There was very good reason for questioning Senator Wolfe"s motives, but Cutten and Stetson and even Walker a.s.sured Wolfe that no reflection upon him was intended. What these men should have done was to have denounced Wolfe right there as a trickster and made no bones about it. But on the absurd a.s.sumption that a member of the State Senate is necessarily a gentleman, the much deserved denunciation did not come.
However, Wolfe"s motion did not prevail and the amendments were taken up one by one. Six of the seven vicious amendments were rejected, the first of the six by a vote of 19 to 20.
This brought the Senate to the amendments intended to correct typographical and clerical errors. And here the vote switched. The reformers had up to this time been voting to reject the amendments, because the amendments were objectionable, while the programmers in the first instance voted for concurrence. But when it came to amendments intended to correct typographical and clerical errors only, Wolfe and his following, with the exception of Burnett, who refused to stand for any such dastardly piece of work, voted to refuse to concur in the amendments, while the anti-machine Senators, of course, voted to concur in them.
Burnett, voting with the anti-machine element, gave them twenty votes, leaving Wolfe and his following only nineteen. But twenty-one votes were necessary for concurrence. The machine, while it could not force the Senate to concur in the vicious amendments, could prevent the Senate"s concurrence in the amendments to correct the clerical and typographical errors. The bill was accordingly sent back to the a.s.sembly with the typographical and clerical amendments still in dispute.
Even before the bill had reached the a.s.sembly, Senator Frank Leavitt and George Van Smith of The Call were on the floor of that body, fighting to prevent the a.s.sembly receding from its amendments.
When the a.s.sembly grasped the fact that the Senate had refused to concur in the amendments necessary for correction of typographical errors, those who were working for an effective Direct Primary bill were thrown into the greatest confusion. Speaker Stanton"s rulings which followed, were not calculated to relieve the situation. Speaking from the desk, Stanton said:
"If you recede from some of these amendments and not from others where will your bill be? It will be dead. The only thing that you can do to save the Direct Primary bill now is to recede from all the amendments and let the typographical errors remain in the bill, or refuse to recede from any of the amendments and let the bill go into conference. If you recede from some of the amendments and not from others, your bill is dead. We cannot send this bill back to the Senate saying that the a.s.sembly has receded from some of the amendments and not from others."
a.s.semblymen Preston, Bohnett and others who were standing for an effective measure, were amazed at the position which Stanton had taken.
"I cannot for the life of me," said Preston, "see why we cannot recede from part of the amendments and refuse to recede from the others. Some of these amendments are really necessary for the good of the bill.
Others should be rejected. Give me fifteen minutes and I will guarantee to dig up authorities which will show us the course to be pursued."
a.s.semblyman Bohnett confessed himself unable to understand why the a.s.sembly could not send part of the amendments to conference and not the others.
By this time matters had got so warm in the a.s.sembly that Senator Leavitt found it necessary to lend dignity to the occasion by taking his seat at the side of Speaker Stanton, whom he engaged in conversation.
The conference was, of course, carried on in whispers.
a.s.semblymen Young, Bohnett and others, finding that it would be impossible under the a.s.sumption of the Speaker to refuse to recede from part of the amendments while receding from the others, advised the good government members to refuse to recede from all the amendments, and pa.s.s the bill, typographical errors and all.
It was demanded of Bohnett if this would not lead to the practical defeat of the measure. Bohnett insisted that it would not; that the typographical errors, while deplorable, did not materially affect the bill.
However, many of the better element of the a.s.sembly did not dare to take the risk, and the motion to recede was lost by a vote of 29 to 42[51].
a.s.semblymen who unquestionably stood for a good bill voted against receding. Had the vicious amendments alone been under consideration, they would have voted to recede. Among these were such men as a.s.semblyman Drew of Fresno. The a.s.sembly, having refused to recede from its amendments, the bill went to a Committee on Conference, appointed by Speaker Stanton and President Porter. The machine had gained its point.
The Conference Committee consisted of Senators Wolfe, Leavitt and Wright, and a.s.semblymen Leeds, Johnson of Sacramento, and Hewitt. Of the Committee, Hewitt[59] was the only member who favored a Statewide vote for United States Senator, and opposed the advisory district vote. The committee had scarcely been missed from Senate and a.s.sembly chambers before it was back to report that no agreement could be reached.
The same members were thereupon appointed as a Committee on Free Conference, which gave them power to amend the bill. As a Committee on Free Conference they recommended the advisory district vote plan for the nomination of United States Senators[60].
