Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909 by Franklin Hichborn

Part 6 out of 6

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.6 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

Hayes F F 6
Hewitt F F 6
Hinkle F F 6
Holmquist F F 6
Hopkins A A 6
Irwin F F 3 3
Johnson, G. L. F A 1 5
Johnson, P. A. F A 1 5
Johnson, P. H. F F 3 3
Johnston, T. D. F A 1 5
Juilliard F F 3 3
Kehoe F F 6
Leeds F F 6
Lightner F F 5 1
Macauley A A 6
Maher F F 5 1
McClellan F F 4 2
McManus A A 6
Melrose F F 6
Mendenhall F F 6
Moore F 2 3 1
Mott F A 2 4
Nelson F F 2 4
Odom F F 3 3
Otis F F 6
O'Neil A A 6
Perine F F 5 1
Polsley F F 6
Preston F F 6
Pugh A A 6
Pulcifer F F 6
Rech F F 6
Rutherford F F 6
Sackett F F 4 2
Schmitt A 5 1
Silver F F 6
Stanton F F 6
Stuckenbruck F F 6
Telfer F F 6
Transue F F 6
Wagner F A 3 3
Webber F F 2 4
Wheelan F 1 3 2
Whitney F F 6
Wilson F F 6
Wyatt
Wyllie F F 6
Young F F 6
________________________________________________________
Totals 67 10 19 57 321 137 16

Table E-Records of the San Francisco Senate Delegation on Sixteen Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G H
______________________________________________________________________________
To Test To refer To do Second
admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First Second
Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote Vote
to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford Stanford
Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill. Bill.
______________________________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
______________________________________________________________________________
Anthony * * * 0 0 * *
Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 *
Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 0
Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 0
Reily * 0 0 0 0 0
Welch * * * 0 0 0
Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0 *
______________________________________________________________________________
Totals 3 4 6 3 4 5 9 0 3 6 4 5 5 0 3 4

I J K L M N O
_______________________________________________________________________________

Test Vote Local Assembly Change To
Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment of reconsider
Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct Venue Change of
Primary. Bill.
Venue Bill.
________________________________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
________________________________________________________________________________
Anthony 0 * 0 0 * 0 0
Burnett 0 0 * 0
Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hare 0 * 0 0 0 0
Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kennedy 0 * 0 0 0 *
Reily 0 * 0 0 0 0 0
Welch 0 * 0 0 0 0 0
Wolfe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 0 9 5 2 0 9 1 7 8 1 7 1 0 7

P Totals
__________________________________
To
investigate For Against
Freight Reform Reform
Rates.
__________________________________
Senator Aye No
__________________________________
Anthony 0 7 8
Burnett * 5 7
Finn 0 0 15
Hare 3 10
Hartman 0 0 16
Kennedy 0 5 9
Reily 0 2 12
Welch 0 4 9
Wolfe 0 3 13
__________________________________
Totals 1 6 29 99

Table F-Records of San Francisco Assembly Delegation on Eleven Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

(a) - Changed Vote from no to aye to give notice to reconsider.
Was against the bill.

A B C D E F
______________________________________________________________________________
Drew's To
Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall amend
Reject Walker-Otis Walker- reconsider S. J. R. S. J.
Committee's Bill to Otis Walker-Otis No. 3 from R. No.
Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. 3.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
______________________________________________________________________________
Beatty * * * 0
Beban 0 0 0 0 0
Black * 0 0 0
Callan * * * * * *
Coghlan 0 0 0 0 0
Collum * 0 0 0
Cullen 0 0 0 0 0
Gerdes 0 * * * *
Hopkins * 0 0 0 0
Lightner * * * * 0
Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 0
McManus 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nelson 0 0 * * 0 0
O'Neil * 0 0 0 0 0
Pugh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perine 0 * * * 0
Schmitt 0 0 0 0
Wheelan * * 0 0
______________________________________________________________________________
Totals 7 10 12 5 7 10 10 6 2 7 14 1

