President State Senate, Sacramento, Cal.

On the afternoon of March 21, 1909, about 4:30 p. m., J. L. Martin, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the State of California, called on me and informed me that I had been designated by the President of the Senate to proceed with him to Palo Alto, and to consult with the physicians of Senator Marshall Black, to ascertain if Senator Black's health was such as to permit him to go to Sacramento. I arrived at the office of Dr. Howard Black, Senator Black's physician, at about 9:30 p. m., March 21, 1909, and there met Dr. Howard Black, Dr. H. B. Reynolds, Dr. J. C. Spencer and Dr. R. L. Wilbur. These physicians said they had held a consultation and had made an examination of Senator Marshall Black that afternoon; according to their statement, Senator Marshall Black had arrived in Palo Alto about five days previously suffering from inflammation of the eyes, commonly called "pink eye," and that this inflammation of the eyes had almost entirely cleared up, but that the inflammation traveled down the throat and bronchial tubes. According to their statement to me on the evening of March 21, 1909, Senator Marshall Black was suffering from broncho-pneumonia, and symptoms of inflammation in the lower lobe of the left lung, the temperature that afternoon was ninety-nine and the pulse ninety. The heart was in good condition. The cough was severe and the expectoration abundant. I stated to these physicians that I was delegated by the Senate of the State of California to make a thorough and complete examination of Senator Black for the purpose of ascertaining at what time it would be safe for Senator Black to proceed to Sacramento. I was informed by Dr. Howard Black that Senator Marshall Black would not permit me to see him. I then asked Senator Black's physicians, individually and collectively, if in their opinion, in Senator Black's present physical condition any serious inconvenience or injury would accrue to Senator Black from a personal examination by me. They all stated that, on their part, they were perfectly willing that such examination should be held by the Senate physician, and that such an examination in their opinion could do no injury. I asked if the patient was in sound and disposing mind. I was answered he was. At about 10 a. m., March 22, 1909, I again called on Dr. Howard Black, renewing my request of the previous evening to see Senator Marshall Black. Senator Black, through the physician, still declined to receive me. I then asked Dr. Howard Black when, in his opinion, Senator Marshall Black would be in condition to proceed to Sacramento. He said that at the consultation of the previous day it was concluded that it would be a week before Senator Black would be in such a condition as to enable him with safety to undertake the Journey. As this consultation was held on March 21st, it would, in their opinion, be March 28th before Senator Black would be in a condition to proceed to Sacramento. I asked if, in his opinion, Senator Black was convalescing. He said that in his opinion he was. He said that Senator Black's temperature this morning was 100, his pulse 90, his cough still severe, and there still was evidence of inflammation in the lower lobe of the left lung. Personally, from what I know of Senator Black's physicians, I believe these facts to be true. Taking it for granted that these facts are true, I do not find that, from them alone, I can conclude that Senator Black is unable to proceed to Sacramento. In order to concur in this opinion of Senator Black's physicians I would have to see the patient.



Douglass W. Montgomery, M. D.

Delegated by Lieutenant-Governor Warren R. Porter to examine into the state of health of Senator Marshall Black.



The Anti-Japanese Bill's Resolution.

94 The resolution was in full as follows:

Whereas, Assembly Bill, No. 14, introduced by Mr. Johnson of Sacramento, and reading as follows:



An Act



To Amend Section 1662 of the Political Code

The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. Section 1662 of the Political Code is hereby amended so as to read as follows:

1662. Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years of age residing in the district and the board of school trustees, or city board of education, have power to admit adults and children not residing in the district, whenever good reasons exist therefor. Trustees shall have the power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases, and also to establish separate schools for Indian children and for the children of Mongolian, or Japanese, or Chinese descent. When such separate schools are established, Indian, Chinese, Japanese or Mongolian children must not be admitted into any other school; provided, that in cities and towns in which the kindergarten has been adopted or may hereafter be adopted as part of the public primary schools, children may be admitted to such kindergarten classes at the age of four years; and provided further, that in cities or school districts in which separate classes have been or may hereafter be established, for the instruction of the deaf, children may be admitted to such classes at the age of three years.

Is now pending before this Assembly; and

Whereas, It has been represented by the President of the United States that the passage of this bill will, in some manner undisclosed, disturb the relations now existing between the government of the United States and the government of Japan; and

Whereas, The President of the United States has made known to this Assembly, through the Governor of this State and through the Speaker of this Assembly, his wish that said bill be not passed; and

Whereas, The President of the United States has caused it to be represented to this body that it is his judgment that said bill would conflict with the treaty now existing between the government of the United States and the government of Japan, and because of such conflict the passage of such bill would be beyond the power of the Legislature of this State, and

Whereas, The Governor of this State and the Speaker of this Assembly have conveyed to this body their desire that this bill be not passed; and

Whereas, It is the desire of this body to accede to the wishes of the Chief Executive of this State, and the Speaker of this Assembly; therefore be it

Resolved, That it is fitting and proper that a statement of the position of this Assembly upon this question be made, to the end that a mistaken impression do not result from the failure of the Assembly to pass this bill; be it further

Resolved, That such position is as follows:

1. The school system of the State of California is an institution of the State alone, maintained, supported, conducted and controlled wholly under and in accordance with the powers reserved to the State.

2. That the power to maintain, conduct and control the State school system has not been granted to the Federal Government.

3. That the Legislature of California may properly pass any law relative to the school system of this State that in its judgment may seem best.

4. That by said Assembly Bill No. 14 it is not designed to deprive children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese descent of equal school privileges and opportunities, but, on the contrary, to these there shall be given, and for these there shall be provided the same privileges and opportunities as are given to and provided for all other children.

5. That Assembly Bill No. 14 contemplates the establishment and maintenance of separate schools for different races, but all schools so established and maintained shall afford equal and the same facilities for instruction.

6. That this Assembly recognize it to be a duty resting upon the State to furnish to children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese descent the same facilities and opportunities as are furnished to children of other races and affirm that no more can be required and that nothing different is contemplated by said Act. That said Act gives to children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese descent who are subjects of other countries the same rights and privileges as are given to native born citizens of California, and no power has the right to demand more. That this Assembly is disposed to accede to the wishes of the Federal Government as conveyed to us by the Governor of this State and the Speaker of this Assembly, but while doing so we reaffirm and reassert that the subject matter of Assembly Bill No. 14 is purely and exclusively a matter of State concern, falling within the reserve powers of the State, and violates no provision of the Federal Constitution.

7. That it is the judgment of this Assembly that said bill does not conflict with the treaty existing between the government of the United States and the government of Japan, and that we recognize the authority to make treaties is by the Federal Constitution, vested in the President and Senate of the United States, we affirm that the right to administer our State school system can not be controlled by treaty made by the President and the Senate of the United States, nor by action of the President alone.

8. And finally, while we recognize that Assembly Bill No. 14 is drawn and could be passed by the Legislature of this State in full conformity with the powers reserved to the State and vouchsafed to it by the Federal Constitution, we are unwilling to do aught which may disturb the relations existing between this government and a friendly power, and for this reason alone, we recommend that Assembly Bill No. 14 be reconsidered and withdrawn.

THE END