Senator Wolfe, having got the bill in shape to his liking, with a suave smirk upon his face, stated that he trusted that all the Senators present would vote for the measure.
"Not on your life," came Caminetti"s protest.
And Caminetti did not vote for the Free Conference Committee"s report.
But in spite of Caminetti"s protest, both Senate and a.s.sembly adopted the Conference Committee"s report. They had to do so or defeat the bill entirely. Caminetti was the only Senator who voted against it. The machine, after a fight of nearly two months, in which it was twice defeated in the Senate, and escaped defeat in the a.s.sembly by only one vote, that of Pulcifer, had carried its point, had succeeded in denying the people of California the privilege of casting a practical, State-wide vote for United States Senators.
What the anti-machine Senators[61] thought of the outcome is best expressed in the little speech which Senator Stetson made his fellow-Senators in explaining his vote to accept the report of the Committee on Free Conference.
"Before voting on this matter," said Stetson, "lest any one in the future may think that I have been pa.s.sed something and didn"t know it, I wish to explain my vote, and wish to say that this permission accorded a candidate to go on record to support that candidate for United States Senate, who shall have the endors.e.m.e.nt of the greatest number of districts, comes from n.o.body and goes to n.o.body. It means nothing - mere words - idle words. The only way in which a candidate could have been pledged would have been to provide a pledge or instructions to the Legislature. The words "shall be permitted" mean nothing and get nowhere. I shall vote for this report, not because I want to, but because I have to if we are at this session to have any Direct Primary law at all."
[57] The plain citizen will marvel at the lengths to which the machine went to prevent a provision being incorporated into the Direct Primary bill for the selection by State-wide vote of United States Senators. The plain citizen does not, however, look upon a United States Senator through the same eyes as the machine. To the plain citizen that United States Senator is desirable who represents policies beneficial to his country and his State; to the machine that United States Senator is desirable who will in effect turn his Federal patronage over to the machine. The election of United States Senators by State-wide vote would take their appointment out of machine hands, which would mean loss to the machine of Federal patronage. For this reason the almost unbelievable lengths to which the machine went to prevent the provision for State-wide vote for the election of United States Senators being incorporated into the Direct Primary bill.
[58] The vote was as follows:
Ayes: Messrs. Bohnett, Callan, Cattell, Cogswell, Collum, Costar, Flavelle, Gerdes, Gibbons, Gillis, Hinkle, Holmquist, Irwin, Johnson of Placer, Juilliard, Kehoe, Maher, Mendenhall, Odom, Otis, Polsley, Preston, Sackett, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Whitney, Wilson, Wyllie and Young - 29.
Noes: Messrs. Barndollar, Beardslee, Beatty, Beban, Black, Butler, Coghlan, Collier, Cronin, Cullen, Drew, Feeley, Fleisher, Flint, Greer, Griffiths, Hammon, Hanlon, Hans, Hawk, Hewitt, Johnson of Sacramento, Johnson of San Diego, Leeds, Macauley, McClelland, McMa.n.u.s, Melrose, Moore, Mott, Nelson, Perine, Pugh, Pulcifer, Rech, Rutherford, Schmitt, Silver, Stanton, Transue, Wagner, Wheelan - 42.
[59] Hewitt voted against the amendments the day they were read into the bill.
[60] The Free Conference Committee"s amendment was in full as follows:
"By nominating pet.i.tions signed and filed as provided by existing laws party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall have their names placed on the official primary election ballots of their respective parties, in the manner herein provided for State offices, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE VOTE FOR CANDIDATES FOR UNITED STATES SENATORS SHALL BE AN ADVISORY VOTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE SENTIMENT OF THE VOTERS IN THE RESPECTIVE SENATORIAL AND a.s.sEMBLY DISTRICTS IN THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, and the Senatorial and a.s.sembly nominees shall be at liberty to vote either for the choice of such district expressed at said primary election, or for the candidate for United States Senator who shall have received the endors.e.m.e.nt of such primary election in the greater number of districts electing members of his party to the Legislature."
[61] Stetson was not the only Senator to protest. Senators Campbell, Holohan and Miller sent to the Secretary"s desk the following explanation of their votes: "We voted for the Direct Primary bill because it seems to be the best law that can be obtained under existing political conditions. We are opposed to many of the features of this bill, and believe that the people at the first opportunity will instruct their representatives in the Legislature to radically amend the same in many particulars, notably in regard to the election of United States Senators, and the provisions that prevent the endors.e.m.e.nt of a candidate by a political party or organization other than the one that first nominated such candidate."
