Part 9 (1/2)

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, astonis.h.i.+ng 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 astonis.h.i.+ng 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: