The McCartney amendment of that section of the bill dealing with the nomination of Senators read:
"Amend the bill so as to give an advisory vote by districts on United States Senators."
It will be seen that the Leeds amendment and the McCartney amendment were not remotely, but very closely related; were, in effect, the same.
[46] A similar example of Pulcifer"s trickiness attended the defeat in the a.s.sembly of Boynton"s Senate bill providing for a nonpartisan column on the election ballot for candidates for the Judiciary. The measure had the backing of the reform element, and pa.s.sed the Senate with but little opposition. At that time it would have had even easier sailing in the a.s.sembly. But the machine succeeded in preventing action on the measure In the a.s.sembly until a few hours before adjournment. In the rush of the close of the session, the measure, it is alleged, was made subject of pretty vicious trading. But when it came to a showdown thirty-five votes were cast for the measure and twenty-nine against. Six more votes would have pa.s.sed it. Had there been full attendance the bill would have been pa.s.sed. A call of the House was ordered to compel such attendance, but was finally discontinued, by Pulcifer, who had voted for the bill, voting for discontinuance, thus tying the vote. This gave Speaker Stanton an opportunity to end proceedings under the call of the House, by casting the deciding vote against continuance. Stanton, with Pulcifer"s a.s.sistance, thus cast what was practically the deciding vote that killed the bill. Had the call of the House been continued until all the a.s.semblymen were brought in, the measure would probably have been pa.s.sed.
[47] The vote in full was as follows:
For the amendment and against the bill as it had pa.s.sed the Senate: Barndollar, Beatty, Beban, Black, Butler, Coghlan, Collier, Collum, Cronin, Cullen, Feeley, Greer, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, Hawk, Grove L.
Johnson, Johnson of San Diego, Johnston of Contra Costa, Leeds, Lightner, Macauley, McClellan, McMa.n.u.s, Melrose, Mott, Nelson, O"Neil, Perine, Pugh, Pulcifer, Rech, Rutherford, Schmitt, Stanton, Transue, Wagner, Wheelan - 38.
Against the amendment and for the bill as it pa.s.sed the Senate: Beardslee, Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Costar, Dean, Drew, Flint, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Griffiths, Hayes, Hewitt, Hinkle, Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Maher, Mendenhall, Moore, Odom, Otis, Polsley, Preston, Sackett, Silver, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson, Wyllie, Young - 36.
[48] When a bill pa.s.sed by the Senate is amended in the a.s.sembly the measure goes back to the Senate. If the Senate concur in the amendments, that settles the matter. But if the Senate refuse to concur, then the bill goes back to the a.s.sembly, where that body may recede from its amendments or refuse to recede.
If the a.s.sembly recede, the measure goes to the Governor just as it pa.s.sed the Senate. If the a.s.sembly refuse to recede, the measure is referred to a conference committee of six, three appointed by the Speaker of the a.s.sembly and three by the President of the Senate.
The Conference Committee may consider only the amendments adopted by the a.s.sembly. If the Conference Committee fail to agree, or if either Senate or a.s.sembly reject its report, then the bill goes to a Committee on Free Conference. The Committee on Free Conference is permitted to make any amendment it sees fit. If its report be rejected by either Senate or a.s.sembly, the bill gets no further; is dead, without possibility of resurrection.
Such was the maze of technicality into which Lincoln-Roosevelt Leaguer Pulcifer threw the Direct Primary bill when he changed his vote from no to aye on the Leeds amendment.
[49a] The postponements were made from hour to hour. The reform Senators would be informed that the matter would be taken up at eleven o"clock in the forenoon. At that hour, the machine would postpone consideration until three o"clock in the afternoon. At three o"clock, further postponement would be ordered until eight o"clock. At eight o"clock there would be postponement until the next morning. Twenty-one votes were necessary for concurrence in the a.s.sembly Amendments, but a majority of those voting was sufficient to secure postponement. The machine on this issue controlled twenty votes, one short of enough for concurrence, but one more than the nineteen controlled by the anti-machine element, and hence enough to postpone from hour to hour consideration of Wolfe"s motion.
[49] It is very amusing less than three months later to see those partners of the Direct Primary fight, P. H. McCarthy and the San Francisco Call, in fierce political conflict at San Francisco.
[50] The resolutions adopted at Palo Alto read: "Resolved, That we note with disapproval the changed att.i.tude of the San Francisco Call upon the Direct Primary bill, and its attempt to discredit Senator Black and other friends of good government in the Legislature."
[51] Senator Black"s letter covered the situation fully. It was addressed to the press of the State, and was as follows: "No decent primary law would have been possible but for the combination of thirteen Republicans and seven Democrats in the Senate who have stood together throughout this whole fight. Senator Wright and the "Call" were powerless in the contest until these twenty Senators got behind them.
"One of the conditions of this combination was a State-wide vote on United States Senator, and the "Call" fought with us against Senators Wolfe and Leavitt on this proposition. Immediately after the bill left the Senate and got into the a.s.sembly the "Call" began to display a lack of interest in the primary fight. If it had maintained its att.i.tude in favor of the original bill these amendments never would have been proposed by the a.s.sembly."
"When the question of concurring in the a.s.sembly amendments comes up, we find the "Call" and Senator Wright deserting the men who made the primary fight in the Senate and going over to the camp of the "push"
politicians, who have always favored the district plan of nominating United States Senators."
"I take issue with the "Call" when it says: "As a matter of fact, the whole question of the United States Senatorship is of little importance to the people of California," etc."
"The United States Senatorship is the most important office to be filled by the people of California under the provisions of the proposed Direct Primary law. The so-called district plan for nominating United States Senators is worse than a makeshift. it provides for no pledge on the part of candidates and would be purely a straw vote, binding on n.o.body."
"The stubborn fact remains that the "Call," after leading in the fight for an honest Direct Primary law for two years and a half, has deserted the cause of the people at the most critical moment of the struggle."
"MARSHALL BLACK."
[52] The Star"s clever editorial article is worth preserving. It was in full as follows: "There are times, it appears, when the illness of a statesman is good for the people. We do not desire to wish Senator Stetson any bad luck, but if his slight indisposition should continue for a few days, or, in lieu of that, if some other solon of the same faith as regards the Primary bill, can only contract some minor ailment, there will be more joy than sorrow among the people who want something approaching a real direct primary.
"As explained in The Star"s news columns, had Senator Stetson not been ill, a tie vote on the proposition to concur with the a.s.sembly in amending the primary bill, presumably in the interest of Senator Frank Flint and generally to machine advantage, would have occurred. And then - it"s unkind to say such things - any person with a grain of sense would know that Mr. "Performing" Porter, our honored and distinguished Lieutenant-Governor, would break the tie by casting his vote for the machine.
"The evident intention of Senators who stand for the Wright bill in its original form, which is a start toward a real direct primary (and that doesn"t include Senator Wright, more"s the pity) to dodge the possibility of the tie vote by absenting themselves without leave is regrettable - regrettable only because it is necessary. Their action, with the aim of serving the best interests of the people, is highly honorable compared with the tactics of the powers that be, even unto the Governor himself, who have been trying every means to club legislators into line to stand by the "organization" and defeat the will of the people.
"It"s hard to be very sorry just now over Senator Stetson"s illness, but he deserves a vote of thanks for contracting that cold. And another for being on the right side."
[53] The Weed resolution reads as follows: "Resolved, By the Senate of the State of California, That the President of the Senate be and he is hereby authorized to instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to Proceed at once to Palo Alto with a competent physician, to be named by the President of the Senate, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is safe for Senator Black to proceed at once to Sacramento, to attend as a member of the Senate the thirty-eighth session of the California Legislature, and
"Be it further resolved, That in the event that such examination results in disclosing a state of health wherein it will be safe for Senator Black to be present, then the Sergeant-at-Arms shall bring him at once to Sacramento and, if necessary, to secure an engine and coach for that purpose."
[54] Black"s answering telegram was in full as follows: "I beg to inform you (Lieutenant-Governor Porter) and through you the Senate of California that I regard the resolutions adopted last Sat.u.r.day in reference to my absence, as discourteous, as a reflection on my honor and integrity and as proposing an infringement on my privileges and rights as a Senator and citizen. I have, therefore declined to see the persons sent here under that resolution, and shall continue to decline to see them until my physicians inform me that I can with safety return to Sacramento.
"Ample evidence of my physical condition has been presented to your representatives by four reputable physicians, and these physicians have furnished and will furnish evidence of my condition from time to time as requested by you or by the Senate.
