Part 23 (1/2)

Charles R. Detrick of Palo Alto, during the call of the House ordered on account of the Stanford bill, was discussing the merits of the measure with a.s.semblyman Bohnett, who was leading the fight for its pa.s.sage. It was not a case of lobbying at all, for both men were for the bill,

Nevertheless, a.s.semblyman Schmitt[99a], who overheard Detrick mention the measure, warned the Stanford man, that if he (Detrick) did not cease his ”lobbying” for the bill that he (Schmitt) would have him (Detrick) excluded from the chamber.

Senator Walker, although a member of the Senate, had much the same experience. Walker was discussing the Stanford bill with a friend, when one of the opponents of the measure threatened him with expulsion from the floor of the a.s.sembly if he did not desist.

And even while these threats were being made against the proponents of the bill, opponents of the measure were working openly on the floor of the a.s.sembly chamber against its pa.s.sage. No suggestion was made that the rule prohibiting lobbying be enforced against them.

[98] A party of newspapermen were in Anderson's office one evening, when two or three machine men came in. With a wink to Anderson one of the newspapermen asked - ”The head of your detective bureau is that keen looking young fellow, with reddish brown hair and brown eyes, is he not, Anderson?” Anderson joined in the Joke and nodded. One of the machine men left the room immediately. Within an hour, a hunt was being made from one end of Sacramento to the other, for a ”keen-looking young man with reddish brown hair and brown eyes.”

[99] The communication which insulted Wheelan read as follows:

The Hon. Albert P. Wheelan, Member of a.s.sembly.

Dear Sir: -

The People's Legislative Bureau, organized chiefly for the collection and dissemination of accurate information regarding legislation, and the att.i.tude of members of the Legislature thereon, notes that you are recorded as having been absent when the roll was called on the motion to refer the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill back to the committee.

As our record is intended to be permanent, and will be placed in the hands of all the newspapers and civic organizations throughout the State, we wish to ask if you have any objection to furnis.h.i.+ng us the reason for your absence, so that we may enter it upon our record.

Respectfully yours,

GEORGE B. ANDERSON,

Secretary.

[99a] This is the same Schmitt who objected so strenuously to professors of the State University being identified with reform movements.

Chapter XXII.

The Machine Lobbyist At Work.

How, Jere Burke Arrayed the County Officials of the State Against Two Beneficial Measures - How the Power of the Southern Pacific Was Employed Against a California Enterprise - Danger Which Constantly Menaces Legitimate Enterprises.

The problem of drawing the line between legitimate and reprehensible lobbying has perplexed wiser men than sat in the California Legislature of 1909.

On the side of the lobbyist it may be said there seems no good reason why a citizen or representative of a corporation which is interested in pending legislation should not appear at the Capitol and in a legitimate way present his case to the members of the Legislature. In fact, the theory of committee consideration of measures introduced in Senate or a.s.sembly, is based on the principle that it is the citizen's right to be heard on any matter that may be pending before the Legislature. The citizen cannot be heard before either the Senate or a.s.sembly; he can, however, present his case to the committee the decision of which carries weight with that branch of the Legislature for which it acts. No one can object, for example, that Mr. P. F. Dunne appeared before the Senate Committee on Corporations, when the Railroad Regulation bill was under consideration, to present the railroad's side. Mr. Dunne appeared openly and aboveboard, and although he sought deliberately to misrepresent the situation to the Committee, nevertheless to object to his visiting Sacramento, or even to the work which he did while there, would be forced and far-fetched.

In the same way, Mr. Seth Mann, representing the s.h.i.+ppers of California, appeared before the Committee and presented the side of the s.h.i.+ppers.

Mr. Mann spoke for the s.h.i.+ppers precisely as Mr. Dunne spoke for the railroads. Mr. Mann, however, did not stoop to misrepresentation and deception.

But if Mr. Dunne for the railroads or Mr. Mann for the s.h.i.+ppers had departed from openly-presented argument to b.u.t.tonhole Senators or a.s.semblymen to tell them they must vote for or against a given measure, or look out for trouble, immediately would he be open to criticism. If either went during roll call from Legislator to Legislator to tell the members how they were to vote, again would he be justly criticized. Or had Mr. Dunne employed the influence of the great corporation which he represents to defeat or pa.s.s a measure in which his company can have no legitimate interest, again would there be good reason for complaint. Mr.

Dunne could very properly - while acting as agent of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company - urge in a legitimate way the corporation's objections to the Demurrage bill, to the Full Crew bill, to the Railroad Regulation bill, or any other measure affecting common carriers. But for Mr. Dunne to have employed the influence of his position as political representative of a common carrier to force the pa.s.sage of the Change of Venue bill for example, or defeat an effective Direct Primary bill, or the Party Circle bill, or the Judicial Column bill, would have been most reprehensible, for the Southern Pacific Company can have no legitimate interest in any of these measures.

So far as the writer knows, Mr. Dunne did not concern himself with any measure, except those in which his company was legitimately interested.

But paid servants of the Southern Pacific Company were at Sacramento throughout the entire session, and managed to have their fingers in about all that was going on. The most conspicuous of them was Mr. J. T.

Burke, more familiarly known as ”Jere” Burke.

A fair sample of Burke's methods - and Burke is merely typical of the objectionable lobbyist - is found in the campaign which was carried on against Senate Bills 1229 and 1230. Had these measures become laws, it would have been possible for county a.s.sessors to discover property, owned princ.i.p.ally by public service corporations, which at present escapes taxation. It is estimated that the total taxable value of this untaxed property is $100,000,000. It is not taxed because a.s.sessors have no means of reaching it. Mr. Burke's company could have no legitimate interest in Senate Bills 1229 and 1230. This statement is made, of course, on the a.s.sumption that the officials of the Southern Pacific Company aim to make honest returns to the tax collector. But to return to Senate Bills 1229 and 1230, and Burke's connection with them.