G H I J K Totals
________________________________________________________________________________
To To deny
Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on
on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial For Against Absent
Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column Reform Reform
Harbor Second Bill.
Bill. Reading.
________________________________________________________________________________
Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
________________________________________________________________________________
Beatty 0 * * 0 * 6 3 2
Beban 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1
Black 0 0 * 0 0 2 7 2
Callan * * * * * 11 0 0
Coghlan 0 * * 0 0 2 8 1
Collum 0 * * 0 * 4 5 2
Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 9 2
Gerdes * * * * * 9 1 1
Hopkins 1 4 6
Lightner 0 0 * * * 7 3 1
Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 10 1
McManus 0 0 0 0 0 10 1
Nelson 0 * * 0 0 4 7 0
O'Neil 0 0 * 2 7 2
Pugh 0 * 0 1 8 2
Perine 0 0 0 * 4 5 2
Schmitt 0 * a* 0 2 6 3
Wheelan 0 0 0 2 5 4
________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 15 2 9 8 5 9 5 9 5 7 57 108 33

Table G-Records of Out-Going Senators on Sixteen Test Votes

Must Be Re-Elected to Sit in Next Senate

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G
________________________________________________________________________
To Test To refer To do Second
admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First
Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote
to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford
Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill.
________________________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
________________________________________________________________________
Anthony * * * 0 0 *
Bates 0 0 * * 0 0 *
Bell * * * * * *
Black * * * * 0 * *
Boynton * * * 0 * *
Caminetti * * 0 * * 0
Cartwright * * * * *
Curtin * * * 0 *
Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0
Leavitt 0 0 0 * * * *
McCartney 0 0 * 0 *
Miller * * * * *
Price 0 * * 0 0 0 *
Reily * 0 0 0 0 0
Sanford * * 0 * * *
Savage * 0 * 0 0 0 *
Weed 0 0 0 * 0 0
Willis 0 0 * * * * 0
Wright 0 * * * * * *
________________________________________________________________________
Totals 5 8 9 11 16 4 10 8 10 9 12 6 4 12

H I J K L M
___________________________________________________________________________
Second Test Vote Local Assembly
Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment
Stanford Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct
Bill. Primary.
___________________________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
___________________________________________________________________________
Anthony * 0 * 0 0 *
Bates * 0 0 0
Bell * * * * * *
Black * * * * *
Boynton * * * * *
Caminetti * * * 0 * *
Cartwright * * * * *
Curtin * * 0 0 * *
Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kennedy 0 0 * 0 0 0
Leavitt 0 0 0 0 0 0
McCartney * 0 * 0 * 0
Miller * * 0 * * *
Price * 0 0 0 0 0
Reily 0 * 0 0 0
Sanford * * * 0 * *
Savage * 0 0 0 0
Weed 0 0 0 0 0
Willis * 0 0 0 0 0
Wright * 0 0 * * 0
___________________________________________________________________________
Totals 14 3 8 12 9 10 6 12 9 9 11 9

O P Totals
__________________________________________________
To To
reconsider investigate For Against
Change of Freight Reform Reform
Venue Bill. Rates.
__________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No
__________________________________________________
Anthony 0 0 7 8
Bates 0 0 4 10
Bell * * 15 0
Black 11 1
Boynton * * 13 1
Caminetti * * 12 3
Cartwright * 12 0
Curtin * 10 3
Hartman 0 0 0 16
Kennedy 0 5 9
Leavitt 0 0 4 12
McCartney 0 5 8
Miller * 0 11 2
Price 0 4 11
Reily 0 0 2 12
Sanford * * 13 2
Savage 0 0 4 11
Weed 0 0 1 13
Willis 0 0 5 11
Wright 0 0 9 7
__________________________________________________
Totals 7 11 4 10 147 140

Table H-Records of Holdover Senators on Sixteen Test Votes

* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform

0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform

A B C D E F G
________________________________________________________________________
To Test To refer To do Second
admit vote Walker- Local away Vote First
Bell on Otis Option Bill with party Vote
to Direct Bill. to Party Circle Stanford
Caucus. Primary Committee. Circle. Bill. Bill.
________________________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
________________________________________________________________________
Bills 0 0 * * 0 0 *
Birdsall * * * 0 0 *
Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0
Campbell * * * * *
Cutten * * * * 0 0 *
Estudillo 0 * * * * * *
Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hare 0 0 0 * * 0
Holohan * * 0 * *
Hurd 0 * * 0 0 *
Lewis 0 * * 0 0 0
Martinelli 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Roseberry * * * * 0 * *
Rush * * * 0 * *
Stetson * * * * *
Strobridge * * * 0 0 0 *
Thompson * * * * 0 * *
Walker * * * * * * *
Welch * * * 0 0 0
Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0
________________________________________________________________________
Totals 9 8 4 16 17 3 10 7 6 13 11 9 4 10

H I J K L M
___________________________________________________________________________
Second Test Vote Local Assembly
Vote Railroad Initiative Option Railroad Amendment
Stanford Regulation. Amendment. Bill. Amendment. to Direct
Bill. Primary.
___________________________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
___________________________________________________________________________
Bills * 0 0 0 0 0
Birdsall * * 0 * *
Burnett * 0 0 * 0
Campbell * * * * * *
Cutten * * * * * *
Estudillo * 0 * * 0 *
Finn 0 0 0 0 0
Hare 0 0 * 0 0
Holohan * * 0 * *
Hurd 0 0 0 0 0
Lewis * * 0 0 0 0
Martinelli * 0 0 0 0
Roseberry * * * * *
Rush * * 0 * *
Stetson * * *
Strobridge * * 0 * *
Thompson * * * * * *
Walker * 0 * * * *
Welch 0 * 0 0 0
Wolfe * 0 0 0 0 0
___________________________________________________________________________
Totals 2 8 10 11 5 6 13 10 7 9 10 9

N O P Totals
_________________________________________________________
Change To To
of reconsider investigate For Against
Venue Change of Freight Reform Reform
Bill. Venue Bill. Rates.
_________________________________________________________
Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No
_________________________________________________________
Bills 0 0 0 4 12
Birdsall * * * 11 3
Burnett * 5 7
Campbell * * 13 0
Cutten * * * 14 2
Estudillo 0 * * 12 4
Finn 0 0 0 15
Hare 0 0 0 3 11
Holohan * * * 11 2
Hurd 0 0 0 3 11
Lewis 0 * 0 5 10
Martinelli 0 0 0 3 12
Roseberry * * * 14 1
Rush * 10 2
Stetson * * 10 0
Strobridge * * 10 4
Thompson * * * 15 1
Walker * * 14 1
Welch 0 0 0 4 9
Wolfe 0 0 0 3 13
_________________________________________________________
Totals 9 9 11 7 8 6 164 119

Table I-Records of Assemblymen on Four Test Votes on Anti-Japanese Bills

F shows vote For the Bill

A shows vote Against the Bill

* Leeds changed his vote from "no" to "aye" to give notice of
reconsideration.

A B C D
___________________________________________________________________________
Assembly Vote on Assembly Assembly First Vote Second Vote
Walker-Otis Bill. Bill No. Bill No. Assembly Bill Assembly Bill
78. 32. No. 14. No. 14.
___________________________________________________________________________
Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No
___________________________________________________________________________
Barndollar A A A A
Baxter F F F F
Beardslee A A A A
Beatty F F F F
Beban A F F A
Black F F F F
Bohnett A A F A
Butler A A F F
Callan F F F F
Cattell A A A A
Coghlan A A
Cogswell A A A A
Collier A A A A
Collum F F F F
Costar A A A A
Cronin F F F F
Cullen F F F F
Dean A A A A
Drew F F
Feeley A A A A
Flavelle A
Fleisher A A A A
Flint A A A A
Gerdes F
Gibbons F F F F
Gillis F F F F
Greer A A A A
Griffiths A A A A
Hammon A A A A
Hanlon A A A A
Hans A A A A
Hawk A A A A
Hayes A F F F
Hewitt A A A A
Hinkle A A F A
Holmquist A A F A
Hopkins F F F F
Irwin F A F F
Johnson, G. L. F F F F
Johnson, P. A. A F A A
Johnson, P. H. F F F F
Johnston, T. D. A F F F
Juilliard F F F F
Kehoe A F F F
Leeds A A F* A
Lightner A F F F
Macauley F F F F
Maher F F F F
McClellan A A A A
McManus A F F F
Melrose A A A A
Mendenhall F F F F
Moore A A A A
Mott A F F F
Nelson F F F F
Odom F F F
Otis A F F F
O'Neil F F F F
Perine A F F A
Polsley F F F F
Preston F A F A
Pugh F F F F
Pulcifer A A A A
Rech A A A A
Rutherford A A
Sackett A A A A
Schmitt A F F A
Silver A F F A
Stanton A A A A
Stuckenbruck F F F F
Telfer F F F F
Transue A A A A
Wagner A A A A
Webber F F F
Wheelan F F F F
Whitney A F F F
Wilson F F F F
Wyatt
Wyllie A A F A
Young A A A A
___________________________________________________________________________
Totals 28 48 39 35 46 28 37 41

