Part 10 (1/2)

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 Senators.h.i.+p is of little importance to the people of California,' etc.”

”The United States Senators.h.i.+p 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 makes.h.i.+ft. 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.