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.

Such scenes were often duplicated in the Senate. When the fight over the

Direct Primary bill had the Senate by the ears, Johnnie Lynch, George

Van Smith, even President of the Senate Warren Porter, exerted

themselves to compel concurrence in the machine-backed Assembly

amendments. This was done in the Senate chamber, when the Senate was in

session, and Johnnie Lynch and Van Smith in particular were conspicuous

in the work in behalf of the machine's policy.

But it was noticeable, that those who advocated reform policies took no

such liberties on the floor of either House. They knew better. The

danger involved for the lobbyist for reform measures was emphasized the

night the measure prohibiting the sale of intoxicants within a mile and

a half of Stanford University passed the Assembly.

Charles R. Detrick of Palo Alto, during the call of the House ordered on

account of the Stanford bill, was discussing the merits of the measure

with Assemblyman Bohnett, who was leading the fight for its passage. It

was not a case of lobbying at all, for both men were for the bill,

Nevertheless, Assemblyman Schmitt[99a], who overheard Detrick mention

the measure, warned the Stanford man, that if he (Detrick) did not cease

his "lobbying" for the bill that he (Schmitt) would have him (Detrick)

excluded from the chamber.

Senator Walker, although a member of the Senate, had much the same

experience. Walker was discussing the Stanford bill with a friend, when

one of the opponents of the measure threatened him with expulsion from

the floor of the Assembly if he did not desist.

And even while these threats were being made against the proponents of

the bill, opponents of the measure were working openly on the floor of

the Assembly chamber against its passage. No suggestion was made that

the rule prohibiting lobbying be enforced against them.

[98] A party of newspapermen were in Anderson's office one evening, when

two or three machine men came in. With a wink to Anderson one of the

newspapermen asked - "The head of your detective bureau is that keen

looking young fellow, with reddish brown hair and brown eyes, is he not,

Anderson?" Anderson joined in the Joke and nodded. One of the machine

men left the room immediately. Within an hour, a hunt was being made

from one end of Sacramento to the other, for a "keen-looking young man

with reddish brown hair and brown eyes."

[99] The communication which insulted Wheelan read as follows:

The Hon. Albert P. Wheelan,

Member of Assembly.

Dear Sir: -

The People's Legislative Bureau, organized chiefly for the collection

and dissemination of accurate information regarding legislation, and the

attitude of members of the Legislature thereon, notes that you are

recorded as having been absent when the roll was called on the motion to

refer the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill back to the committee.

As our record is intended to be permanent, and will be placed in the

hands of all the newspapers and civic organizations throughout the

State, we wish to ask if you have any objection to furnishing us the

reason for your absence, so that we may enter it upon our record.

Respectfully yours,

GEORGE B. ANDERSON,

Secretary.

[99a] This is the same Schmitt who objected so strenuously to professors

of the State University being identified with reform movements.

Chapter XXII.

The Machine Lobbyist At Work.

How, Jere Burke Arrayed the County Officials of the State Against Two

Beneficial Measures - How the Power of the Southern Pacific Was Employed

Against a California Enterprise - Danger Which Constantly Menaces

Legitimate Enterprises.

The problem of drawing the line between legitimate and reprehensible

lobbying has perplexed wiser men than sat in the California Legislature

of 1909.

On the side of the lobbyist it may be said there seems no good reason

why a citizen or representative of a corporation which is interested in

pending legislation should not appear at the Capitol and in a legitimate

way present his case to the members of the Legislature. In fact, the

theory of committee consideration of measures introduced in Senate or

Assembly, is based on the principle that it is the citizen's right to be

heard on any matter that may be pending before the Legislature. The

citizen cannot be heard before either the Senate or Assembly; he can,

however, present his case to the committee the decision of which carries

weight with that branch of the Legislature for which it acts. No one can

object, for example, that Mr. P. F. Dunne appeared before the Senate

Committee on Corporations, when the Railroad Regulation bill was under

consideration, to present the railroad's side. Mr. Dunne appeared openly

and aboveboard, and although he sought deliberately to misrepresent the

situation to the Committee, nevertheless to object to his visiting

Sacramento, or even to the work which he did while there, would be

forced and far-fetched.