Outline of and Arguements in Favor of
the Postal Direct Primary.

By Senator L. H. Roseberry, Who Introduced the Postal Direct Primary
Bill at the Session of 1909.

In order to understand the full purpose and effect of the proposed
Postal Direct Primary law, it is necessary to ascertain the purpose of
any system of nominations by a Direct Primary.

The sole complaint against the present system of nominations by
conventions is based upon the objection that party nominations are made
by a few interested parties, and that the popular choice is absolutely
ignored. To remedy this evil the system of direct nominations by the
voters has been suggested at primary elections. It therefore follows
that that system, or primary, which will get out the largest number of
votes or the greatest expression of the people on the choice of
candidates is, of necessity, the best primary law. If it is true that
all present direct primaries, which provide for voting at a certain time
and place in person, in the form that general elections are now
conducted, only draw out a little over one-half of the registered vote
of all parties, it then follows beyond question, that all present direct
primary laws are only half successful. Upon an examination of statistics
gathered from the various States in which direct primary laws are now in
operation, it is seen that only 55% to 60% of the registered vote within
those States has ever been cast at any single primary election. For
instance, at the primary election held in the State of Oregon in the
fall of 1908, 55% of the registered Republican vote was cast, and less
than 25% of the Democratic vote. In the State of Washington about 57% of
the registered vote was cast in 1908, the only vote yet taken under the
new Direct Primary law. In the State of Wisconsin, while 60% of the
total registered vote was cast in 1906, only a little over 40% was cast
at the primary election held In the year 1908. Other statistics could be
offered from all the other States, having the direct primary system of
nominations, from which it would appear that practically a little over
55% or even less of the registered vote has been secured at any direct
primary election. Therefore, based upon these figures, it becomes patent
that the present form of direct nominations, to wit: voting at a certain
time and place in person only, under the same rules and regulations as
at general elections, is only half successful.

It was for the purpose of bringing out at least a part of this great
unvoted 45% of qualified electors, to take a part in naming the
candidates who should go before the people at the general elections,
that the Postal Direct Primary law was conceived.

While there is no present example of the working of a system of direct
nominations through a ballot cast through the mails for public
officials, there are a number of instances in which ballots are being
taken by mail with wonderful success and completeness. Formerly, labor
unions, fraternal societies, chambers of commerce, Granger
organizations, alumni associations, and other civic, religious and
benevolent associations, balloted on propositions submitted to their
membership in the form that primary and general elections are now held
in public elections. The vote secured from their memberships was so
meager and unsatisfactory that the system of voting by mail was
inaugurated, and with such splendid results, that now it is being used
exclusively by a majority of the above organizations, as a method of
voting upon propositions and officers coming before them for election.
Where only 10% to 15% of the votes were cast under the old plan of
voting in person at a particular time and place, 75%, and even 90% of
the votes are now cast through the mails, and it is significant to note
that the plan of voting by mail has been found by the organizations
using it to be free from any objections. This fact, together with the
unanimous vote cast, led to the idea of casting votes by mail at direct
primaries for the nomination of public officers by political parties.
The system that has been proposed is extremely simple, and it appears
highly reasonable and practicable. A short outline of the provisions of
the bill will assist in an understanding of the arguments offered in its
favor and those advanced to refute the objections urged against this
Postal Direct Primary Act.

In the first place, each elector, at the time of registering, declares
his party allegiance, and this is entered upon his original affidavit of
registration. At the same time, he is given a party voting number, which
is written or printed upon his affidavit of registration. The Secretary
of State, every four years, declares the color of ballots to be used by
each party separately. For instance, all Republican ballots throughout
the State, at every election must be printed upon pink colored paper and
none other; the Democratic ballot upon white colored paper and none
other, and so on among the other political parties.

In order for a candidate's name to be proposed to go on to the primary
ballot, it must be proposed by a prescribed number of qualified
electors, within the district in which that candidate is to be elected,
which names must be subscribed to a verified petition. This entitles the
candidate's name to be printed upon the primary ballot. Within ten days
before the primary, or return day, the clerk of the board or body which
is delegated by law to prepare for election matters must print, prepare
and send out, primary election ballots for each separate political party
through the United States mails in the following manner: To each elector
within the jurisdiction is mailed a plain unmarked envelope, addressed
to the business or home address of each separate elector, containing a
self-addressed and stamped return envelope, returnable to the Board of
Election of that precinct, together with one party primary election
ballot, for the use of that elector. If the elector happens to be a
Republican the color of his ballot will be pink, and only the names of
the Republican candidates will be printed thereon. On the outside end of
the ballot is printed the elector's party voting number, which voting
number is separate and distinct from every other voting number in that
precinct. On the outside end of the return envelope is a line left for
the original signature of the elector to whom the ballot is mailed,
whereon he must either subscribe his signature in ink, or if he be an
incapable voter, and is assisted, must have his own name subscribed
thereon, together with the names of two freeholders in that precinct,
who assisted him in voting. Upon receipt of the envelope containing his
ballot, the voter marks a cross (X) at the names of the candidates for
whom he votes, and then folds his ballot so that all the names thereon
are turned inside and out of sight, and his party voting number appears
on the outside end of the envelope. (In the same manner that he now
folds his ballot at a general election.) He then encloses this ballot in
the stamped return envelope, seals the same, signs his name on the end
of the envelope, and deposits it in a postoffice box. It then goes to
the postoffice directed by law, addressed to the Primary or Return
Board, who alone are authorized by law to receive these envelopes from
the postmaster, and then only on the day and hour designated by law and
in public. Upon return day, the Board receives all of these primary
election envelopes from the postoffice, takes them to a public place,
and after counting the number received, and comparing with the number
originally sent out, compares each signature on each envelope with the
same signature subscribed on the original affidavit of registration, and
if it be genuine, opening the envelope, removing the ballot therefrom,
without opening the same, observing that the color of the ballot
corresponds to the party color to which that elector belongs, then
tearing off the voting number, which appears on the end of the ballot,
after comparing it with the voting number written on that elector's
affidavit of registration, and then finally depositing the ballot into a
general ballot box, into which all the ballots of each political party
are deposited. It will thus appear that every ballot has been checked in
three ways to identify it as being the original ballot sent to that
elector, and as the one cast personally by him: First, it was contained
in an envelope bearing his original signature; it bore his own party
voting number, which was separate and distinct from every other party
voting number in that precinct, and was printed under the authority of
law only upon one ballot, namely, the ballot he receives; and finally it
was upon the color of paper which only the political party with which
that elector was affiliated was allowed by law to use. Every other
political party's ballots were printed upon different colored paper.

This makes it practically impossible for any ballot to be cast or
counted other than the one lawfully mailed and regularly received and
voted and mailed in person by the elector to whom it was sent.

Even the most prejudiced opponents of the Postal Direct Primary bill
admit that there are no practical reasons why it would not operate very
successfully in the rural districts and the smaller cities and towns.
Such an admission is a very far-reaching argument for the bill as a
general working measure for direct nominations. It is an open confession
that the plan is workable and meritorious. The only objection that has
been urged with any semblance of force is the argument that the ballot
could be easily corrupted in large cities, where the opportunities for
fraud are great, and where the intelligence and honesty of certain
classes of voters is low. It is suggested with considerable merit that
among the foreign and ignorant classes in the great centers of
population, corruption of suffrage is a matter easily accomplished; that
there would be many of such voters willing to lend themselves to any
scheme to deliver their primary ballots to certain persons to be voted
as they desired under the names of the Individual electors.

At first blush, this argument appears to have some force, but upon close
reading of the provisions of the bill, and its necessary effect upon the
Practical operation of a primary campaign, it must be admitted that this
sole objection is largely argumentative. In the first place, as pointed
out above, each ballot must be cast by the person to whom it was sent,
for it is contained in an envelope bearing the elector's own known
signature. Therefore none other can vote the ballot. In the second
place, the bill provides for extreme penal penalties for any one
tampering with ballots, assisting a voter in the marking of a ballot
(other than incapable voters), standing about and watching an elector
mark his ballot, or in any wise influencing, or observing a voter in the
marking of his ballot at the time it is voted, sealed in the envelope
and dropped in the postoffice. All the penalties are for imprisonment
and not for fines. This, then, will force any plan to secure ballots or
corrupt the same to be done secretly and illegally. It must appear that
there can be no extensive system of vote corruption carried on without
discovery. It must further appear that there would be extremely few who
would care to general or direct any extensive plan of corrupting or
influencing primary ballots. It would be too risky a proceeding. If then
votes were corrupted, it would have to be done very secretly and amongst
only a trusted few. Therefore the percentage influenced in this manner
could not be large.

Another bar to any tampering with ballots would be the check which each
political party and each candidate would have upon the other. It would
be a matter of political capital for one party to detect leaders or
organizations within another party tampering with or corrupting the vote
at its primary election. The various candidates for the different
offices within the same party would watch one another with extreme
vigilance to detect any attempt to influence or corrupt the ballots
against them.

Lastly, it is suggested that because of the fact that these primary
election ballots would be sent at the same time to thousands of
different places throughout the precinct and city, and would be opened
in offices and in homes on the same day, and in all probability fully
75% of them would be voted and remailed on the same day received; that
it would be practically impossible to devise any system that would reach
out and get these countless ballots in a thousand different places
within a space of a few hours or a day. They would be too scattered to
be gotten hold of or traced with any degree of success.

It must appear from a broad-minded consideration of the practical
workings of this Postal Direct Primary law that there is no valid reason
why it would not work with splendid success even in the congested and
illiterate districts of our larger cities. But even admitting for the
sake of argument that a certain percentage of the ignorant and vicious
vote could be corrupted by the bosses, it certainly could not be large.
It could not possibly exceed ten per cent of the registered vote. In
light of the fact that this system would bring out at least twenty-five
per cent more votes than any other primary law has ever succeeded in
bringing out, it is seen at a glance that the corrupted vote would be
far outweighed and overbalanced by the much larger percentage of decent
vote that would be secured for the first time by means of this postal
system of voting. The argument, then, is unanswerable in favor of this
Postal Direct Primary law.

And it would for the first time give the intelligent and honest elements
in all political parties the direct control of the power of nomination
for public offices. Moreover, the mere fact that it would cause a larger
number of people to vote would be of inestimable value, for it would
tend to rouse and awaken public interest in civic affairs and by thus
doing would educate and train the minds of the better classes in
election affairs, and could not help but raise the honesty and power of
popular suffrage. In other words, it would accomplish in the fullest
degree, the results sought to be obtained by every direct primary law,
namely, a popular choice of candidates for public office, with the power
of selection for once actually in the hands of the honest electors.

