Part 25 (2/2)

Naturally, the backers of the Fish and Game Commission made a hard fight for the measure's pa.s.sage. But in spite of their efforts they could not edge it through the Senate until March 3d. In the a.s.sembly, the measure met genuine opposition.

The a.s.sembly Committee on Fish and Game of course recommended it for pa.s.sage, and on March 15th, after a hot fight, it actually pa.s.sed the a.s.sembly. But Cattell gave notice of reconsideration. Incidentally, Governor Gillett let it be known that he would veto any measure that required amateur fishermen to pay license. This was a damper upon the Fish Commission crowd. When Cattell called the bill up for reconsideration it was reconsidered and defeated. However, Leeds accepted an amendment which struck out the clause which provided that amateur fishermen must pay a license tax. On Leeds' motion the next day, the amended bill was reconsidered and pa.s.sed.

The three Fish and Game Commissioners serve without salary. Their compensation comes from the pleasure of disbursing upwards of $200,000 a year, what political prestige there may be in it, and rather generous expense money[102]. But a bill was introduced to give each Commissioner a salary of $3,000 a year. The measure did not become law, for which the writer believes much credit is due a.s.semblymen Polsley of Red Bluff. The State was thus saved $9,000 a year. General Stone and his a.s.sociates are just that amount out of pocket. They have, however, given no indication of resigning their offices because the salary has been denied them.

But if the Fish and Game Commission was unsuccessful in increasing its revenue and putting through other measures from the standpoint of its members advantageous, its opponents were quite as unsuccessful in their attacks upon the Commission. Like the panther cat that guards her young, the agents of the Commission fought to retain the advantages which they had secured in 1907, and were generally successful.

The chief of the attacks was that of a.s.semblyman Polsley, author of a.s.sembly Bill 433. This bill wasn't very long, contained less than five lines, in fact, and just forty-three words, but its pa.s.sage would have saved the people of California more than $100,000 a year, or almost as much as it costs the State to run the Governor's office, the Controller's office, the State Treasurer's office and the office of State Superintendent of Schools combined. a.s.sembly Bill 433 repealed the law of 1907, under which hunters are required to pay the Fish and Game Commission for the privilege of going hunting. The bill was introduced January 15th. It was referred to the notorious a.s.sembly Committee on Fish and Game. There it was held until March 10th. It was then referred back to the a.s.sembly with the recommendation that it ”do not pa.s.s.” That settled a.s.sembly Bill 433.

Another measure which caused the agents of the Fish Commission much worry was introduced in the a.s.sembly by Preston and in the Senate by Sanford. This bill provided that $50,000 should be paid out of the Fish and Game Commission fund each year to be used in paying bounties for exterminating coyotes. This would have left the Commission only about $130,000 a year. Naturally, the agents of the Commission resented the raid on their funds. The measure was referred to the a.s.sembly Committee on Fish and Game. This was on January 18th. And it never was heard of after.

The companion Senate measure, introduced by Sanford, got further, but not much. The Senate Committee reported it ”without recommendation.” But even so, it pa.s.sed second reading and went to engrossment and third reading. There it languished. On March 18th it was withdrawn by its author.

Another measure which gave the Commissioners a deal of worry was one introduced by Johnson of Placer, which provided that to each hunter who took fifty blue jay heads to the County's Clerk's office should be issued a hunter's license free. It was thought that this would encourage boys to kill blue jays for the hunter's license prize, value one dollar.

But General Stone could not see it that way.

”If this bill becomes a law,” said General Stone, ”we shall have to retrench somewhere.”

The bill didn't become a law, and the Fish and Game Commission was saved.

But the most ”unkindest cut of all” came when the a.s.sembly attempted to break into that sacred Fish and Game Commission fund by way of resolution. The a.s.sembly actually adopted a resolution calling for a Commission to be appointed by the Governor for the purpose of ascertaining the feasibility of dividing the State into game districts, and generously providing $5,000 out of the Fish Commission fund for that purpose. Naturally the agents of the Fish Commission were scandalized at this proposed reckless expenditure of moneys from their fund by somebody else. But they were powerless. The resolution went through.

Rather late in the session the a.s.sembly discovered that under the law it cannot ”resolute” money out of any fund other than the a.s.sembly contingent fund. The resolution was not, therefore, worth the paper it was printed on. Once again the sacred Fish Commission fund was saved.

But the a.s.sembly could switch money out of the fund by legislative enactment, and a bill covering the same ground as the resolution was introduced without delay.

The measure pa.s.sed the a.s.sembly but did not reach the Senate until March 22d, two days before adjournment. That was very late for such a measure, but a heroic effort was made to secure its pa.s.sage.

On Estudillo's motion, an attempt was made to suspend the State Const.i.tution, declare the bill a matter of special urgency, and pa.s.s it forthwith. But the motion failed. Again did the Fish Commission escape a raid on its fund.

Senator Walker and a.s.semblyman Rutherford introduced measures providing for a distribution of the fund with counties, which at any rate looked pretty good to the counties, although the agents of the Fish Commission were not pleased at all.

The bills provided that one-half of the moneys collected from the sale of hunters' licenses, and on account of fines for infringement of the State game laws, should be paid to the counties in which collected, and the balance go to the Fish Commission fund.

Walker's bill was introduced on January 8th. It went to the Senate Committee on Fish and Game and was never heard of after.

Rutherford's bill was introduced on January 15th. It went to the a.s.sembly Committee on Fish and Game. Like the Walker bill, the Rutherford bill was lost in committee oblivion.

Such, from the standpoint of the more important bills to increase and to decrease the Fish Commission fund, was the record of fish and game legislation. The Fish and Game Commission - and its overgrown fund - is still with us. But it might have been infinitely worse. Bad little boys who play hookey from Sunday-school to go fis.h.i.+ng, for example, might have - in addition to the other frightful penalties imposed on them - been compelled to pay a license tax of $1 for the privilege.

[100] That the Fish and Game Committee would whitewash the Commission was recognized from the first. Even members of the machine who stand for genuine game protection objected to this committee making the investigation. When the motion was made to refer the resolution to this committee, a.s.semblyman Greer of Sacramento, took the floor to protest:

”It is useless to refer the matter to the Committee on Fish and Game,”

said Greer, ”for we all know what that committee will do. We'll get no action there. Let it go to some committee that will give it consideration.”

<script>