A second protest, signed by Senators Curtin, Cartwright and Sanford, was also printed in the Journal. It reads as follows: "We voted to adopt the report of the Committee on Free Conference on Senate Bill No. 3, not because we believe it to be what is desired by the people of this State, but because we believe it to be the only bill that can be adopted at this late hour, as the Legislature is about to adjourn."
Chapter XII.
The Railroad Regulation Issue.
Recent Increase in Freight Tariff Had Brought About a Condition Which Required Action - Senate Divided Into Supporters of an Effective and Supporters of an Ineffective Measure - Manipulation by Which Measures Were Placed in Hands of a Machine-Controlled Committee.
Some one has very well said that the real test of a Legislature is its action on railroad measures. The Legislature of 1909, if estimated by this standard would not appear to advantage. But to condemn the Legislature of 1909 for its failure to give the State an effective railroad regulation law, is to condemn every Legislature that has sat in California since the present State Const.i.tution went into effect thirty years ago. The Const.i.tution empowers the Legislature to pa.s.s effective railroad regulation measures, but up to the session of 1909, the machine, or system, or organization - one name is as fragrant as another - had prevented the pa.s.sage, if we exclude the ineffective Act of 1880, of any railroad regulation law at all. The machine has ever moved against the interests of the people and in the interest of its dominating factor and at the same time its chief beneficiary, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It has so manipulated the nomination and election of Railroad Commissioners as to keep in that office men utterly dominated by railroad influences.
With weak and corrupt men as Railroad Commissioners, and machine-dominated Legislatures which have neglected to pa.s.s laws which would have made the Commission effective, or even provide funds for the Commission to carry on its work, even had the Commissioners been so inclined, California has been left helpless to oppose any extortion which the railroad might see fit to exact. The system of charging all that the traffic will bear has governed utterly. For this the Southern Pacific Company can thank, and the People of California condemn, the machine.
The cost to the people has been enormous. It was pretty conclusively shown at the Legislative investigation into the cause of recent advance of freight rates, that upwards of $10,000,000[62] a year has in this one instance been added to the freight charges exacted from the people of the Pacific Coast. The added burden falls upon the Pacific Coast manufacturer, merchant, farmer, fruit grower, consumer. All from the highest to the lowest help pay the tribute. Thirty years is a long period, and the arm of the railroad tribute-taker far-reaching. The vast sums which, unrestricted, the Southern Pacific has been able to exact run into enormous totals. From a dollar and cent standpoint, it has paid the Southern Pacific Company to control the machine.
But the railroad"s absolute domination of the State could not continue forever without protest that would eventually force a hearing. This protest came toward the close of 1908. The increase in freight rates made just before the Legislature of 1909 convened emphasized the necessity for the enactment of a law that should galvanize the Railroad Commission into activity; ensure the enforcement of const.i.tutional provisions for the protection of the public against dominant transportation companies; in a word, provide effective railroad regulation.
Governor Gillett in his biennial message to the Legislature, and Attorney General Webb in his biennial report gave expression to this aroused public sentiment.
General Webb, after reviewing railroad conditions in California, on page 13 of his report says: "It is thus apparent that the shippers of the State are practically helpless."
"I believe," continues the Attorney General, "that this review of the situation will show the imperative necessity of prompt legislation on this subject, and under the Const.i.tution of this State, the Legislature has ample authority to enact the required legislation."
Governor Gillett, in his biennial message, takes practically the same stand as does Attorney General Webb.
"Our State," says the Governor on page 12 of his message, "has not kept pace with the majority of the States of the Union in the enactment of laws regulating railroads in their business as common carriers."
"I can virtually promise you," said General Webb at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Corporations, held on the evening of January 25th, "that in the event of this (the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill) becoming a law, and the Railroad Commission refusing or neglecting to act under its provisions, the Governor will call the Legislature together in extraordinary session for their impeachment."[63]
There was no question of the aroused public sentiment in favor of the pa.s.sage of a railroad regulation measure. Even before the Legislature convened it became evident that some sort of a measure would have to be pa.s.sed; even the railroad lobby saw that. The Legislature accordingly divided on the question. As the fight was carried on in the Senate - the a.s.sembly in the rush of the closing hours of the session merely putting its "O. K." on what the Senate had done - the division in the Senate alone will be considered. The division in that body was: