Part 18 (1/2)

The Senate Judiciary Committee, before which the Commonwealth Club bills had dragged along for weeks, received the Wheelan bills on March 17th, the day they pa.s.sed the a.s.sembly, and the same day, March 17th, reported them back to the Senate with the recommendation that they do pa.s.s. On March 18th the measures were read the second time in the Senate, and on March 20th, three days after they had pa.s.sed the a.s.sembly, the Senate pa.s.sed them.

Such is the difference in action on machine-favored bills and bills which the machine does not favor. Incidentally, it may be said that at the time the Wheelan bills were before the Senate, the machine had that body tied up in the fight on the Direct Primary bill.

The reform element - at the mercy of the Senate organization - was compelled to devote its whole attention to the Direct Primary bill. The machine was thus left to run committees and Senate at its own free will.

It was an admirable situation from the machine standpoint.

But by the time the Wheelan bills had been hastened to the floor of the Senate, the reform Senators apparently awoke to the fact that some sort of a job was on the way. When the bills came up for final pa.s.sage, however, the anti-machine Senators were apparently as much at a loss concerning them as the anti-machine a.s.semblymen had been.

Bill number 221 came up first, and even Senator Bell, the staunchest opponent of bad laws of them all, voted for it. With Senator Bell voted Caminetti, Estudillo, Rush, Thompson and Walker, who were ordinarily against the pa.s.sage of bad bills. As the measure received but twenty-three votes, any three of these by voting no could have defeated it.

Price, who had voted for the bill, gave notice, at the request of a fellow Senator, that on the next legislative day he would move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been pa.s.sed.

Before taking up a.s.sembly bill 222, companion bill to 221, the Senate pa.s.sed three measures and considered several others. By the time a.s.sembly bill 222 was reached, Senator Bell had got his bearings, and voted against it. Caminetti had also found himself, and although Caminetti voted for the measure, he gave notice, that on the next legislative day he would move for its reconsideration.

The third of the bills, No. 223, followed 222, and Walker, who had voted for the two other bills, voted ”no.” The bill was pa.s.sed by twenty-three votes, Cutten voting ”aye” for the purpose of giving notice to reconsider.

The motions to reconsider were voted upon on the afternoon of Monday, March 22, the day of the final fight on the Direct Primary bill in both Senate and a.s.sembly. n.o.body was thinking of much of anything else that day. In every instance reconsideration was denied[80]. The vote by which they had pa.s.sed the Senate stood.

[79] Governor Gillett signed a.s.sembly bills Nos. 221 and 222. They are now the law of the State. a.s.sembly bill No. 223 he did not sign. It did not, therefore, become a law.

[80] The a.s.sembly history of March 23, fails to record that the motions to reconsider were made on the three Wheelan bills. In an article concerning these bills which the writer prepared for the Sacramento Bee, governed by the official record of the measures, the History of the House in which they originated, he stated that motions for their reconsideration were not made. The Senate Journal of March 22, however, pages 23 and 26, shows that these motions were made, and in all three cases defeated.

Chapter XVIII.

Defeat of the Local Option Bill.

Peculiar Arrangement by Which the Bill Was Sidetracked in the a.s.sembly - Stanton Promised That It Should Pa.s.s the Lower House If It Pa.s.sed the Senate - How It Was Smothered in the Upper House.

Because there is no particular reason why California should not have a Local Option law, in the face of popular demand for it, a large number of very worthy citizens a.s.sumed that one would be pa.s.sed. The fact seems to have been lost sight of that the tenderloin element opposes such legislation, and that the management of the so-called liquor interests organized as the ”Royal Arch,” takes a shortsighted view of Local Option provisions. The machine was thus interested. Its representatives in Senate and a.s.sembly did not propose that any Local Option bill should pa.s.s. So the Local Option bill was smothered. The smothering process most suggestively indicates how such things can be done.

The measure was introduced in the a.s.sembly by Wyllie and in the Senate by Estudillo. In the face of the popular demand for the pa.s.sage of such a bill, and the exasperation of a no small portion of the voters of the State, at the mistake - or trick - by which in 1907 the only measure resembling a Local Option law was rubbed off the statute books, it was not good policy to fight the bill in the open. So the machine proceeded to do covertly what would have been ”poor politics” to do openly[81].

The same bill having been introduced both in Senate and a.s.sembly, the first step was to tie up either the a.s.sembly or the Senate measure, so that the whole crafty campaign against the bill's pa.s.sage could be confined to one House. The way in which this was done was simplicity itself. The Wyllie bill, as introduced in the a.s.sembly was, at the request of Speaker Stanton, held up in the a.s.sembly Committee on Public Morals. Most plausible reason was given for this course. It was pointed out that since the a.s.sembly had gone on record before the Senate on the anti-gambling bill, on women's suffrage[80a] and other ”moral” issues, it was unfair to compel the lower House to go on record before the Senate on the Local Option bill. Speaker Stanton a.s.sured the proponents of the measure that if it pa.s.sed the Senate, it should pa.s.s the a.s.sembly.

Stanton accordingly recognized that the a.s.sembly, given an opportunity, would pa.s.s the bill. Had it pa.s.sed the a.s.sembly before the middle of February, it would unquestionably have pa.s.sed the Senate. But the proponents of the measure consented to the plan to make the Senate act first. The fight for the pa.s.sage of the bill accordingly took place in the Senate.

Before taking up the Senate measure introduced by Estudillo, the Wyllie bill may as well be disposed of. It was introduced in the a.s.sembly January 8th, and was sent to the Committee on Public Morals. There it lay until March 13th, two months and five days, when the proponents of the measure, realizing that they were being tricked, made their protest so loud that the measure was reported by the Committee, but without recommendation. There was no time then to pa.s.s the bill, and on March 15th it was withdrawn by its author.

The Estudillo bill, as it was known on the Senate side of the Capitol, had a more eventful history. Introduced in the Senate on January 8th, it had gone to the famous Committee on Election Laws, which had been stacked for the defeat of the Direct Primary bill. Estudillo was, to be sure, Chairman of the Committee, but a lamb herding lions never had a harder job on its hands than did Estudillo. He could not get his committee together to consider the well-backed Direct Primary bill, let alone the worthy but not politically supported local option measure.

Along about the middle of February, however, Estudillo succeeded in getting the committee to act. By a vote of four to four the committee refused to recommend the Local Option bill for pa.s.sage. Senator Stetson, who favored the pa.s.sage of the measure, to compel committee action and get the bill before the Senate, thereupon moved that the bill be referred back to the Senate with recommendation that it do not pa.s.s.

Senator Stetson's motion prevailed.

Thus, the measure went back to the Senate with a majority committee report that it do not pa.s.s. But in spite of this adverse report, the Senate pa.s.sed the measure on second reading and sent it to engrossment and third reading. It looked very much just then as though the bill would pa.s.s the Senate.

But the resourceful machine had other plans. When the measure came up for final pa.s.sage on February 24th, instead of being voted upon, and pa.s.sed or defeated, it was amended.