Leeds, Chairman of the Committee, moved that the primary vote for United States Senator be made advisory and by districts only, while Grove L.
Johnson, in spite of the fact that such a provision is impracticable and unconst.i.tutional, stated that he wished a provision in the bill requiring a 40 per cent plurality to nominate, instead of a mere plurality.
Leeds and Johnson, taken together, stood for precisely what the machine had stood for in the Senate, namely, an advisory, district vote for United States Senators and a 40 per cent plurality vote to nominate.
Speaker Stanton, although not a member of the Committee, was present at the meeting, and although he had introduced the bill in the a.s.sembly, announced that he was for so amending the measure that the vote for United States Senator should be made merely advisory and by districts.
This was pretty strong intimation that there was trouble ahead for the Direct Primary bill. Stanton was in effect throwing down his own bill.
After several meetings, the Committee adopted amendments providing for the Leeds - suggested advisory district vote for United States Senators, providing for correction of the clerical and typographical errors, and providing an oath from primary candidates that they would abide by the platform of their party to be adopted after their nomination. This last amendment was defeated in the a.s.sembly.
The only real opposition in the Committee to the machine"s plan to make the primary vote for United States Senators advisory only and by district, came from a.s.semblymen Hinkle of San Diego and Drew of Fresno.
Drew was ill most of the time and could not attend the meetings. The brunt of the fight for a State-wide vote for United States Senators, therefore, fell on Hinkle.
He fought well.
Every effort was made to pull him down. He was told that his bills would be "killed."
He was deliberately misrepresented in papers which were endeavoring to force into the bill the advisory district vote amendment, which, as introduced in the Senate by McCartney, had been rejected by the anti-machine Senators. Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter were for the amendment, but the anti-machine Senators continued against it as they had on February 18th, the day of their "glorious victory" over the machine in the Direct Primary fight.
But, astonishing as it may seem, the San Francisco Call[44], which up to the pa.s.sage of the bill in the Senate had fought the machine Senators so valiantly, was giving indication of siding with Wolfe and Leavitt. In its issue of March 6th, the Call stated that Hinkle was alone of the a.s.sembly Committee battling for the bill as it pa.s.sed the Senate. In another sentence the Call said: "Leeds, Rech, Hinkle and Pugh voted for the advisory vote amendments."
That sentence was shown about the Capitol, and on it was based the story that Hinkle had "fallen down," and would vote with the machine. All this added to the confusion of the situation.
But Hinkle had not "fallen down." He was in the fight just as hard as ever, and with a.s.semblyman Bohnett organized the reform element in the a.s.sembly to fight the machine amendments.
Those who were endeavoring to force the advisory district plan for nomination of Senators into the bill took the most astonishing methods to force it upon the anti-machine Senators. For example, the San Francisco Call of March 4th said of it:
"The amendments proposed by Leeds and supported by Stanton are not even remotely related to the McCartney proposition, which was voted down in the Senate."
The Call"s statement was easily disproved, but it unquestionably confused the anti-machine legislators, who were insisting upon retaining the provision for State-wide vote for Senators in the bill[45].
And then came the cry that those who were opposing the Leeds-McCartney amendment were enemies of the Direct Primary, for the a.s.sembly, it was alleged, was overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment, and would not pa.s.s the bill without it. Jere Burke, John C. Lynch, and other patriots of their ilk were most insistent in expression of this fear. But such men as Bohnett, Hinkle, Drew and other recognized anti-machine leaders in the a.s.sembly were not to be bluffed in this way. They stood firmly for the pa.s.sage of the bill as it had pa.s.sed the Senate.
The fight on the floor of the a.s.sembly came over Leeds" motion to amend the bill by making the vote for United States Senator advisory only and by districts. The vote on Leeds" motion was 37 to 37. The "overwhelming majority" favoring the amendment, in spite of the use of every pull at the command of the machine, had not materialized. As a majority vote was necessary to read the amendment into the bill, a moment more and Speaker Stanton would have been forced to declare the amendment lost. This would have meant final defeat for the machine, and the Direct Primary bill as it had pa.s.sed the Senate would have gone to final pa.s.sage.
At this critical moment in the bill"s history, however, a.s.semblyman Pulcifer[46], the Lincoln-Roosevelt League member from Alameda county, got into action. He had voted against the amendment. But with his vote really meaning defeat for the machine element, he promptly changed his vote from no to aye. This made the vote 38 for the amendment and 36 against it. The amendment which the anti-machine Senators had fought so valiantly and so effectively was finally read into the bill[47].
The amendments necessary to correct the typographical and clerical errors which had been permitted to remain in the bill as it pa.s.sed the Senate, together with a number of ridiculous amendments - which were finally rejected by both Houses - were then adopted, and the bill sent to the Senate[48].
The fact developed almost immediately that if the Senate refused to concur in the a.s.sembly amendment forcing the advisory district vote into the bill the a.s.sembly would recede from the amendment. As a matter of fact a.s.semblyman Collum, who voted for the amendment March 9th, voted on March 22d to recede from it. Had the anti-machine forces in the a.s.sembly been held together, as they could have been had the question of receding been put up to them fairly, few other changes with Collum"s would have been sufficient to a.s.sure success for the anti-machine forces.
But in spite of the situation in the a.s.sembly, Senator Wright, who was by this time working openly with Wolfe, Leavitt and Warren Porter to secure the adoption of the Leeds amendment (which as the McCartney amendment the Senate had already rejected), was insisting that the a.s.sembly would not recede, and that unless the Senate concurred with the a.s.sembly amendment, nothing could save the Direct Primary bill from being cut to pieces in Free Conference Committee.
Nevertheless, the Senate by a vote of 19 against to 20 for concurrence, did refuse to concur, 21 votes being necessary for concurrence.
Senator Stetson was absent when the vote was taken, being ill at his home in Alameda county. Had he been present he would have voted against concurrence in the amendments. This would have made the vote 20 to 20.
Originally, on February 18th, twenty-seven Senators had voted against the Leeds-McCartney amendment, but when Senator Wright switched to the machine, Senators Hurd and Burnett wobbled along after him. The four band-wagon Senators, Lewis, Martinelli, Price and Welch, tagged along after them. This made the vote:
Against concurrence in the amendment and for the bill as it pa.s.sed the Senate - Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Miller, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker - 19.
For concurrence in the amendment and against the bill as it originally pa.s.sed the Senate - Bates, Bills, Burnett, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Hurd, Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, Welch, Willis, Wolfe, Wright - 20.
Every one of the thirteen Senators who opposed the bill when it was first before the Senate, voted to concur. Wright, Welch, Price, Martinelli, Lewis, Burnett and Hurd joining them, made their number twenty.
Under the rules which govern the Senate, in the event of a tie vote, all the Senators voting, the President of the Senate, in this case Warren Porter, has the casting vote.
Had Senator Stetson been present, he would have voted with the anti-machine Senators. This would have made the vote 20 to 20. Warren Porter would then have had the deciding vote. He would have voted to concur. Senator Stetson"s illness temporarily saved the Direct Primary bill.
In the ordinary course of legislative business, the Senate having refused to concur in the a.s.sembly amendment, the bill would have gone back to the a.s.sembly, the a.s.sembly would have receded from the amendment, and the machine"s defeat would have been final. But the quick-witted Wolfe saw a way to prevent such action. He promptly moved that the Senate reconsider the vote by which it had refused to concur in the a.s.sembly amendment. Wolfe commanded twenty votes of the Senators present, the anti-machine element nineteen. Wolfe required, however, twenty-one to compel reconsideration. But when the question came up, Wolfe still lacked the one vote necessary for reconsideration, the anti-machine element was still without the necessary twenty votes to tie the Senate, thus giving Warren Porter the deciding vote. Wolfe, however, with his twenty votes, postponed consideration of his motion to reconsider the vote by which the Senate had refused to concur. A somewhat extraordinary parliamentary situation, to say the least. But it answered the machine"s purpose. For a week[49a] the machine was able to hold the Senate in deadlock. All business was practically suspended. For hours the reform Senators were compelled to sit in their seats waiting the pleasure of President Porter and President Pro Tem. Wolfe to call the Senate to order. The folly of permitting the machine to organize the Senate was forced home to every good-government man present. The machine because it controlled the Senate organization could and did arrogantly override the rights of the Senate, giving the ultimatum that no business should be transacted until the anti-machine Senators had concurred in the machine amendments to the Direct Primary bill.
The machine"s play was to bully, bluff or beg one of the anti-machine Senators to desert to the machine, which would have given the machine twenty-one votes, enough for concurrence, or, failing in this, to force the attendance of Senator Stetson, which would have tied the Senate, thus giving Warren Porter the deciding vote. But before Senator Stetson, pale and plainly on the verge of breakdown, could be brought to Sacramento, Senator Black became very ill and was obliged to go to his home at Palo Alto. Thus when Stetson returned, the vote stood 20 to 19, precisely where it had been before. Performer Porter was still denied the privilege of casting the deciding vote. For once the machine found itself squarely against a stone wall, with the sympathy of the public strongly against its creatures and methods. Night after night as the fight went on, the Senate gallery was packed with interested spectators, who cheered the anti-machine Senators to the echo. There were no cheers for the machine, but on one occasion at least the machine was hissed, when one of its creatures attempted an attack on Senator Black.
Never did the machine work harder to switch anti-machine Senators to its side. Jere Burke had characteristic corner conferences, Johnny Lynch labored with anti-machine Senators openly on the floor of the Senate chamber, as did Warren Porter. From a southern county came the Chairman of the Republican County Committee to tell his Senator who was voting with the anti-machine element what a mistake he was making. P. H.
McCarthy "happened in" and worked with George Van Smith of the Call and Eddie Wolfe in the fruitless attempt made to "pull down" Senator Anthony[49]. Anti-machine Senators found their pet bills being held up in a.s.sembly Committees.
But the nineteen anti-machine members stood firm, in spite of the fact that Senator Wright, who had originally led them, and George Van Smith, of the Call, who had originally advised them, and the Call, which had originally backed them, were all working on the side of Leavitt and Wolfe and Porter and the thirteen Senators of whom the Call had said on February 19, when they had voted for the amendment which they were still supporting, "Every man of these thirteen confessed corruptionists knew what he was doing - knew whose will he was putting above The People"s will. Every one of these thirteen betrayers of the public weal has written the epitaph of his political tombstone."
And then the machine forces attacked Senator Black. Although Senator Black was lying ill at his home at Palo Alto, the Call on March 18 stated that he was in hiding in Sacramento.
The Call on the same date expressed its deep regret for and its utter condemnation of, the "asinine filibuster, designed to prevent a tie vote which would be decided by the Lieutenant-Governor, Warren Porter, in favor of concurrence in the a.s.sembly amendment to the Direct Primary bill."
On February 18 the Call had objected very strenuously to Porter"s att.i.tude toward the Direct Primary bill. The Call on that date said:
"To-day the wolves (a pet name for the machine Senators), urged by their masters, will make their last stand in the Senate against a people determined to be free. Warren Porter, the Lieutenant-Governor of the fatted soul, who professes all the virtues and practices all political evil, will be the whipper-in."
One month later, March 18, the Call was complaining bitterly that the anti-machine Senators would not permit the same "Lieutenant-Governor of the fatted soul" to whip them into line for the amendment to the Direct Primary bill, which they had rejected on February 18, and for which the Call had praised them generously. The Call"s special representative at Sacramento, George Nan Smith, was by this time working openly with Porter, Wolfe, Leavitt, Hartman, Lynch and Burke to compel Senate concurrence in the a.s.sembly amendments, while Senators Boynton, Black, Miller, Campbell, Holohan, Stetson and the other anti-machine Senators whom the Call had formerly backed in their efforts against the machine, had become "pin-head politicians," in the columns of the Call, intent upon defeat of the Direct Primary bill.
The Call"s extraordinary change and outrageous condemnation of the anti-machine Senators of course brought its protest. The people of Palo Alto met in ma.s.s meeting on March 21st, and adopted resolutions condemning the Call"s course[50]. Senator Black from his sick bed wrote a letter showing the Call"s insincerity and breach of faith with the pro-primary Senators[51]. The paper was bitterly denounced on the floor of the Senate.
But throughout the State the newspapers which stand for good government, and incidentally for an effective direct primary law, were firm in their support of the anti-machine Senators. Just before Senator Black was taken ill, for example, at the time when Senator Stetson was unable to be at the capital, the Sacramento Star, in an editorial article under the heading, "Illness a Blessing," cleverly put in a nutsh.e.l.l what the people were thinking and the reform press was saying. "We do not desire to wish Senator Stetson any bad luck," said The Star, "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."[52]
Matters were brought to a climax when the performers through Senator Weed - who was, by the way, Chairman of the Committee on Public Morals, which reported adversely on the Walker-Otis bill-introduced a resolution, authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring Senator Black to Sacramento, even though a special engine and coach be chartered for the purpose[53]. The resolution brought forth indignant protest from the anti-machine Senators, and a telegram from Senator Black to Warren Porter, denouncing the unwarranted proceedings[54]. Nevertheless, Doctor Dougla.s.s W. Montgomery of San Francisco, in spite of the fact that four reputable physicians, Dr. Howard Black, Dr. H. B. Reynolds, Dr. J. C.
Spencer and Dr. R. L. Wilbur, had certified that Senator black"s physical condition did not permit of his being removed to Sacramento, went to Palo Alto with the Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate the sick Senator. Montgomery"s investigations seem to have been confined to the outside of Senator Black"s house[55]. At any rate he did not see Senator Black. The performance was given its sordid feature by Montgomery charging the Senate $400 for his services.
The Montgomery incident demonstrated clearly that the machine was whipped[56]. Senator Wolfe accordingly on Monday, March 22, after holding the Senate in deadlock more than a week, moved that the vote whereby the Senate had refused to concur in the a.s.sembly amendment to the Direct Primary bill, be reconsidered. This, the Senate as a matter of courtesy, at Senator Wolfe"s request, did. It then refused to concur in the a.s.sembly"s objectionable amendment. For the second time, the Senate went on record against the machine"s advisory district-vote plan for the election of United States Senators. For the second time the anti-machine element in the Senate, in its efforts to secure the pa.s.sage of an effective direct primary measure, had, fighting fair, and in the open, and above board always, defeated the machine. The machine thereupon met the anti-machine element with a trick that completely turned the tables, a trick by which the anti-machine forces were defeated, and the machine element placed in a position to amend the bill as it might see fit.
[42] Senator Wolfe, on the day of his defeat in the Senate, told the writer that he would offer no further opposition to the pa.s.sage of the bill.
[43] Charles R. Detrick of Palo Alto, for example, called the attention of both Wright and Van Smith to the errors, and offered his services for their correction, but his offer was declined.
[44] The Call"s course is all the more reprehensible from the fact that it had for two years been declaring for an effective Direct Primary law, and, indeed, a.s.sumed all the credit for the agitation for the reform.
[45] The Leeds amendment, which the Call stated was in no way related to the McCartney amendment, read as follows:
"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 officers, provided, however, that the vote for candidates for United States Senator shall be an advisory vote for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiment of the voters of the respective Senatorial and a.s.sembly Districts in the respective parties."