"MARSHALL BLACK."
[55] Dr. Montgomery"s $400 report will be found in the appendix.
[56] The schemes resorted to to get Black back to Sacramento are almost beyond belief. It was even intimated to him that his bills would be held up if he did not return. The following telegram scarcely requires comment:
Sacramento Cal Mch 20-09 Hon. Marshall Black,
Palo Alto, Cal.
Your bill to issue bonds for general improvement fund before me. I would like to have you here to explain its provisions and the necessity for it.
12-50PmJ. N. GILLETT.
Chapter XI.
Machine Amends Direct Primary Bill[57].
By Trick Prevents Senate From Concurring in Amendments to Correct Clerical and Typographical Errors, Thus Creating a Situation Which Threw the Measure Into a Committee on Free Conference With Power to Amend.
It is a very good rule to be sure that your rattlesnake is dead before placing yourself in a position to be bitten. The reform Senators neglected this rule, with the result that after they had the machine element whipped on the direct primary issue, they placed themselves in a position where the "performers" struck at them viciously, and s.n.a.t.c.hed victory from them.
As was shown in a previous chapter, the Direct Primary bill, after it had originally pa.s.sed the Senate in the face of machine opposition, was allowed to go to the a.s.sembly containing several serious clerical and typographical errors. The a.s.sembly corrected these errors by a series of ten amendments. It was necessary for the Senate to concur in these amendments to get the bill into proper form. The amendments added in the a.s.sembly to which the anti-machine Senators took exception, were seven in number and dealt princ.i.p.ally with the changing of the method of electing United States Senators, from the plan of State-wide vote, to that of district, advisory vote. The seven were known as the "vicious amendments"; the ten correcting the typographical errors were called the "necessary amendments." There is no good reason why the ten necessary amendments should not have been made before the bill was first sent to the a.s.sembly. But they were not, and the errors which were thus left in the bill served the machine most advantageously when the final fight came. After Wolfe had given up hope of compelling the reform Senators to concur in the vicious amendments read into the bill in the a.s.sembly, his play was to bring about a situation by which the bill would be thrown into a Committee on Free Conference. The committee would be appointed by President Porter of the Senate, and by Speaker Stanton of the a.s.sembly.
Such a committee would, of course, be in sympathy with machine policies, and could be counted upon to amend the bill to the machine"s liking.
There is little doubt that the machine leaders in the Senate and the machine leaders in the a.s.sembly acted in conjunction in the proceedings which followed Senator Wolfe"s action in abandoning his efforts to force the anti-machine Senators to support the so called vicious a.s.sembly amendments.
Wolfe"s first move was to ask as a matter of courtesy that the Senate adopt his motion to reconsider the vote by which it had the week before refused to concur in the a.s.sembly amendment. This request the reform element granted, purely as a matter of courtesy. Wolfe then edged up a step nearer.
No sooner had he received the courtesy of reconsideration than both he and Leavitt were to the fore with a suggestion that the Senate should refuse to concur in all the amendments and let them be threshed out in the a.s.sembly. The purpose of the two machine leaders was apparent.
Had the Senate concurred in the ten a.s.sembly amendments made necessary to correct typographical errors, and refused to concur in the seven objectionable amendments, all that would have been necessary would have been for the a.s.sembly to recede from its objectionable amendments. But if Wolfe could so engineer matters that the Senate would refuse to concur in all the amendments, then it would be necessary for the a.s.sembly to recede from all its amendments, including those intended to correct typographical errors, or send the bill to a conference committee, to be selected by Stanton and Porter. From a Committee on Conference to a Committee on Free Conference, also to be appointed by Stanton and Porter, and with full power to amend the bill to its liking, was but a step. The Committee on Free Conference was Wolfe"s aim. He eventually got it.
Boynton and Walker were quick to see the trend of Wolfe"s requests, however, and Walker moved to vote on the seven vicious amendments on one roll call, and on the ten correcting the typographical and clerical errors on a second.
As a subst.i.tute Wolfe moved that the seventeen amendments be pa.s.sed upon under one roll call.
At first Senators Cutten and Stetson apparently could not see the trend of Wolfe"s scheming. In the debate that ensued Wolfe pretended indignation that his motives were being questioned.