Senator Wolfe appear to exceptional disadvantage. Wolfe was a member of the Harbors Committee, as was Senator Wright. Among the recommendations set forth in the report as originally prepared, was one that forty-four blocks only of land be purchased by the State for the improvement of the San Francisco Harbor at Islais Creek, instead of the sixty-three blocks necessary for practical harbor development.
Senator Wolfe was a warm advocate of the sixty-three block plan which is the only practical plan, by the way, and shows that Senator Wolfe can land on the right side of things occasionally. But it was very discouraging for Senator Wolfe to be confronted with the unfiled report of his own Harbors Committee, endorsed by his own signature as committeeman, in which the purchase of only forty-four blocks was urged.
Senator Wolfe’s defense was ingenious. He stated that he had signed the report as a matter of courtesy, not really knowing what it contained. The incident illustrates the value to the State of such legislative investigations.
But in spite of the curious history of Wolfe’s Harbors Committee, he was given another holdover committee in 1909. The Senate – on Wolfe’s motion – adopted a resolution setting aside $5,000 to meet the expenses of a holdover committee to consist of three members to investigate the cause of recent advances in the cost of foodstuffs. Senators Wolfe, Welch and Hare are honored with the appointments. Lieutenant-Governor Porter appointed.
Senator Wolfe, from the machine standpoint, certainly earned the distinction thus thrust upon him, and his share of the money. Senator Wolfe was not in good health during the session, but in spite of his indisposition he managed to be present in the Senate Chamber, where often, pale, haggard and plainly on the verge of breakdown, he fought valiantly against the reform measures which were aimed at the prestige of the State machine, and the domination of the tenderloin, the Southern Pacific Railroad, the racetrack gamblers and allied interests in State politics.
Wolfe led the fight against the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill, against the Local Option bill, against the effective Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, against the Direct Primary bill, against admitting Senator Bell of Pasadena to the Republican caucus, against the bill to prohibit the sale of intoxicants within a mile and a half of Stanford University, against the initiative amendment to the Constitution, against the amendment to the Constitution to correct ambiguities as to the powers and duties of the State Railroad Commission, and against Burnett’s resolution for the investigation of the cause of the increase in freight rates and express charges. Senator Wolfe also led the fight for the passage of the Change of Venue bill.
Curiously enough, Senator Wolfe’s stock argument, used in most of the opposition to reform measures, was to the effect that if such measures became laws, the Republican party in California would be undermined. Senator Wolfe’s argument had great weight with Republicans like Leavitt and Weed and Democrats like Hare and Kennedy. For the “good of the Republican party,” these gentlemen generally voted as Senator Wolfe dictated.
Senator Welch, the second member of the Pure Food Committee, is at least entitled to gracious consideration at the hands of the Wolfe-Leavitt element. Senator Welch was one of the twenty-seven Call-heralded heroes who defeated the Wolfe-Leavitt element in the first fight on the Direct Primary bill in the Senate. And Senator Welch was one of the seven heroes who “flopped” to the Wolfe-Leavitt side when the psychological moment came. Welch’s one vote in the final struggle would have decided the Direct Primary fight for the side of the reform element. But when the reform element needed Welch he was found snugly quartered with Wolfe and Leavitt.
Welch voted for the Walker-Otis bill, but he was one of the last members of the Senate to be counted for that measure. Indeed, Welch caught the rear of the bandwagon on that issue just in time.
On railroad issues Welch’s record is as good as the Southern Pacific Railroad could wish. He voted against the adoption of the practical absolute rate, and for the impracticable maximum rate; he voted for the ineffective Wright bill and against the effective Stetson bill. He voted against the Constitutional Amendment simplyfying the wording of the Constitution in those sections which prescribe the powers and duties of the Railroad Commissioners.
So Senator Welch had his appointment to the Food Investigation Committee due him. He was also made member of the Legislative Committee to represent the State at the Alaska-Yukon Exposition, of which more later. Thus Senator Welch rounded out the session very satisfactorily to Senator Welch and to the machine, if not to the State of California.
Senator Hare is down in the legislative records as a Democrat. He voted on most measures consistently under the lead of Wolfe and Leavitt. His appointment need not, therefore, cause surprise.
When the Direct Primary bill was before the Senate Committee on Election Laws, Hare’s vote was with those of Wolfe and Leavitt to make the measure as ineffective as possible. Hare was among the thirteen unworthies who voted against the measure when the first fight was made for it on the floor of the Senate; he was among the twenty who finally, under Wolfe’s leadership, held the measure up in the Senate until by trick it could be amended to the machine’s liking. Hare was one of the seven Senators who voted against the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill. He was one of those who voted for the passage of the Change of Venue bill.
On railroad measures Hare voted against the Stetson bill and for the Wright bill, against the absolute rate and for the maximum rate. He voted against the amendment to the Constitution to clear up the alleged ambiguity regarding the powers and duties of the Railroad Commissioners.
Lack of space prevents continuance of the review of Hare’s votes. But enough has been said to show that this “Democrat” was entitled to the honor at the hands of the Performer, Republican Lieutenant Governor Warren Porter, of appointment to the Holdover Committee which, under the leadership of Senator Eddie Wolfe, will investigate the cause of the increase in the price of foodstuffs.
But a far more desirable appointment was to the committee which is to represent the State at the Alaska-Yukon Pacific Exposition. By concurrent resolution the Senate and Assembly decided that seven Senators, seven Assemblymen, one Lieutenant Governor (Warren Porter) and one Governor (Gillett) should attend the exposition at the State’s expense. For this purpose $7,000 of the State’s money has been provided.
The seven Senators appointed by Performer Porter are Wright, Willis, Welch, Leavitt, Bills, Kennedy, Curtin.
The seven Assemblymen appointed by Speaker Stanton are Transue, Beardslee, Leeds, Hewitt, McManus, McClellan and Schimtt.
The records of the Senators thus honored show them worthy the machine’s consideration. Their votes on the banner measures before the Legislature last winter were as follows:
Against the Walker-Otis bill, to prohibit poolselling and bookmaking (Anti-Gambling bill) – Leavitt – 1.
For the Walker-Otis bill-Bills, Curtin, Kennedy, Willis, Welch, Wright – 6.
Only seven Senators voted against the Walker-Otis bill. Of the seven Leavitt is given the Alaska trip; Wolfe and Hare are put on the Food Investigation Committee. Thus of nine Senators who got on holdover committees three were among the seven who voted in the interest of the gambling element.
The records made by the State Senators who will attend the exposition at the State’s expense in the Direct Primary fight are quite as suggestive. When the first attempt was made in the Senate to force the machine amendments into the bill, February 18, the seven Senators voted as follows:
For the machine’s amendments – Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt, Willis.
Against the machine’s amendments – Curtin, Welch, Wright.
Thirteen Senators on February 18 voted for the machine’s amendments. Of their number Hare and Wolfe are on the Food Investigation Committee; Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt and Willis are to attend the exposition at the State’s expense. Thus six of the thirteen have been rewarded.
The machine, having failed to amend the Direct Primary bill in the Senate, amended it in the Assembly. When the measure was returned to the Senate, six of the seven Senators who will attend the exposition voted to concur in the Assembly amendments. They were, Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt, Welch, Willis and Wright. Only one of the seven voted against the machine amendments, Curtin.
The records of the seven favored, trip-taking Senators on railroad regulation measures are as follows:
For the Wright bill, against the Stetson bill; for the maximum rate, against the absolute rate – Leavitt, Welch, Willis, Wright, Bills, Kennedy – 6.