In conclusion, it might be well to mention that this system of voting by
mail would protect the suffrage of many of our best citizens, who, under
present laws, are practically disfranchised. Such men are travelers, the
sick, sailors, trainmen, and other men who, by reason of their
occupation or misfortune, are forced to be absent from the place of
their voting precincts on election day, but who could and would vote if
an opportunity was extended to them to vote by mail. This would
constitute no small class of voters.

Dr. Montgomery's Report.

55 Dr. Montgomery's report to the Senate was as follows:

Palo Alto, Cal., March 22, 1909.

Lieutenant-Governor Warren R. Porter,

President State Senate, Sacramento, Cal.

On the afternoon of March 21, 1909, about 4:30 p. m., J. L. Martin,
Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the State of California, called on me
and informed me that I had been designated by the President of the
Senate to proceed with him to Palo Alto, and to consult with the
physicians of Senator Marshall Black, to ascertain if Senator Black's
health was such as to permit him to go to Sacramento. I arrived at the
office of Dr. Howard Black, Senator Black's physician, at about 9:30 p.
m., March 21, 1909, and there met Dr. Howard Black, Dr. H. B. Reynolds,
Dr. J. C. Spencer and Dr. R. L. Wilbur. These physicians said they had
held a consultation and had made an examination of Senator Marshall
Black that afternoon; according to their statement, Senator Marshall
Black had arrived in Palo Alto about five days previously suffering from
inflammation of the eyes, commonly called "pink eye," and that this
inflammation of the eyes had almost entirely cleared up, but that the
inflammation traveled down the throat and bronchial tubes. According to
their statement to me on the evening of March 21, 1909, Senator Marshall
Black was suffering from broncho-pneumonia, and symptoms of inflammation
in the lower lobe of the left lung, the temperature that afternoon was
ninety-nine and the pulse ninety. The heart was in good condition. The
cough was severe and the expectoration abundant. I stated to these
physicians that I was delegated by the Senate of the State of California
to make a thorough and complete examination of Senator Black for the
purpose of ascertaining at what time it would be safe for Senator Black
to proceed to Sacramento. I was informed by Dr. Howard Black that
Senator Marshall Black would not permit me to see him. I then asked
Senator Black's physicians, individually and collectively, if in their
opinion, in Senator Black's present physical condition any serious
inconvenience or injury would accrue to Senator Black from a personal
examination by me. They all stated that, on their part, they were
perfectly willing that such examination should be held by the Senate
physician, and that such an examination in their opinion could do no
injury. I asked if the patient was in sound and disposing mind. I was
answered he was. At about 10 a. m., March 22, 1909, I again called on
Dr. Howard Black, renewing my request of the previous evening
to see Senator Marshall Black. Senator Black, through the physician,
still declined to receive me. I then asked Dr. Howard Black when, in his
opinion, Senator Marshall Black would be in condition to proceed to
Sacramento. He said that at the consultation of the previous day it was
concluded that it would be a week before Senator Black would be in such
a condition as to enable him with safety to undertake the Journey. As
this consultation was held on March 21st, it would, in their opinion, be
March 28th before Senator Black would be in a condition to proceed to
Sacramento. I asked if, in his opinion, Senator Black was convalescing.
He said that in his opinion he was. He said that Senator Black's
temperature this morning was 100, his pulse 90, his cough still severe,
and there still was evidence of inflammation in the lower lobe of the
left lung. Personally, from what I know of Senator Black's physicians, I
believe these facts to be true. Taking it for granted that these facts
are true, I do not find that, from them alone, I can conclude that
Senator Black is unable to proceed to Sacramento. In order to concur in
this opinion of Senator Black's physicians I would have to see the
patient.

Douglass W. Montgomery, M. D.

Delegated by Lieutenant-Governor Warren R. Porter to examine into the
state of health of Senator Marshall Black.

The Anti-Japanese Bill's Resolution.

