Part 24 (2/2)

When the first fight over the Direct Primary bill came up in the Senate, it will be remembered, the anti-machine forces defeated the machine by a vote of twenty-seven to thirteen. Of the thirteen Senators who voted to amend the bill to the liking of Wolfe and Leavitt, six - almost fifty per cent - were from San Francisco. They were Finn, Hare, Hartman, Kennedy, Reily, Wolfe.

When the machine element had succeeded in amending the Direct Primary measure to its liking in the a.s.sembly and there came a new alignment on the bill in the Senate, eight of the nine San Francisco Senators voted with Wolfe and Leavitt for the amendments, which denied the people of California State-wide vote on candidates for the United States Senate.

One San Francisco Senator only, Anthony, voted with the better element in the Senate, against the amendments.

Had only two of the nine Senators from San Francisco voted for the bill in its original form, the measure would have been pa.s.sed by a vote of twenty-one to nineteen without the machine amendments.

The influence of the San Francisco members in shaping the Direct Primary law was even more forcibly ill.u.s.trated in the a.s.sembly. Of the eighteen San Francisco a.s.semblymen, fifteen voted for the a.s.sembly amendments, two, Callan and Gerdes, voted against them, and Hopkins is not recorded as voting.

It will be remembered that the amendments were read into the bill by a vote of thirty-six to thirty-eight. Had the San Francisco delegation divided even on this vote, had nine voted for the amendments and nine against, the vote would have been forty-three against putting them in the bill, and thirty-two for, the bill would not have been amended in the a.s.sembly; it would have become a law in the same shape that it had originally pa.s.sed the Senate. It is noticeable that in an a.s.sembly of eighty members, only twenty-three of the a.s.semblymen who voted for the a.s.sembly amendments to the Direct Primary bill were from outside San Francisco. In the Senate eight of the twenty Senators who voted for the amendments were from San Francisco, only twelve were from outside that city. Thus, out of 120 members in the Legislature, ninety-three of whom were from outside San Francisco, only thirty-five from districts outside the metropolis voted for the a.s.sembly, or machine amendments to the Direct Primary bill. But twenty-three of the twenty-seven San Francisco Senators and a.s.semblymen did vote for them, and only three of the San Francisco members voted against them.

It will be seen that the people of California who live outside San Francisco are decidedly interested in the character of Senators and a.s.semblymen whom that city sends to the Legislature.

The people of San Francisco are, of course, as much concerned over reasonable regulation of the transportation companies as Californians living outside that city. But the San Francisco Senators were a unit in their opposition to the pa.s.sage of an effective railroad regulation measure.

The fight over the railroad regulation came in the Senate. The final line-up showed eighteen Senators for the effective Stetson bill and against the ineffective Wright bill; while twenty-two Senators were against the Stetson bill and for the Wright bill. The Wright bill was accordingly pa.s.sed. Every one of the nine San Francisco Senators voted for the Wright bill. Only thirteen Senators who voted for the Wright bill were from outside San Francisco.

In a word, the proponents of the Stetson bill were from the start handicapped by a solid delegation of nine from San Francisco which they could not overcome. Had three of the nine San Francisco Senators been for the Stetson bill, that measure would now be the law of California.

The transportation issue was fought out in the a.s.sembly over the Sanford Senate resolution endorsing Bristow's plan to establish a line of Government steamers between San Francisco and Panama. The fruit growers of Southern California are particularly interested in this project. The a.s.sembly, however, amended all reference to the Bristow report and all criticism of the Pacific Mail Steams.h.i.+p Company and the railroads out of the resolution.

Of the eighteen San Francisco a.s.semblymen only one, Callan, voted against the amendments; fourteen - Beatty, Beban, Coghlan, Collum, Cullen, Hopkins, Lightner, Macauley, McMa.n.u.s, Nelson, O'Neil, Pugh, Perine and Wheelan - voted for the amendments, while three - Black, Gerdes and Schmitt - did not vote at all.

The Local Option bill was also killed by San Francisco votes. This measure was strongly backed by the rural districts. The various counties, particularly those engaged in farming, dairying and fruit growing, sent representatives to the Legislature instructed to vote for Local Option. The issue in all ways concerned the country districts rather than the large cities. But the votes of the San Francisco Senators defeated the Local Option bill.

The first fight over the Local Option bill came when in the ordinary course of events it reached third reading. Instead of letting a vote be taken on the measure, Wolfe moved that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee. This was clearly a move against the pa.s.sage of the bill, for it meant delay which might prove fatal. But Wolfe's motion prevailed by a vote of twenty to fifteen. The nine San Francisco Senators voted to refer the bill to the committee, only eleven Senators from outside San Francisco voted with them.

The nine members from San Francisco continued consistent in their opposition to the measure. When the Local Option bill did come to a vote their nine votes were cast against it.

The people of Del Norte county and the people of San Diego county are denied the privilege of voting ”Wet or dry” because of the opposition to the Local Option bill of the solid San Francisco delegation in the Senate. It will be seen that the people of these distant counties are decidedly interested in political conditions in San Francisco, for in a large way the character of the San Francisco delegation in the Legislature is unmistakably reflected in the laws which are pa.s.sed for the government of the entire State.

Taken as a whole, the San Francisco delegation in Senate and a.s.sembly were nothing for that city to be proud of, and at a critical moment San Francisco came near paying dearly for her Hartmans, Hares, Macauleys and McMa.n.u.ses. But for the intervention of the country members the Islais Creek bond project would have been defeated.

The improvement calls for the purchase of sixty-three water blocks at Islais Creek to be converted into an inland harbor. The future development of San Francisco depends largely upon this improvement. But private interests demanded that nineteen of the sixty-three blocks be excluded from the plan, which would have rendered the whole project impracticable. When the fight came on, San Francisco Senators and a.s.semblymen opposed the purchase of the sixty-three blocks.

To begin with, Senator Wolfe, as member of the State Harbors Committee, had signed a report which recommended that forty-four blocks only be purchased. But Wolfe afterwards insisted that he had signed the report not knowing what he was doing.

When the fight for the improvement came up in the Senate, only two Senators, Hartman and Reily, both of San Francisco, opposed the project.

They were in the end ignominiously defeated, every Senator present voting against them. But both Hartman and Reily did the best they knew how to defeat the purchase of the area necessary for the improvement.

The San Francisco delegation in its opposition to the Islais Creek project had better success in the a.s.sembly. Nine San Francisco a.s.semblymen, Beban, Black, Cullen, Lightner, Macauley, McMa.n.u.s, O'Neil, Perine and Wheelan, united against the measure as it had pa.s.sed the Senate. They succeeded in throwing doubt upon the necessity of the purchase of sixty-three blocks, and finally won twenty-two outside members over to their way of thinking. Had it not been for the efforts of a.s.semblymen Callan, Beatty and Nelson of San Francisco, backed by the Los Angeles delegation, the Islais Creek Harbor project would unquestionably have been defeated in the a.s.sembly, solely because of the opposition of nine San Francisco a.s.semblymen.

But there is plenty of evidence of improved political conditions at San Francisco. An anti-machine Board of Supervisors is standing out manfully against the demands of machine-protected interests. The District Attorney's office is, indeed, pressing representatives of those interests pretty close to the doors of the penitentiary, although the District Attorney is handicapped by laws for which San Francisco is largely responsible, because of the character of the men whom session after session she has sent to the Legislature.

There is, however, enough to warrant the belief that San Francisco will improve the character of the a.s.sembly and Senate delegation. Upon such improvement, the well-being of the whole State largely depends.

<script>