In the same way, Mr. Seth Mann, representing the shippers of California,

appeared before the Committee and presented the side of the shippers.

Mr. Mann spoke for the shippers precisely as Mr. Dunne spoke for the

railroads. Mr. Mann, however, did not stoop to misrepresentation and

deception.

But if Mr. Dunne for the railroads or Mr. Mann for the shippers had

departed from openly-presented argument to buttonhole Senators or

Assemblymen to tell them they must vote for or against a given measure,

or look out for trouble, immediately would he be open to criticism. If

either went during roll call from Legislator to Legislator to tell the

members how they were to vote, again would he be justly criticized. Or

had Mr. Dunne employed the influence of the great corporation which he

represents to defeat or pass a measure in which his company can have no

legitimate interest, again would there be good reason for complaint. Mr.

Dunne could very properly - while acting as agent of the Southern

Pacific Railroad Company - urge in a legitimate way the corporation's

objections to the Demurrage bill, to the Full Crew bill, to the Railroad

Regulation bill, or any other measure affecting common carriers. But for

Mr. Dunne to have employed the influence of his position as political

representative of a common carrier to force the passage of the Change of

Venue bill for example, or defeat an effective Direct Primary bill, or

the Party Circle bill, or the Judicial Column bill, would have been most

reprehensible, for the Southern Pacific Company can have no legitimate

interest in any of these measures.

So far as the writer knows, Mr. Dunne did not concern himself with any

measure, except those in which his company was legitimately interested.

But paid servants of the Southern Pacific Company were at Sacramento

throughout the entire session, and managed to have their fingers in

about all that was going on. The most conspicuous of them was Mr. J. T.

Burke, more familiarly known as "Jere" Burke.

A fair sample of Burke's methods - and Burke is merely typical of the

objectionable lobbyist - is found in the campaign which was carried on

against Senate Bills 1229 and 1230. Had these measures become laws, it

would have been possible for county assessors to discover property,

owned principally by public service corporations, which at present

escapes taxation. It is estimated that the total taxable value of this

untaxed property is $100,000,000. It is not taxed because assessors have

no means of reaching it. Mr. Burke's company could have no legitimate

interest in Senate Bills 1229 and 1230. This statement is made, of

course, on the assumption that the officials of the Southern Pacific

Company aim to make honest returns to the tax collector. But to return

to Senate Bills 1229 and 1230, and Burke's connection with them.

The two measures were intended to amend sections of the Codes relating

to the assessment of property. Section 3681 of the Political Code

provides that "during the session of the Board (of Supervisors sitting

as a Board of Equalization) it may direct the Assessor to assess any

taxable property that has escaped assessment, or to add to the amount,

number and quality of property, when a false or incompetent list has

been rendered."

Under this section, as it at present reads, the Supervisors may direct

the Assessor to assess property that may have escaped assessment, but

there is no machinery provided by which the property may be discovered.

Senate Bill 1229 provided the machinery by which the unassessed property

might be discovered, by adding to the section quoted above: "And the

Board (the Supervisors sitting as a Board of Equalization) may employ

legal or other assistance in discovering any taxable property that has

escaped assessment in the performance of their duties under this

section."

Senate Bill 1230, the companion bill, provided that the Supervisors may

subpena witnesses in all matters pending before them when sitting as a

Board of Equalization. Under the present law, they can compel attendance

of witnesses only upon the particular point under consideration.

The necessity of the amendments was generally admitted. The task of the

Assessor is at best no easy one. Through his deputies he must list all

the property in his county - that he can find.

The holdings of the small property owners are in sight, and, down to the

last chicken, go on the assessment roll.

The property of the large corporation is not so readily discovered and

$100,000,000 worth of it, according to conservative estimate, escapes

assessment. The Assessors, with comparatively small force of deputies,

have no way to force its assessment.

The Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of Equalization, may know

that the unassessed property is in existence, but has no way to reach

it. The Board may, under section 3681 of the Political Code quoted

above, direct the Assessor to assess it, but the law stops there. There

is no machinery provided for the discovery of the property. Senate Bills

1229 and 1230 provided the machinery. They were introduced by Senator

Sanford of Mendocino. Before their significance was appreciated by

Southern Pacific lobbyists, the Senate Judiciary Committee had

recommended them for passage.

When Burke did grasp the significance of the measures, he demanded of

Sanford that they be withdrawn. The argument which Burke advanced

against them was in effect as follows:

"These bills are the most un-American propositions I ever heard of,"

said Burke. "They make of the Boards of Supervisors inquisitorial

bodies. The corporations have property which they prefer to conceal.

They prefer arbitrary assessments. They do not care to make returns to

the Assessor. The passage of these bills would compel them to make

returns."

In other words, the corporations, if Jere Burke, their legislative

representative, reflects their sentiments, prefer that the Assessors

continue to guess at the value of their properties. If the guess be too

high, the corporations can compel reductions; if the guess be too low,

they rest content. But, however the corporations may approve the

guessing method of assessment, it has not proved equable, has not been

fair to the farmer, the merchant and the householder, who under oath

make honest returns to the Assessor.

Burke's argument, however, failed to move Sanford. The Senator from

Mendocino refused to withdraw the bills. And then a curious thing

happened. The members of the Senate were, within three days after

Sanford had refused to withdraw the bills, fairly swamped with telegrams

and letters from County Assessors and County Supervisors, protesting

against the passage of the bills, on the ground that their passage would

be a reflection upon the County Assessors of the State. Many who thus

telegraphed or wrote, stated that they had not seen the bills but added

in effect, "We understand that they are bad bills and should be

defeated."

Of course, there was no evidence that Burke or his agents had instigated

the telegrams. But there was a shrewd suspicion that such was the case.

Sanford's answer to the Supervisors and Assessors was most effective. He

mailed them copies of the Sacramento Bee which set forth the actual

purpose of the bills, and copies of the bills themselves. Immediately

Assessors and Supervisors who had wired their Senators to oppose the

bills, sent telegrams withdrawing their opposition.

In passing it may be said that neither bill passed the Senate. Bill No.

1229 passed second reading, but was amended on third reading, March 11,

and was not heard of again. Bill No. 1230 passed second reading, but was

not read the third time. There are other ways to kill good bills than to

bluff their authors into withdrawing them, or by stirring up State-wide

antagonism to them. The incident shows, however, the State-wide

ramifications of the machine. Within three days it was possible for the

machine to create the impression from one end of the State to the other,

that Senate Bills 1229 and 1230 were bad bills, measures casting

reflection upon the County Assessors. Only the prompt action of Senator

Sanford dispelled this impression. It also demonstrates the powerful

backing behind the machine agents kept at Sacramento during a

Legislative session.

It is bad enough when the far-reaching influence of the machine is

employed to defeat measures which provide the machinery to enable public

officials to enforce the law, against beneficiaries of the system, but

when one of the agents employs this influence to promote his personal

interests in a matter in which the particular corporation which he

represents can have no interest whatever, particular emphasis is given

the evils of the machine domination and reprehensible lobbying. To

illustrate:

A peculiar situation which has developed at Owens Lake in Inyo County,

made it necessary and proper that slight amendment be made to the law of

eminent domain. The water of Owens Lake is heavily charged with soda.

Some years ago, the Inyo Development Company was organized to recover

this soda. The company invested $200,000 in establishing a soda-ash

plant at the lakeside. This does not include the cost of building a

railroad from the Lake to Mound House, Nevada, a distance of about 400

miles. The investment proved a success. The company harvests as high as

10,000 tons of soda ash a year. As the product is worth as high as $30 a

ton at San Francisco, the enterprise adds an important industry to the

developed resources of the State. The method of recovering the soda is

simple. The water is drawn from the lake into vats, where it is left to

evaporate. The soda is then recovered.

Owing to the fact that the waters of Owens Lake are constantly receding,

a considerable strip of land has, during recent years, been uncovered

between the company's holdings near the lake. and the water. The water

from which the soda is reclaimed has to be piped over this land.

Recently former employees of the Inyo Development Company took up the

land lying between the company's property and the lake, and under the

name of the Natural Soda Products Company, propose to go into the

business of manufacturing soda ash on their own account.

Not long since the new company began to complain of the old company's

pipe, which crosses the new company's land. The old company saw that it

had trouble ahead unless it could condemn a strip of the recently

reclaimed land for a pipe line. It was found, however, that there is no

law in California by which this could be done. Under the law of eminent

domain land could be condemned for almost any other purpose than to

establish a pipe line to carry water not to be used for irrigation or

domestic purposes. An attempt was therefore made to have the law

governing eminent domain amended so as to read that land could be

condemned "for oil pipe lines and pipe lines for conducting the waters

of any lake which are not fit for irrigation or domestic purposes, and

which contain soda or other minerals' or chemical substances in

solution, and also pumps and machinery for raising the same and forcing

the same through such pipes."

This amendment was included in Senate Bill 797, and in the companion

Assembly Bill 815. Senate Bill 797 passed the Senate and was referred to

the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, where the amendment providing

for the soda water pipe line was added. This bill received a favorable

recommendation from the Assembly Judiciary Committee and was returned to

the Assembly. And then a very mysterious thing happened. Without

apparent reason the bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on

Corporations. Provision for soda water pipe lines, so far as the

Assembly was concerned, came to a sudden ending.

At the time Senate Bill 797 was undergoing suppression in the Assembly,

the companion bill, Assembly Bill 815, was pending before the Senate

Judiciary Committee. The measure was amended to make possible the

condemnation of land for a soda water pipe line. Chairman Willis of the

Committee expressed himself as satisfied with the amendment. And as

amended, the bill was referred back to the Senate with the

recommendation that it do pass as amended. Two days later, however,

Senator Willis stated on the floor of the Senate that he had information

from Inyo County which convinced him that the amendment was not

desirable, and should be excluded from the bill. He stated that the

county officials of Inyo County opposed the amendment, and for that

reason suggested that the amendment be dropped. He stated that the

Assembly would refuse to concur in the amendment even though the bill

were passed with it. Mr. Willis' wishes were respected and the bill

re-amended. Provisions for condemning land for soda water pipe lines

came to as dead a stop in the Senate as in the Assembly. The next

development in this comparatively unimportant incident of the session,

was the discovery that Mr. J. T. Burke of Berkeley, member of the

Southern Pacific law department, the Jere Burke of Southern Pacific

lobbying, is one of the directors of the Natural Soda Products Company,

which owns the land over which the Inyo Development Company would build

a pipe line, a pipe line upon which the future prosperity of the Inyo

Development Company largely rests. Burke was alleged to have opposed the

amendment - and so far as the writer knows the charge was never denied -

and with having brought about the defeat of the amendment. In other

words, Mr. Burke is charged with throwing the full weight of the

influence of the large corporation (the Southern Pacific Railroad

Company, which he represents) on the side of a small corporation in

which he is a director, and against a third corporation, which has large

interests at stake. And the citizen who stands for fair play should not

lose sight of the fact that Mr. Burke's corporation, the Southern

Pacific Railroad Company, is the principal factor in the machine which

works against good government, fair play, the "square deal" in business

and politics which President Roosevelt insisted upon. The Inyo

Development Company failed in its perfectly legitimate purpose because

arrayed against it was in effect the political influence of the Southern

Pacific Railroad Company, the tenderloin, and all the other elements

that go to make up the political machine in California. And the fact

should not be lost sight of that no other independent enterprise in

California, even where it has, as has the Inyo Development Company,

hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, is immune against similar

experiences.

Early in the session when the lobbying question was, because of the

excitement over Anderson, decidedly prominent, Sanford in the Senate and

Callan in the Assembly introduced bills requiring lobbyists who appear

at the Capitol during a legislative session to register their names, the

names of their employers and the amount and nature of their compensation.

At the close of the session they were, under the terms of the measures,

required to file a detailed statement of their expenditures.

Had these measures become laws they might have proved very embarrassing

to certain gentlemen who were very well received by the machine element

in both Senate and Assembly chamber.

But they didn't become laws.

The Assembly bill went to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which held

it two months, finally, on March 16th, reporting it to the Assembly

without recommendation. On March 19th, the measure was refused passage.

The Senate bill went to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee

referred it back to the Senate with the recommendation that it do not

pass. On January 29th, it, too, was defeated.