94 The resolution was in full as follows:

Whereas, Assembly Bill, No. 14, introduced by Mr. Johnson of Sacramento,
and reading as follows:

An Act

To Amend Section 1662 of the Political Code

The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. Section 1662 of the Political Code is hereby amended so as to
read as follows:

1662. Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for
the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years of age
residing in the district and the board of school trustees, or city board
of education, have power to admit adults and children not residing in
the district, whenever good reasons exist therefor. Trustees shall have
the power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children
suffering from contagious or infectious diseases, and also to establish
separate schools for Indian children and for the children of Mongolian,
or Japanese, or Chinese descent. When such separate schools are
established, Indian, Chinese, Japanese or Mongolian children must not be
admitted into any other school; provided, that in cities and towns in
which the kindergarten has been adopted or may hereafter be adopted as
part of the public primary schools, children may be admitted to such
kindergarten classes at the age of four years; and provided further,
that in cities or school districts in which separate classes have been
or may hereafter be established, for the instruction of the deaf,
children may be admitted to such classes at the age of three years.

Is now pending before this Assembly; and

Whereas, It has been represented by the President of the United States
that the passage of this bill will, in some manner undisclosed, disturb
the relations now existing between the government of the United States
and the government of Japan; and

Whereas, The President of the United States has made known to this
Assembly, through the Governor of this State and through the Speaker of
this Assembly, his wish that said bill be not passed; and

Whereas, The President of the United States has caused it to be
represented to this body that it is his judgment that said bill would
conflict with the treaty now existing between the government of the
United States and the government of Japan, and because of such conflict
the passage of such bill would be beyond the power of the Legislature of
this State, and

Whereas, The Governor of this State and the Speaker of this Assembly
have conveyed to this body their desire that this bill be not passed;
and

Whereas, It is the desire of this body to accede to the wishes of the
Chief Executive of this State, and the Speaker of this Assembly;
therefore be it

Resolved, That it is fitting and proper that a statement of the position
of this Assembly upon this question be made, to the end that a mistaken
impression do not result from the failure of the Assembly to pass this
bill; be it further

Resolved, That such position is as follows:

1. The school system of the State of California is an institution of the
State alone, maintained, supported, conducted and controlled wholly
under and in accordance with the powers reserved to the State.

2. That the power to maintain, conduct and control the State school
system has not been granted to the Federal Government.

3. That the Legislature of California may properly pass any law relative
to the school system of this State that in its judgment may seem best.

4. That by said Assembly Bill No. 14 it is not designed to deprive
children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese descent of equal
school privileges and opportunities, but, on the contrary, to these
there shall be given, and for these there shall be provided the same
privileges and opportunities as are given to and provided for all other
children.

5. That Assembly Bill No. 14 contemplates the establishment and
maintenance of separate schools for different races, but all schools so
established and maintained shall afford equal and the same facilities
for instruction.

6. That this Assembly recognize it to be a duty resting upon the State
to furnish to children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese
descent the same facilities and opportunities as are furnished to
children of other races and affirm that no more can be required and that
nothing different is contemplated by said Act. That said Act gives to
children of Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese descent who are
subjects of other countries the same rights and privileges as are given
to native born citizens of California, and no power has the right to
demand more. That this Assembly is disposed to accede to the wishes of
the Federal Government as conveyed to us by the Governor of this State
and the Speaker of this Assembly, but while doing so we reaffirm and
reassert that the subject matter of Assembly Bill No. 14 is purely and
exclusively a matter of State concern, falling within the reserve powers
of the State, and violates no provision of the Federal Constitution.

7. That it is the judgment of this Assembly that said bill does not
conflict with the treaty existing between the government of the United
States and the government of Japan, and that we recognize the authority
to make treaties is by the Federal Constitution, vested in the President
and Senate of the United States, we affirm that the right to administer
our State school system can not be controlled by treaty made by the
President and the Senate of the United States, nor by action of the
President alone.

8. And finally, while we recognize that Assembly Bill No. 14
is drawn and could be passed by the Legislature of this State in full
conformity with the powers reserved to the State and vouchsafed to it by
the Federal Constitution, we are unwilling to do aught which may disturb
the relations existing between this government and a friendly power, and
for this reason alone, we recommend that Assembly Bill No. 14 be
reconsidered and withdrawn.

Book of the day: