Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909 Part 8

The uniting of the anti-machine Senators to fight the combined machine Democrats and Republicans called down upon the anti-machine element the denunciation of the machine press. The Catkins newspapers, for example, sputtered their condemnation of Republican Senators who would unite with Democratic Senators in "rump caucus."

On the other hand the San Francisco Call, at that time warmly supporting the anti-machine movement in the Senate, was extreme in denouncing Lieutenant-Governor Porter, presiding officer of the Senate, Leavitt, Wolfe, and all others who were opposing the pa.s.sage of the Direct Primary measure as it had originally been introduced by Wright, and as it had been agreed upon in the reform caucus[38].

The fight in the Senate came on the second reading of the bill February 18th. On the 16th, however, the setting for the contest had been fixed by the majority of the Committee on Election Laws, which reported with favorable recommendation the measure as the Committee had cut it to pieces. The minority of the Committee, Estudillo, Stetson and Wright, reported back the bill agreed upon by the non-partisan caucus of anti-machine Senators.

But the fight did not come over either report. When the bill came up on the 18th for second reading and amendment, Senator McCartney, on behalf of the machine forces, introduced a resolution over which the contest waged. McCartney's resolution provided that the bill should be so amended that the primary vote for United States Senator should be by districts and advisory only, and that for county and local offices a vote of 25 per cent and for State offices a vote of 40 per cent should nominate[39].

The debate was over this resolution. The motion for its adoption was defeated by a vote of twenty-seven against to thirteen for[40].

Incidentally, the debate settled one of the most important questions affecting the bill, namely, the percentage of votes to be required for primary nominations. The machine, to render the measure inoperative, was contending for a majority or at least a high plurality vote, while the anti-machine element was contending for a mere plurality. The debate developed the fact, that any provision for other than a mere plurality vote would be unconst.i.tutional. This service was performed by Senator Cutten of Humboldt[41]. Senator Cutten's clear presentation of this much discussed point, settled the vote percentage question right there. When the measure was under consideration by the a.s.sembly Election Laws Committee, Grove L. Johnson did suggest that a 40 per cent plurality be required to nominate. But no serious attempt was made so to amend the bill, after Cutten's speech, and the defeat of the McCartney amendment.

Naturally, the anti-machine forces felt warmly encouraged by this complete defeat of the machine. The San Francisco Call, the recognized advocate of the Direct Primary bill, the next day, February 19th, said of the outcome:

"Twenty-seven Senators at Sacramento stood true to their party pledges, and voiced the will of the people in their votes on the Direct Primary bill yesterday. Thirteen other Senators wrote into the record conclusive proof of their unfitness for the offices they hold, when they voted against the Wright-Stanton bill, and for the corrupt political machine which is the Southern Pacific Railroad.

Every man of these thirteen confessed corruptionists knew what he was doing, knew whose will he was putting above The People's. Every one of these thirteen betrayers of the public weal has written the epitaph of his political tombstone."

The Call was as generous in its praise of the anti-machine Democrats and Republicans as it was bitter against the machine Senators who had endeavored to force the McCartney amendment into the bill. While that paper printed the names of the thirteen in bold, black type on the first page under the heading, "These Men Voted for the Machine," in type just as bold and just as black it printed in an honor column the names of the twenty-seven who had voted against the McCartney amendment, under the heading, "These Men Voted for the People."

Said the Call in its admirable report of the defeat of the McCartney amendment, of the original nineteen anti-machine Senators who had organized to resist the machine:

"Genuine manhood has been on tap at every conference of the independents. They have not squabbled for partisan advantage. They have worked together to give The People an honest and genuine Direct Primary measure. Senator Wright won a brilliant fight. He won it with and through the earnest co-operation of the unbossed Democrats and Republicans."

Said the Call of the measure itself in its issue of February 18th - the day of the defeat of the machine Senators:

"The Direct Primary bill is The People's bill. Such men as Dooling, Wright, Stanton, Davis and Cartwright made it. There is no honest argument against it, there will be no honest Senators against it."

Such was the view of the Call on February 18. Few were willing to believe on that date that within a month the Call would have thrown its influence on the side of Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter in an attempt to force part of the McCartney amendment into the Direct Primary bill. It did not seem possible then that within a month the Call would be denouncing, ridiculing and misrepresenting Senators whose efforts had resulted in the defeat of the McCartney amendment because of the refusal of these anti-machine Senators to join with the machine Senators whom they had once defeated, and accept the amendment which they had once rejected. It did not then seem possible that on March 18th the Call would be behind the thirteen "betrayers of the public weal," itself betraying the Senators whose "genuine manhood" had on February 18 appealed to its editors so strongly.

But such was to be. And, too, the combination of Calkins Syndicate, Lieutenant-Governor Porter, Senator Leroy A. Wright, the San Francisco Call and the thirteen "betrayers of the public weal" proved too much for the little band of anti-machine Senators. And what is more, backed by the Call, the machine leaders finally amended the Direct Primary bill, which on February 18th the Call had stated very positively no honest Senator would be against.

[37] Wright's amendment had been carefully typewritten before the meeting. It read as follows,

"Party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall have their name placed on the official primary election ballots of their respective parties in the manner herein provided for State Office, provided, however, that the vote for candidate for United States Senator shall be an advisory vote for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiment of the voters in their respective parties."

[38] On February 17th the Call said of Senator Eddie Wolfe's opposition to the bill:

"The fight (Direct Primary) promises to be both spirited and bitter.

Eddie Wolfe of San Francisco, picked by the machine to make its fight for the garroting of the Direct Primary bill, by the injection of a majority nominating clause, has served notice that he proposes to tear the reformers to pieces."

Of Leavitt and other machine Senators, the Call on the same date said:

"Leavitt, who bossed the fight against the Otis-Walker bill, will furnish the brains for the fight against the Direct Primary bill, and every one of the seven who voted against the Otis-Walker bill, are more or less frankly against the primary bill. Savage, who did not vote against the Walker-Otis bill because his vote would have done no good, and Hartman and Hare, who did vote against the Otis-Walker bill, have gone on record against honest direct Primaries, as members of the majority of the Senate Committee on Election Laws. Savage is frank enough to admit that he is opposed to any direct primary law."

[39] The McCartney resolution was in full-as follows:

"Resolved, That Senate Bill No. 3, and all pending amendments thereto, be and the same is hereby referred to the Committee on Elections and Election Laws, with the following instructions:

"1. Amend the bill so as to give an advisory vote by districts on United States Senators."

"2. Amend the bill by providing for a percentage of votes before nomination by direct vote of the people, as follows: If the highest candidate for any county or local office receive less than 25 per cent of the vote of his party, and if the highest candidate for a State office receive less than 40 per cent of the vote of his party, that the nomination shall be referred to a convention of delegates elected at the same time that candidates are voted on by direct vote."

"3. Amend the bill by providing that the convention aforesaid shall prepare the platform of the party and perfect party organization."

[40] The vote in full was as follows:

Against the McCartney amendment and in effect for the bill agreed upon by the anti-machine Senators: Anthony, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Hurd, Lewis, Martinelli, Miller, Price, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Welch, Wright - 27.

For the McCartney amendment and in effect against the bill agreed upon by the anti-machine Senators: Bates, Bills, Finn, Hare, Hartman, Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis, Wolfe - 13.

[41] Cutten showed that Section 13, Article XX of the State Const.i.tution provides that "a plurality of the votes given at any election shall const.i.tute a choice where not otherwise directed in this Const.i.tution."

Senator Cutten then proceeded to demonstrate that a primary election is an election within the meaning of the terms used. The Supreme Court of Indiana has so declared, and, coming nearer home, Cutten showed that the California Supreme Court has so held also.

In The People vs. Cavanaugh, 112 California, the Supreme Court held that any primary election that should become mandatory becomes an election and only those primaries that may be optional with a party as to whether or not they should be held, are not elections.

The Wright-Stanton bill and the Direct Primary amendment to the Const.i.tution make the direct primaries mandatory, nor is there anything in the State Const.i.tution providing that anything other than a plurality vote shall be required to nominate. For the Legislature to have yielded to the machine's demand that a majority or high plurality vote be required to nominate and inserted such a provision in the Direct Primary bill, would have been to render that measure unconst.i.tutional, for under the plain provisions of the Const.i.tution only a plurality vote can be required to nominate.

Were a majority or even high percentage plurality vote required to nominate, the Direct Primary law would have been made unconst.i.tutional, because:

1. A plurality might not be equal to the percentage or majority.

2. A percentage or majority contemplates a convention to nominate in case the candidate does not receive the percentage or majority, and a convention, the best authorities hold, is prohibited under the const.i.tutional amendment providing for the primary election.

Chapter X.

Fight Over a.s.sembly Amendments.

Machine Succeeds in Amending the Direct Primary Bill in the a.s.sembly - a.s.semblyman Pulcifer at Critical Moment Votes with the Machine - Senate, Although Held Up By Machine Element for a Week, Refuses to Concur in a.s.sembly's Action.

The machine Senators, having failed to amend the Direct Primary bill on its second reading, apparently accepted their whipping, and allowed the measure to go through third reading and final pa.s.sage without opposition[42].

Twenty-seven Senators at the final roll call voted for it; not one vote was cast against it. Even Leavitt and Wolfe voted for it. The anti-machine Senators had won "a glorious victory."

But the victory was one tempered with grave misgivings on the part of careful observers of machine trickery. The fact that the bill as it had pa.s.sed the Senate contained several serious clerical and typographical errors, and that its t.i.tle was unsatisfactory if not defective, worried the genuine supporters of the bill not a little. The bill had been loosely drawn to begin with, and as originally introduced contained most unfortunate clerical errors, which bobbed up at most inopportune times.

At every stage of its pa.s.sage in the Senate such errors were uncovered, and after it had pa.s.sed second reading, no less than eight serious errors were discovered to be still in the bill. The only way these errors could be corrected was by amendment.

The errors were called to the attention of Senator Wright and of George Van Smith of the Call, who were urged to have them corrected in the Senate that the bill might go to the a.s.sembly letter perfect, and without necessity of amendment[43]. But both Van Smith and Wright were of the opinion that time would be gained by leaving the a.s.sembly to make the corrections.

The bill as it finally pa.s.sed the Senate was a defective bill, the defects of which could be corrected in the a.s.sembly only by amendment.

In the end the fate of the measure was made to hinge on these clerical and typographical defects.

The a.s.sembly Committee on Election Laws had been stacked against the pa.s.sage of a Direct Primary bill, precisely as the Senate Committee had been. At the first meeting held by the Committee to consider the measure, it became evident that the majority of the Committee would, if it could, put the McCartney amendments, which had been defeated in the Senate, into the bill.