Part 11 (1/2)

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.”