Against the Wright bill, for the Stetson bill, against the maximum rate, for the absolute rate – Curtin – 1.
Against the constitutional amendment to make clear the powers and duties of Railroad Commissioners – Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt, Welch, Willis – 5.
For the amendment – Curtin, Wright – 2.
Against the Burnett resolution calling for an investigation of the cause for an increase in freight rates – Bills, Kennedy, Leavitt, Willis, Wright – 5.
For the resolution – 0.
Absent or not voting – Curtin, Welch – 2.
The records of the seven on the Local Option bill and the Change of Venue bill are:
Against Local Option – Leavitt, Welch, Willis, Bills, Curtin, Kennedy – 6.
For Local Option – Wright – 1.
For the Change of Venue bill – Bills, Leavitt, Welch, Willis, Wright – 5.
Against the Change of Venue bill – Curtin, Kennedy – 2.
Kennedy, to be sure, voted against the Change of Venue bill when that measure passed the Senate. But Senator Kennedy was unaccountably absent the next morning when the Change of Venue bill was taken up on a motion for reconsideration. Because of Kennedy’s absence, the motion to reconsider the measure was lost, and its defeat prevented. Senator Kennedy is scarcely entitled to credit for being recorded on the right side of this measure.
Nine Senators are included in the two hold-over committees which are under consideration. As Wolfe and Hare invariably voted with Leavitt, it will be seen that eight of the nine voted against the Stetson bill and for the Wright bill; seven of the nine voted against the Constitutional amendment to make plain the constitutional powers and duties of the Railroad Commissioners; seven of the nine voted against investigating the cause of increase in freight and express rates to the Pacific Coast; eight of the nine voted against local option; seven voted for the Change of Venue bill, and one of the two others as good as voted for it, although on record against the measure.
As Republican Senators Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Cutten, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge and Thompson, who were invariably on the right side of things, look upon the records of the “Democrats” and “Republicans” included among the nine favored receivers of plums, they can scarcely be blamed for demanding with the discouraged little boy – What’s the use of being good, anyhow?
And as the Democratic Senators, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Holohan, Miller and Sanford, who worked with the anti-machine Republicans for the passage of good laws and the defeat of bad ones look upon the favored Hare and Kennedy they cannot be blamed if the same question occurs to them also.
The indications are that the Senators who were thus overlooked will have “to wait for theirs,” until The People of California, and not the machine, award the prizes for faithful public service.
Of the seven Assemblymen who will attend the Alaska-Yukon Exposition, one, Hewitt, voted against the machine on every important issue that came up. The other six are a spotted lot.
The six – Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClellan, Schmitt and Transue – voted for the famous “gag rules” which the Assembly rejected by a vote of 41 to 32. Indeed, Beardslee and Transue were on the Committee on Rules which the Assembly, when it rejected the Committee’s rules, repudiated.
In the fight for the passage of the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill, two of the six, Leeds and Transue, managed to keep their records straight. On the six roll-calls taken on the measure before it passed the Assembly, Beardslee voted five times against the bill and once for it; McManus voted six times against it; Schmitt voted five times against it, on one roll-call he did not vote; while McClellan voted four times for it and twice against.
Five of the six, Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClellan and Schmitt voted against forcing out of the Committee on Federal Relations the Sanford resolution, which called for a government line of steamers from Panama to San Francisco. The five voted for the Johnson amendments to the resolutions, which cut out all criticizing reference to the rate-boosting combinations between the great transportation companies. Transue was absent when the vote to force the resolution out of committee was taken. But he was present to vote for the Johnson amendments.
Five of the six, Leeds, McManus, McClellan, Schmitt and Transue, voted for the machine amendments to the Direct Primary bill, which were read into that measure in the Assembly, and which resulted in the Senate deadlock over the measure. Beardslee voted against the amendments.
Five of the six – Beardslee, Leeds, McManus, McClellan and Transue – voted against the Holohan bill to remove the party circle from the election ballot. Schmitt did not vote on this measure.
Assemblyman Hewitt will, at the Alaska-Yukon, find himself in distinguished company. From the Wolfe-Leavitt-Johnson standpoint, he is the only one of his associates who cannot be said to have earned the preferment thrust upon him.
[102a] As these forms are going through the press, word comes that Senator Willis has been made Assistant United States District Attorney at Los Angeles. See Willis’ record, Table “A” of the appendix.
[102b] The State Constitution provides no method of compensation for such services. The providing of this compensation, therefore, becomes a matter of great delicacy. It is done, under a decision of the Supreme Court that that tribunal cannot go back of a legislative Act, but must abide by the wording of the Act. The appropriation bills to compensate the members for their services on hold-over Committees are worded to meet the opinion of the courts. The money is invariably appropriated “to pay the claim of,” etc. The Legislature is, according to the courts, the sole Judge of whether the alleged claim is a claim and not a petition for a gift. The “to -pay- the-claim-of” bills never fail to pull down the money.
[102c] The report as originally drawn, and as it was signed by Senator Wolfe and his associates.
Chapter XXVI.
The Holdover Senators.
Eleven of Them May Be Counted Upon to Vote Against the Machine at the Session of 1911, Two Are Doubtful, One Will Probably Vote with the Majority, While Six May Be Counted Upon to Support Machine Policies.
Twenty of the 120 members who sat in the Legislature of 1909 – half of the forty Senators – hold over and will serve in the Legislature of 1911. The twenty constitute the strength with which the machine and the anti-machine forces will enter the field in the struggle for control of the Legislature two years hence.
The machine has, long before this, taken stock of those twenty holdover Senators. Machine agents unquestionably know what the holdover members owe and to whom indebted; know their family history; know the church to which they belong, their lodges, their likes, their dislikes and their prejudices; know how they can be “reached” if vulnerable; know how they can be “kept in line” if already tarred with the machine brush.
But the plain citizen, not within the charmed circle of machine protection, is not concerning himself much about these holdovers. He scarcely knows their names. It is safe to say that not 2 per cent of the voters of California could off-hand name the twenty holdover members of the Upper House of the Legislature.
In other words, the machine is posted, and the citizen is not. And here is the secret of much of the machine’s success. In its campaign for control of affairs, the machine knows to a nicety just what to expect from men in public life; the plain citizen is without such information.
In the Appendix will be found a table, “Table H,” showing the votes of the twenty holdover Senators on sixteen roll calls. Representative citizens, all standing for good government, may differ as to the desirability or undesirability of several of the measures included in the list. But by and large the average normal citizen will hold that certain of the sixteen measures are desirable and others undesirable. Thus all would probably agree that the Change of Venue bill is undesirable legislation, and declare the Walker-Otis Anti-Racetrack Gambling measure to be desirable, although they might honestly differ on the Local Option bill.
On the sixteen roll calls the twenty holdover Senators cast 283 votes. Of the 283, 164 are recorded against what the normal citizen would regard as bad measures, or for what the normal citizen would regard as good measures. In other words, speaking broadly, 164 of the 283 votes were cast against machine policies. Only 119 were cast with the machine. In other words, over the whole session, on what may be fairly considered the most important roll calls taken in the Senate, the holdover Senators cast 164 votes against the machine and only 119 votes for the machine. This isn’t a bad showing to start with.
The showing is strengthened by the fact that ninety-two of the 119 machine votes were cast by eight Senators, Finn, Wolfe, Bills, Martinelli, Hurd, Hare, Lewis and Welch. Senator Finn of San Francisco heads the list with fifteen of these negative votes. On one occasion Senator Finn didn’t vote. After Finn comes Wolfe, also from San Francisco, with thirteen of the ninety-two negative or machine votes to his credit or his discredit; Bills of Sacramento and Martinelli of Marin follow with twelve each; Hurd of Los Angeles with eleven; Hare of San Francisco and Lewis of San Joaquin with ten each, and Welch of San Francisco with nine.
This leaves twenty-seven machine votes to be divided among twelve of the holdover Senators, about two votes on an average each.
Burnett is credited with seven of the twenty-seven, which reduces the number to twenty for eleven Senators. Of the twenty votes, seven were cast in the two ballots taken on the Local Option issue, again the bill; and eight were cast in two ballots against the Holohan bill to remove the party circle from the election ballot.
Thus, excluding the votes on local option, and on the Party Circle bill, on twelve important ballots, eleven of the holdover Senators cast only five votes for machine policies.
The eleven are Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Holohan, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson and Walker.
These eleven Senators, as judged by their performances at the session just closed, may be depended upon to vote for good bills and against bad ones at the session of 1911.
To this list should be added the name of Burnett. Burnett got off wrong on the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill, and managed to land with the Wolfe element in the direct primary fight. But there is good reason to believe that Burnett was very sick of his company before the session closed. The probabilities are that Senator Burnett feels more at home with Senators Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson and Cutten than with Hare, Finn and Wolfe.
Senator Hurd is another holdover who started out very well, but went badly astray after the vote on the Railroad Regulation bills. Like Burnett, Hurd showed signs toward the end of the session of feeling himself in uncongenial company. There is reason to believe that Hurd at the next session will be found voting with the Thompson-Stetson-Strobridge element.
Senator Welch will be found voting with the majority. This reduces the number of holdover Senators who can be counted upon to accept Wolfe’s leadership, machine Senators, if you like, to six. The line-up of the twenty holdovers, then, would on this basis be as follows:
Anti-machine – Birdsall, Cutten, Estudillo, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker (Republicans), Campbell, Holohan (Democrats) – 11.
Doubtful – Burnett, Hurd (Republicans) – 2.
With the majority – Welch (Republican) – 1.
Machine – Bills, Finn, Lewis[103], Martinelli, Wolfe (Republicans), Hare (Democrat) – 6.
On this basis the anti-machine element will start with all the advantage in the struggle for control of the Senate in 1911. If Burnett and Hurd vote with the eleven anti-machine Senators, it will be necessary to elect only eight anti-machine Senators that the reform element may control the Senate. This will mean twenty-two votes for the reform element, for Welch, if he is to be judged by past performances, will be found with the majority.
From present indications, four important fights will be made at the Legislative session of 1911.
(1) To pass an effective railroad regulation measure and to amend those sections of the State Constitution which prescribe the duties and powers of the Railroad Commissioners.
(2) To amend the Direct Primary law passed at the session just closed to meet with the popular demand for an effective measure.
(3) To grant local option to the counties.
(4) To adopt an amendment to the State Constitution granting the initiative to the electors of the State.
Significantly enough, the line-up of the holdover Senators in the Direct Primary deadlock of the last session was nine to eleven, the eleven Senators who divide but five machine votes between them standing out against Wolfe and Leavitt for an effective provision for the selection of United States Senators by State-wide vote, while the six machine Senators, the “bandwagon” Senator and the two doubtfuls, voted with Wolfe and Leavitt.
But the probabilities are that in the event of the anti-machine element controlling the Senate of 1911, Burnett, Hurd, Lewis, Martinelli and Welch would join with the reform forces to make necessary amendments to the measure. When the Direct Primary bill was first before the Senate, these five Senators united with the Good Government forces and assisted in defeating the machine’s amendment. When the bill was amended in the Assembly, however, the five flopped to the machine side. Indeed, only four of the twenty holdover Senators voted for the machine’s amendments to the Direct Primary bill when the measure was first passed upon by the Senate. They were Bills, Finn, Hare and Wolfe.
The holdover Senators made their poorest showing on the railroad measures. When the test came on the Stetson bill the twenty holdovers split even, ten being for the effective Stetson bill, ten for the ineffective Wright bill. The line-up was as follows:
For the Stetson bill – Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Holohan, Lewis, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson – 10.
For the Wright bill – Bills, Burnett, Estudillo, Finn, Hare, Hurd, Martinelli, Walker, Welch, Wolfe – 10.
Lewis, who usually voted with the performers, voted for the Stetson bill. But the reform forces lost two votes, those of Walker and Estudillo. On another vote on the same issue, however, Burnett, Estudillo and Walker would probably be found with the anti-machine forces supporting an effective measure. This would make the vote of the holdover Senators, thirteen for effective railroad regulation, and seven for a measure of the Wright law variety.
The holdovers made a good showing on the Initiative amendment, eleven voting for it and five against it, four not voting at all. The vote was as follows:
For the Initiative – Birdsall, Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Hare, Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Thompson, Walker, Welch – 11.
Against the Initiative – Bills, Hurd, Lewis, Martinelli, Wolfe – 5.
Not voting – Burnett, Finn, Holohan, Strobridge – 4.
Of the four who did not vote, three, Burnett, Holohan and Strobridge, would have voted for the amendment. Finn would probably have voted against it. This would have made the vote fourteen to six in the amendment’s favor. It will be seen that those who would have the initiative granted the people, have a good start for the next session.
The outlook for local option is not so reassuring. Of the holdover Senators who ordinarily were for measures which give the people a voice in the management of public affairs, Birdsall, Holohan, Rush and Strobridge were unalterably opposed to the local option idea. The six machine Senators, of course, opposed it, which with the votes of Burnett, Welch and Hurd placed thirteen of the twenty holdover Senators against the measure.
Six of the holdovers voted for the Local Option bill – Campbell, Cutten, Estudillo, Roseberry, Thompson and Walker.
Stetson was absent and did not vote. He, however, favored the bill. His vote would have made it 13 to 7. Thus on the vote on their bill at the last session, the local option forces have seven of the holdover Senators with them, and thirteen against.
On the other hand, seventeen of the holdover Senators voted for the Walker-Otis Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, while only three, Finn, Hare and Wolfe, voted against it. Thus on the moral issue, as well as the political and the industrial, the anti-machine element is stronger in the holdover delegation in the Senate than is the machine. It rests with the good citizenship of California to maintain its advantage by electing to the Senate in 1910, men who will stand with the majority of the holdover members for the passage of good and the defeat of vicious measures.
[103] Lewis voted with the anti-machine element in the Railroad Regulation fight, one of the most severe tests of the session. Persons who know Lewis well stated that he will, if the anti-machine forces be effectively organized at the session of 1911, be found against the machine. It is “up to Senator Lewis.”
Chapter XXVII.
The Retiring Senators.
Of the Twenty Whose Terms of Office Will Have Expired, the Machine Loses Eleven, the Anti-Machine Element Seven – Two Who Voted With the Machine on Occasion Were Usually on the Side of Good Government.
Twenty of the forty Senators who sat in the Legislature of 1909, must, if they sit in the Legislature of 1911, be re-elected at the general elections in November 1910. They are: Senators Anthony of San Francisco, Bates of Alameda, Bell of Pasadena, Black of Santa Clara, Boynton of Yuba, Caminetti of Amador, Cartwright of Fresno, Curtin of Tuolumne, Hartman of San Francisco, Kennedy of San Francisco, Leavitt of Alameda, McCartney of Los Angeles, Miller of Kern, Price of Sonoma, Reily of San Francisco, Sanford of Mendocino, Savage of Los Angeles, Weed of Siskiyou, Willis of San Bernardino and Wright of San Diego.
By consulting Table A of the Appendix, it will be seen that on sixteen roll calls the forty members of the Senate of 1909 voted 570 times. Of the 570 votes 311 were cast against what are regarded as machine policies; 259 for such policies. Of the 311 anti-machine votes, 164 were cast by holdover Senators, and were considered in the last chapter, while 147 were cast by Senators whose successors will be elected in 1910. Thus it will be seen, that on this basis, more desirable Senators will hold over than those whose terms of office will have expired before the next Legislature convenes.
On the basis of the machine votes the result is as satisfactory. On the sixteen roll calls, 259 machine votes were cast. Of these 140 were cast by the retiring Senators, and only 119 by those who will hold over, and who will sit in the Legislature of 1911. So, on the whole, the machine loses and the people gain in the retirement of the twenty Senators.
In point of numbers the result is as satisfactory. The machine will lose eleven Senators: Bates, Hartman, Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis and Wright; while the anti-machine forces will lose only seven who can be counted constantly for reform policies: Bell, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Cartwright, Miller and Sanford.
This leaves only Anthony and Curtin to be accounted for. Both these men stood out against the machine’s amendments to the Direct Primary bill, Anthony in particular standing against the severest pressure that could be brought to compel him to vote against the interests of his constituents and of the State. But Anthony could not be moved. On the railroad measures, however, Anthony voted with the machine. But he voted for the Walker-Otis bill, and, generally speaking, for all measures which made for political reforms. With any sort of organization of the reform forces, Anthony could be counted upon as safe for reform. His record on the Direct Primary bill certainly entitles him to the highest consideration.
Curtin also was as a general thing with the reform element. He voted, however, against the bill to do away with the party circle and he voted against the Local Option bill, but in so doing he merely followed the lead of such men as Birdsall, who, while out and out against the machine, were at the same time against local option and lukewarm on ballot reform. Birdsall, however, finally voted for the bill to remove the party circle from the election ballot, although he had on the first ballot voted against the bill. Curtin did not, however, change his vote. But Curtin did vote against the Initiative Amendment. On the other hand, Curtin’s record on the Direct Primary bill, on the Railroad Regulation bills, and on the Anti-Gambling bill is all that could be desired.
While the retirement of all the Senators who do not hold over would strengthen the reform element in the Senate, nevertheless the State can ill afford to lose the services of the seven who stood out so valiantly against machine policies. Senator Bell heads the list, with Caminetti, Black, Boynton and Sanford close seconds.
Senator Bell not only made the best record made in the Senate of 1909, but he made the best record of the Senate of 1907. Conscientious, fully awake to the responsibilities of his position, alive to the tricks of the machine leaders, in constant attendance, Senator Bell proved himself during the two sessions that he has served in the Senate, a power for good government. His absence from the session of 1911 would be a loss to the State.
Senators Black and Boynton at the session of 1909 made records quite as good as that made by Senator Bell. On the sixteen roll calls taken as tests of the standing of the several Senators, Black voted but once against reform policies. On the first ballot on the Party Circle bill he voted against the measure, but the day following, corrected his mistake by voting for the measure. Boynton voted to return the Local Option bill to the Judiciary Committee, but at the final test his vote was recorded for the bill[103a]. Thus neither of the two Senators can be said to have voted with the machine even on comparatively unimportant issues.
Senator Caminetti probably gave the machine more worry during the session than any other one Senator. Caminetti has, a way of saying out loud what his anti-machine associates are thinking, which is not at all popular with the machine. True to principle, he, a Democrat, voted for United States Senator Perkins because, from Caminetti’s view-point, no other candidate came so near to being the popular choice of the people as Perkins, and Caminetti holds that the people and not the Legislature should select the United States Senator. The machine was glad of Caminetti’s vote for Perkins, but was not at all pleased with the departure of a Democrat voting for a Republican. Caminetti’s course continued in by all the members of the Legislature, and the machine would lose its monopoly of Federal Senator-making.
Caminetti’s record is admirable. To be sure, he opposed Local Option, but he fought as few others fought for an effective Direct Primary law, for effective railroad regulation, in fact for practically all the reform policies which the anti-machine forces advocated and the machine opposed. Senator Sanford also voted for and worked for reform policies. Like Caminetti, however, he opposed the Local Option bill and voted against it. Senator Miller, on the other hand, supported the Local Option bill, but slipped more seriously than did either Caminetti or Sanford, by voting with the machine Senators against the Initiative amendment. Miller’s work for effective railroad regulation and for an effective Direct Primary law, won him the deserved admiration and confidence of the better element of the Legislature. Senator Cartwright voted but twelve times on the sixteen roll calls, but the twelve included the votes on the Direct Primary issues, on railroad regulation, and on all the moral issues considered. And each time, Senator Cartwright’s vote was cast on the side of good government.
On the other side, the machine side, Senator Bates distinguished himself but once during the session. It was Senator Bates who, to oblige a friend, had the notorious Change of Venue bill placed on the Special Urgency File, thus making the passage of the bill possible. Senator Bates’ vote and influence – such as it was – were thrown in the balance against giving the people of California a State-wide vote – the only practical vote – for United States Senators. He voted against the effective Stetson bill; he voted for the ineffective Railroad Regulation bill. In fact, aside from the Walker-Otis bill, Bates was on the machine side of practically every issue[104].
Senator Hartman was during the session a mere machine vote. He was always on hand, always voted, and voted with the machine. It was Senator Hartman who named an employee of the notorious Sausalito gambling rooms for an important committee clerkship. So far as the writer can recall, Hartman made but two speeches during the session; one against the Walker-Otis Anti-Gambling bill, one against the Islais Creek Harbor bill, the passage of which meant so much for San Francisco, the city, by the way, responsible for Hartman’s presence at Sacramento.
On the sixteen roll calls under consideration, Hartman voted sixteen times for machine policies. As a vote, Hartman is a valuable machine asset; otherwise a nonentity.
Those who have read the previous chapters have already formed their opinion of the advisability of returning to the Senate, Kennedy, the hero of the passage of the Change of Venue bill; McCartney, the author of the famous amendment to the Direct Primary bill; Weed, who introduced the resolution to drag Senator Black from his sick bed at Palo Alto; Reily, who with Senator Hartman, alone of all the Senate stood out against the passage of the Islais Creek Harbor bills; Willis, who as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, backed such measures as the Change of Venue bill, and opposed such measures as the Commonwealth Club bills; Savage, who in committee and out of it, opposed the State-wide vote plan for nominating United States Senators, and Senator Price.
Price did not distinguish himself particularly. On the sixteen roll calls included in Table A, his vote was recorded against the machine as many as four times. But there were ten Senators who did even worse. However, a story of the closing days of the session is quite characteristic of Senator Price.
An important roll call was on – if the writer remembers correctly, it was on Burnett’s motion to continue the investigation into the causes of the increase of freight and express rates. Price was present, but did not answer to the call of his name. The advocates of the resolution insisted that all vote, and demanded a call of the Senate. The doors were ordered closed, at which order Price made a run for the door. Caminetti saw the move, understood it and started to intercept the fleeing Senator. But if Caminetti were quick, Price was quicker. Caminetti missed his grab at Price, and so chased that gentleman to the door of the Senate chamber. The assistant Sergeant-at-Arms at the door was just swinging it closed as Price shot through. The determined Caminetti made a last grab at Price’s coattails, but too late. The massive doors banged closed, with Price, coattails and all, on the outside, and the balked Caminetti on the inside. Price didn’t vote on that roll call.
The failure to return Leavitt to the Senate will be a decided loss for the machine, one hard to offset. Next to Wolfe, Leavitt was by far the ablest floor leader in the Senate. The brute force of the man, his grossness, his indifference to public opinion, made him an ideal machine leader. Leavitt’s return from Alameda seems extremely doubtful. His district takes in the notorious gambling community, Emeryville, which will be purged of the thug element that has dominated it, by the enforcement of the Walker-Otis law. With the loss of this portion of his constituency, Senator Leavitt’s chance of re-election from Emeryville appears slim indeed.
But, according to rather persistent rumor, Senator Leavitt may be returned to the Senate, not from Alameda, but from the Siskiyou-Shasta District, the district represented by Weed. Leavitt has property up there, and the story runs that he will be a candidate from that part of the State. The voters of Shasta and Siskiyou, however, may conclude that they have something to say about it.
Senator Wright, the last of the Senators whose terms will have expired before the next session of the Legislature convenes, is being mentioned as a “reform candidate” for Governor. The idea seems to be that he will run on his record made at the session of 1909. If this be true, he may not be a candidate for re-election to the Senate. Senator Wright’s record as a State Senator has already been treated at length.
[103a] Senator Boynton was a consistent supporter of the Local Option bill from the beginning to the end of the session. He held, however, that the bill as originally drawn was not in proper form, and explained that he voted to have the bill returned to the committee that amendments, which he deemed necessary, could be made.
[104] Since the Legislature adjourned Senator Bates has been given a lucrative position in the United States Mint.
Chapter XXVIII.
Conclusion.
Events of the Session of 1909 Show That Before Any Effective Reform Can Be Brought About in California, Good Government Republicans and Democrats Must Unite to Organize Senate and Assembly – Appointment of Senate Committees May Be Taken Out of the Hands of the Lieutenant-Governor.
In the opening chapter it was stated that the machine element in the Legislature of 1909, although in the minority, defeated the purposes of the reform majority, because of three principal reasons:
(1) The reform element was without organization.
(2) The reform members had, except in the anti-racetrack gambling fight, no definite plan of action.
(3) The reform members of both Houses permitted the machine to name presiding officers and appoint committees.
This third reason must appeal to those who have read the foregoing pages as the most important of all. The story of every machine success, in face of opposition, is that of advantage gained through the moral support given by the presiding officers[105], or of co-operation of committees, or of both. But, unfortunately, a stupid partisanship – a partisanship which the machine finds far more potent than bribe money – makes this cause of machine success more difficult to overcome than either of the others. Already a movement is on foot, the details of which the writer is not at liberty to make public, that will unite the reform element of the next Legislature into a working body, from the day nominations are made. Steps to this end were taken before the last Legislature adjourned. In the same way, the work of bringing reform issues before the public – reform of the ballot laws, amendment of the Direct Primary law, the simplification of the mode of criminal procedure – is being taken up in the same effective, commonsense way as was the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. But here the progress of the commonsense element of machine opposition seems to halt. In spite of their experience of the last session, Democrats and Republicans who stand for good government hesitate at the suggestion of non-partisan organization of Senate and Assembly. The writer has shown in the foregoing chapters that the machine Republicans and the machine Democrats were for practical purposes a unit in the organization of the Legislature of 1909. Why, then, should not the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Democrats unite for purposes of organization, just as they united, at the session of 1909, to oppose vicious measures and to work for the passage of good bills? That is a question which has never been satisfactorily answered. It leads us, however, to the question of the real line of division in Senate and Assembly, and, for that matter, in State politics[106].
That the real division is no longer between political parties, or even between party factions, is apparent to the observer who has given the question any attention at all.
Not once, for example, did the California Legislature of 1909 divide on a party question; nor did it have to deal with any problem that had not at one time or another been endorsed by both parties. Both Democrats and Republicans in either State or county platforms had declared for the passage of an Anti-Racetrack Gambling law, for an effective Direct Primary law, for an effective Railroad Regulation law, for the submission to the people of a Constitutional Amendment granting the people the privilege of initiating laws. In the same way, county conventions of both parties – and county conventions are the closest to the people and most representative of them – had declared for local option, for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, for amendments to the codes that should simplify proceedings in criminal cases, for effective railroad regulation. Estimating the purposes of the two parties by their county and State platforms, none of these reforms can be regarded as any more Democratic than Republican, and these were the issues with which the Legislature of 1909 was called upon to deal.
A glance at the tables of votes in the appendix will show that the Assemblymen and the Senators who voted against the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, generally speaking, voted against the effective Stetson Railroad Regulation bill and for the ineffective Wright bill, opposed the provision in the Direct Primary bill giving the people an effective part in the selection of United States Senators, supported the passage of the Change of Venue bill, opposed the passage of the Local Option bill, opposed the submission of the Initiative amendment to the electors of the State. This negative element, opposed to policies which the normal citizen regards as making for the State’s best interests, has in these pages been called the machine[107].
As has been shown in these pages, the interests of the several beneficiaries of the system are in effect pooled; one element helps the other. The managers of the several elements, the political agents, if you like, of the tenderloin, Southern Pacific, racetrack, and public-service monopolies generally; in a word, all who seek to evade the law or to secure undue special privileges or to continue secure in the possession of such privileges already secured, recognize that they must hang together or submit to a reckoning with the public, which must necessarily result in the breaking of the particular monopoly which each enjoys, be it in transportation, nickel-in-the-slot graft, or traffic in the bodies of young women. Should the political bureau of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, for example, lose the support of the tenderloin, or of the racetrack gamblers, or of any other powerful group of its political associates, the corporation could no longer continue its strangle-hold upon the State. But none of its associates would dare thus offend. Such is the machine, which, in the name of a protective tariff, “sound money,” Abraham Lincoln, or Theodore Roosevelt, has organized the Legislature of California for sixteen years. Previous to 1895, there were California Legislatures organized in the name of Thomas Jefferson. But the machine has not taken the name of Thomas Jefferson in vain in California for many years[108].
Nevertheless, although acting under the name Republican, the machine is quite as dependent upon “Democrats” as upon “Republicans,” and as dependent upon either as upon the tenderloin, the brewery trust or the racetrack gambling element. It monopolizes neither party, but it divides both parties. Or it may be described as a canker that has eaten into both, diseased both, rendered both unwholesome, until a condition exists in the dominating parties that requires that the uncorrupted element of both unite to cut the diseased portion away[109].
As the machine divides the parties, so did it divide the Republican and Democratic delegations in the Senate and the Assembly of the California Legislature of 1909. Hare and Kennedy, for example, Democratic Senators, voted constantly with Wolfe and Leavitt, Republican Senators, for machine policies. Nor was the opposition restricted to party lines. Black and Boynton and Cutten, Republican Senators, were found voting constantly with Campbell and Holohan, Democratic Senators, against the machine. Between Black and Wolfe, Republicans, there was nothing in common during the entire session; nor was there anything in common between Campbell and Kennedy, Democrats. On practically every important issue, however, Kennedy, Democrat, and Wolfe, Republican, made common cause, while Black, Republican, and Campbell, Democrat, opposed them.
The same comparisons could be made in the Assembly, where such Democrats as Wheelan and Baxter were found with Mott and Coghlan, Republicans, supporting machine policies, while opposed to them were anti-machine Republicans of the character of Bohnett and Callan, and anti-machine Democrats like Polsley and Mendenhall.
Thus, for practical purposes, the Legislature can not be divided on party lines. The only practical line of division is between the machine element, and the anti-machine element. Such, at the session of 1909, was the division on every important issue; such will it be at the legislative session of 1911. Why should not the same division govern the organization of Senate and Assembly?
As a matter of fact, the machine disregards party lines even in organizing. In making up its committees it considers fealty to machine interests above party name. For example, Hare and Kennedy were the Democratic Senators who this year affiliated with the machine. Kennedy was appointed to practically every important committee, at least to those before which important fights were to be made. Thus we find him on the Committee on Commerce and Navigation, Contingent Expenses, Elections and Election Laws, Prisons and Reformatories, and Public Morals, Hare was appointed to the Committee on Commerce and Navigation, Elections and Election Laws, Labor, Capital and Immigration, Municipal Corporations, Printing, and Public Buildings and Grounds. In committees, as well as on the floor of the Senate, Hare and Kennedy were found as a general thing casting their influence and their votes on the side of machine policies.
Had the anti-machine Democrats and the anti-machine Republicans in Senate and Assembly, who worked together for the same ends and voted together on practically every important issue, taken the same course, and united for the organization of the two Houses, reform measures which were defeated by narrow margins would have been made laws, and machine measures which became laws defeated.
Such being the case, is it not the duty of the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Democrats who may sit in the Legislature of 1911, to organize both Senate and Assembly to resist machine purposes and policies?
This can be done comparatively easily in the Assembly, where a movement to elect the Speaker such as was started by Drew of Fresno this year, if carried out, would take the Assembly out of machine hands. Although the organization of the Senate looks more difficult, because the Senate has no voice in the selection of its presiding officer, nevertheless, even though a Warren Porter occupy the post of Lieutenant-Governor, at the session of 1911 the reform element can elect its President pro tem., and appoint the Senate committees. In other words, a majority of the Senate, may if it see fit, take the appointing of the committees out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor.
There are two important precedents for this course, one established by a Democratic Senate; the other by a Republican Senate.
The Democratic precedent was established in 1887. In that year Robert W. Waterman, a Republican, was Lieutenant-Governor and presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate was made up of twenty-six Democrats and fourteen Republicans. The Democratic majority organized the Senate under the following rule, which will be found in the Senate journal of that session:
“All Committees of the Senate, special and standing, and all joint Committees on the part thereof, shall be elected by the Senate unless otherwise ordered.”
The Republican precedent was made in 1897. In that year, William T. Jeter, a Democrat, was Lieutenant-Governor, while a majority of the Senators were Republicans. Instead of leaving the appointing of the committees to the Democratic Lieutenant-Governor, the Republican Senators adopted a rule that “all standing committees of the Senate shall be named by the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, and the first named shall be chairman thereof. All other committees shall be appointed in such manner as the Senate shall determine.”
In other words, the Republican majority of the Senate named the Senate committees of the session of 1897, taking their appointment out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor as the Democrats had done ten years before. There is no good reason why the members of the anti-machine majority in the Senate should not have taken the same course in 1909, and named the committees. Had they done so, and named the President pro tem., they would have organized the Senate in the interest of those policies in advancing which they were soon in open revolt against Lieutenant-Governor Porter, the machine Senators and the machine lobby. Failing to do so, they placed themselves under a handicap which they were unable to overcome.
The reform element of the Legislature of 1911 will have in the experience of the reform element of the session of 1909, an important lesson. And The People of California, who will elect that Legislature, have a lesson as important. The successes of the machine at the session of 1909, where a clear majority of both Houses opposed machine policies, demonstrated that the well-being of the State requires that the opponents of the machine in Senate and Assembly, regardless of party label, organize the Legislature. But back of this is the even more important requirement that there be elected to the Legislature American citizens, with the responsibility of their citizenship upon them, rather than partisans, burdened until their good purposes are made negative, by the responsibility of their partisanship.
[105] See, for example, Speaker Stanton’s ruling on the Direct Primary bill when the Assembly was considering the question of receding from its amendments.
[106] The machine recognizes the real division, if the reform element does not. The machine, for example, calls itself Republican, and as such controls the patronage of the San Francisco water front. The appointments to water front jobs are, of course, partisan, but the writer is reliably informed that as many “Democrats” as “Republicans” are employed there. Senators Hare and Kennedy, we have seen, although Democrats, got appointments to holdover committees. The machine recognizes but one line in politics, that which divides those who support machine policies from those who stand for good government and the square deal. When those who stand for good government and the square deal become as clear sighted, the fight against the machine will not be quite so unequal.
[107] The term “machine” is, as a general thing, rather lightly used. It is made to stand for everything, from what might be and should be perfectly legitimate party organization, to the Southern Pacific political bureau. The Southern Pacific political bureau is, as a matter of fact, the dominating factor in machine affairs, which gives some reason for dubbing the machine Southern Pacific. But it is nor more the Southern Pacific machine than it is the Tenderloin machine or the Racetrack gamblers’ machine, or the United Railroads machine, or the Electric Power Trust machine.
[108] Bryce in his American Commonwealth, more than a quarter of a century ago, showed the hollowness of the contention of the machine element for arty consideration. “The interest of a Boss in political questions,” said Bryce in one of his admirable chapters on this subject, “is usually quite secondary. Here and there one may be found and who is a politician in the European sense, who, whether sincerely or not, purports and professes to be interested in some principle or measure affecting the welfare of the country. But the attachment of the ringster is usually given wholly to the concrete party, that is, to the men who compose it, regarded as office-holders or office-seekers; and there is often not even a profession of zeal for any party doctrine. As a noted politician happily observed to a friend of mine: ‘You know, Mr. R., there are no politics in politics.’ “
[109] One has a wider view of this condition if he look out beyond the Sacramento Capitol, into the Senate Hall at Washington. The following is from an editorial article which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, of June 12 last:
“The Iron trade is still in a depressed state. Output is much below the capacity of the mills, and prices have not recovered from the demoralization of early spring. Yet the other day the common stock of the Steel Trust sold higher than ever before. When issued, this common stock was rather thinner than water, and it represented mostly a capitalization of the Trust’s tariff graft. At the new high price the market valuation of the graft, therefore, is some three hundred million dollars. A few days before this new high price was made, eighteen Democratic Senators voted with the Aldrich Republicans to take iron ore from the free list – where the House bill had put it – and protect it by a substantial duty. This action was generally regarded as insuring a continuation of the Trust’s tariff graft. Hence a record price for the common stock was logical enough, although the iron trade was not exactly flourishing at the moment.
“Similar acts by Democratic Senators were denounced by President Cleveland as party perfidy and dishonor; but the regrettable fact is there is only one party in the United States Senate – just one party, with some scattering Republicans and Democratic Insurgents. For the purpose of getting elected and making stump speeches, different labels and catchwords are employed; but when it comes down to real business in the matter of taxing eighty-odd million users of iron and steel products for the benefit of an opulent trust, we find forty-three Republican Senators and eighteen Democratic Senators staunchly voting aye, against fourteen Republicans and ten Democrats who vote nay.
“With over half of the Democratic members of the Upper House fondly recording themselves as Little Brothers to Protection, there is slight danger that the tariff will be revised otherwise than by its friends.”
Appendix
Tables of Votes.
The test votes given in the several tables record in every instance the result of a contest between the machine and the anti-machine forces in Senate or Assembly. It is quite evident that a unanimous vote cannot be counted a test vote. Thus the unanimous vote by which the Reciprocal Demurrage bill passed the Senate cannot be regarded as a test, although the machine fought the demurrage principle viciously in 1907.
Nor can a vote on a measure be taken as a test vote, where the vote was taken without the members fully realizing what was before them. Thus the votes on the Wheelan bills do not appear in either Senate or Assembly tables. These measures were slipped through Senate and Assembly without the members of either House fully realizing what the bills were, their purpose, or far-reaching effects. To be sure, a member of the Legislature should know what he is voting on, but when one considers the incidents of the whirl-wind close of the session of 1909, the injustice of holding a member accountable for inadvertently voting for a measure which he had intended to oppose, becomes apparent.
Following this rule, a vote on a given measure may be a test vote in one House and not in the other. The Change of Venue bill is an example in point. The Change of Venue bill was slipped through the Assembly, without the members fully realizing its import, and hence without opposition. But in the Senate the issue was fought out. The Senate vote on the Change of Venue bill, then, is taken as a test vote, while the Assembly vote on the same measure is not so regarded. In the same way, the vote on the substitution of the Wright bill for the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill was a test vote in the Senate. But in the Assembly there was no test vote taken on the railroad regulation measures, for the Wright bill was put through practically without opposition. The test railroad vote in the Assembly came on the Sanford resolution providing for government steamships on the Pacific. There was no test vote on this in the Senate, for in the Senate it was adopted practically without opposition.
Table A – Records of Senators.
The records of the members of the Senate on sixteen test votes are shown in Table A. The names of the Senators are arranged in the order of the number of times their votes were recorded on the side of progress and reform, the name of the Senator with the most positive votes to his credit appearing at the top of the list, and the Senator with the least number at the bottom.
While few will quarrel with the fact that Senator Bell’s name leads the list, while Senators Finn and Hartman divide negative honors at the bottom, nevertheless the arrangement is not, strictly speaking, fair, although it is probably as fair as it could be made.
Senator Walker, for example, has only one anti-reform vote registered against him, but it was, perhaps, the most important test vote of the session, that on the Railroad Regulation measures. Senator Cutten, on the other hand, voted on the reform side of every question with the exception of the measure intended to work political reform by removing the party circle from the election ballot. Senator Cutten is recorded twice against this bill, it being necessary, in justice to all the Senators, to give both the votes taken on this measure. But considering the relative importance of the Railroad Regulation bills and the Party Circle bill, all must admit that Senator Cutten made a better record than Senator Walker, although Cutten’s name appears below that of Walker.
Unavoidable absence from the Senate Chamber cut down the records of several of the Senators. Black and Stetson, whose severe illness kept them from Sacramento toward the end of the session, furnish examples of this.
Then again, the Party Circle bill and the Local Option bill were measures on which several of the strongest of the opponents of the machine differed with the majority of their anti-machine associates. With the four votes taken on these two issues out of the reckoning, Bell, Thompson, Roseberry, Cutten, Campbell, Boynton, Sanford, Cartwright, Black, Holohan, Birdsall, Stetson, Rush and Strobridge, have not one vote for a machine-backed policy against them. Caminetti’s vote to amend the Stanford bill excludes him from the list, but as this measure was of the same character and policy as the Local Option bill, Caminetti’s name should in justice be included among those of the Senators who made practically clear records. Looking at the table in a broad way, the first nineteen Senators of the list made anti-machine records. Of the eleven caucus Republicans among them, only one voted against admitting Bell to the Republican caucus.
The nineteen voted for the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, they voted every time against the machine on the Direct Primary issue, only two of them voted for the Change of Venue bill, only two of them voted against the Railroad Regulation bill. These comparisons can be carried out indefinitely, and always to the advantage of the nineteen.
Senator Wright is twentieth on the list; Senator Anthony is twenty-first. Those who followed these two Senators through the Direct Primary bill fight will see immediately that Wright has crowded into undeserved standing. There is a very good reason for this. In the Senate, the roll of Senators is called alphabetically, and Senator Wright’s name is the last on the list. A glance at the table will show that Senator Wright did not vote once against the machine when his vote would have decided the issue. He voted for the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill, but before him thirty-two Senators had voted for the bill, and only seven against it. Wright’s thirty-third affirmative vote counted for nothing. On the other hand, when Wright’s name was reached on roll call on the Change of Venue bill, with the vote standing nineteen for the bill and sixteen against, and twenty-one votes necessary for its passage, Senator Wright cast the twentieth affirmative vote, thus ensuring the measure’s passage. In the same way, Senator Wright’s vote the following day, tied the score on the motion for a call of the Senate, thus defeating the motion, and preventing reconsideration of the Change of Venue bill which would have meant its defeat.
The query is: Had the vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill stood nineteen against the bill, and twenty for, when Wright’s name was reached, with twenty-one votes necessary for its passage, would Wright’s vote have been cast for or against it? Any person who has any doubt on the question, is referred to Senator Wright’s part in the passage of the amended Direct Primary bill, and in the defeat of the Stetson bill.
It is most advantageous to have one’s name at the bottom of a roll call. Senator Wright’s position above that of Senators Anthony and Burnett, emphasizes the necessity of considering these tables in connection with the chapters dealing with the several issues involved. From the first days of the session Senators Anthony and Burnett gave indications that had the anti-machine forces been organized, they would have been found consistently against the machine. At any rate, their records are admittedly more creditable than that made by Senator Wright.
The Sixteen Test Votes.
Senator Bell did not vote in the Senate Republican caucus, nor did the nine Democratic Senators. Thus in the sixteen votes recorded, Bell and the Democratic members voted only fifteen times. An outline of each of the several issues involved follows:
Senate A – The first test vote of the Republican majority which came in the Republican caucus described in Chapter II, on motion to admit Senator Bell to caucus privileges. Lost by a vote of 16 to 14.
Senate B – Vote on proposed McCartney Amendments to Direct Primary bill. Amendments defeated by vote of 27 to 13. See Chapter IX.
Senate C – Senate vote on Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.
Senate D – Vote on Wolfe’s motion to send the Local Option bill back to the Judiciary Committee. See Chapter XVIII.
Senate E – First vote on Senate Bill 220, abolishing the party circle on the election ballot. Measure was defeated by vote of 15 to 23.
Senate F – Vote by which the above Senate Bill 220 was passed on reconsideration. Note the Senators who changed to the side favoring the measure.
Senate G – Test vote on Senate Bill 1144, known as the “Stanford Bill,” which prohibited the sale of intoxicants within a mile and a half of a University. The measure was aimed at the low groggeries maintained in the vicinity of the campus at Stanford. It was fought by the same tenderloin element that had opposed the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. Senator Wolfe moved to amend the measure to exclude fraternal club houses and hotels of fifty bed-rooms or more, from its provisions. The amendment would have delayed and perhaps defeated the bill. Wolfe’s motion was defeated.
Senate H – Vote by which the above Senate Bill 1144 was finally passed.
Senate I – First test railroad vote in the Senate – Senator Stetson moved that Stetson bill be substituted for the Wright bill. The motion was defeated by a vote of 16 to 22. Had Rush and Roseberry been present they would have voted on the side of the Stetson measure. This would have made the vote twenty-two for the Wright bill, and eighteen for the Stetson bill. See Chapter XIII.
Senate J – Vote on the Initiative Amendment. See Chapter XIX.
Senate K – Vote on the Local Option bill. See Chapter XVIII.
Senate L – Vote on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4, to eliminate ambiguities from those sections of the State Constitution which prescribe the powers and duties of the Railroad Commission. See Chapter XIV.
Senate M – Vote on Assembly amendments to the Direct Primary bill. Wright moved that the Senate concur in the amendments. The motion was lost, but on Wolfe’s motion to reconsider the vote, the Senate was held in deadlock for more than a week. See Chapters X and XI.
Senate N – Vote on Change of Venue bill. See Chapter XVI.
Senate O – Vote on motion to reconsider vote by which Change of Venue bill was passed. See Chapter XVI.
Senate P – Vote on Burnett’s motion that the investigation into the causes for the increase of freight and express rates be continued after the Legislature adjourned. See Chapter XIV.
Tables B and C – Record of Assemblymen.
The two tables showing the votes of the members of the Assembly include eleven test votes. The names of the Assemblymen are arranged as in the case of the Senators with the names of those who made the best records at the top.
It will be seen that fourteen Assemblymen voted against the machine on every roll call, eight were absent on one roll call each, but voted the ten times they were present against the machine, while three members voted ‘once each with the machine, and ten times against it. These twenty-five members, voting 267 times, cast 264 votes on the side of progress and reform, and three votes for machine policies. The record indicates what might have been done in the Assembly had the reform forces been organized. Indeed, the forty leading Assemblymen, casting 421 votes, cast only 48 votes for machine policies and 373 against.
The same considerations governed the selection of test votes in the Assembly as in the Senate. The votes are as follows:
Assembly A – The first test vote in the Assembly was on Drew’s resolution to reject the report of the Committee on Rules. The resolution was adopted, and the machine’s plan to force “gag rules” on the Assembly failed. See Chapter III Organization of the Assembly.
Assembly B – The test vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. The Committee on Public Morals had recommended that the bill “do pass.” Mott moved that the bill be re-referred to the committee. Motion lost by a vote of 53 to 23. See Chapter VII.
Assembly C – Vote on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.
Assembly D – Vote on motion to reconsider the vote by which the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill was passed. See Chapter VII.
Assembly E – The test railroad vote in the Assembly came on Drew’s motion to recall Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 from committee. The resolution called for a line of government-owned steamships on the Pacific from San Francisco to Panama. The resolution, having been adopted by the Senate, went to the Assembly and was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. To hasten action on the resolution, Drew moved that it be recalled from the committee. A two-thirds vote was necessary for Drew’s motion to prevail. The motion failed to carry by a vote of 36 for to 29 against.
Assembly F – Vote on motion to strike out of Senate joint Resolution No. 3-considered under E – those sections which referred to Commissioner Bristow’s report recommending that the Government steamship line be established, and criticizing the combinations made between the several transportation companies. The motion prevailed by a vote of 43 to 30.
Assembly G – Assembly test vote on the Direct Primary bill. Vote taken on Leed’s motion that vote on United States Senators be advisory and by districts. The motion prevailed by a vote of 38 to 36. See Chapter X.
Assembly H – Vote on proposed amendments to the Islais Creek Harbor bill. Motion was made to amend by substituting 44 blocks for the 63 necessary for the improvement. Had this been done, the work would have been made impracticable. Motion lost by a vote of 30 to 45. See Chapter XXIII, “Influence of the San Francisco Delegation.”
Assembly I – Leeds moved that Senate Bill 220 removing the party circle from the election ballot be denied second reading. The motion prevailed by a vote of thirty-six for, to thirty-five against.
Assembly J – Vote on Senate Bill 1144 (the Stanford bill), to prohibit the sale of intoxicants within a mile and a half of Stanford University.
Assembly K – Vote on the Judicial Column bill. This measure provided that the names of candidates for the Judiciary be placed in a separate non-partisan column on the election ballot. The bill passed the Senate, but was defeated in the Assembly.
The Other Tables.
Table D shows the six votes on the Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill. See Chapter VII.
Tables E and F – Show the records of the San Francisco delegation in the Senate and Assembly. See Chapter XXIII.
Table G – Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the twenty Senators whose terms of office will have expired before the next session convenes. See Chapter XXVII.
Table H – Shows the records on sixteen test votes of the twenty Senators who were elected in 1908, and who hold over to serve in the session of 1911. See Chapter XXVI.
Table I – Shows records of the members of the Assembly on the four principal votes arising out of the fight for the passage of the so-called Anti-Japanese bills. See Chapter XX.
Table A-Records of 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bell * * * * * * 2 Thompson * * * * 0 * * 3 Roseberry * * * * 0 * * 4 Walker * * * * * * * 5 Cutten * * * * 0 0 * 6 Campbell * * * * *
7 Boynton * * * 0 * * 8 Sanford * * 0 * * * 9 Cartwright * * * * * 10 Caminetti * * 0 * * 0 11 Estudillo 0 * * * * * * 12 Black * * * * 0 * * 13 Holohan * * 0 * *
14 Miller * * * * * 15 Birdsall * * * 0 0 * 16 Stetson * * * * * 17 Rush * * * 0 * * 18 Curtin * * * 0 * 19 Strobridge * * * 0 0 0 * 20 Wright 0 * * * * * * 21 Anthony * * * 0 0 * 22 Burnett 0 * * 0 0 0 23 McCartney 0 0 * 0 * 24 Kennedy 0 * 0 * * 0 25 Lewis 0 * * 0 0 0 26 Willis 0 0 * * * * 0 27 Welch * * * 0 0 0 28 Bates 0 0 * * 0 0 * 29 Price 0 * * 0 0 0 * 30 Savage * 0 * 0 0 0 * 31 Bills 0 0 * * 0 0 * 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 * * * * 33 Hare 0 0 0 * * 0 34 Hurd 0 * * 0 0 * 35 Martinelli 0 * * 0 0 0 0 36 Wolfe 0 0 0 0 * * 0 37 Reily * 0 0 0 0 0 38 Weed 0 0 0 * 0 0 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __________________________________________________________________________ Totals 14 16 13 27 33 7 20 15 16 22 23 15 8 22
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 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bell * * * * * * 2 Thompson * * * * * * 3 Roseberry * * * * * 4 Walker * 0 * * * * 5 Cutten * * * * * * 6 Campbell * * * * * * 7 Boynton * * * * * 8 Sanford * * * 0 * * 9 Cartwright * * * * * 10 Caminetti * * * 0 * * 11 Estudillo * 0 * * 0 * 12 Black * * * * * 13 Holohan * * 0 * * 14 Miller * * 0 * * * 15 Birdsall * * 0 * * 16 Stetson * * *
17 Rush * * 0 * * 18 Curtin * * 0 0 * * 19 Strobridge * * 0 * * 20 Wright * 0 0 * * 0 21 Anthony * 0 * 0 0 * 22 Burnett * 0 0 * 0 23 McCartney * 0 * 0 * 0 24 Kennedy 0 0 * 0 0 0 25 Lewis * * 0 0 0 0 26 Willis * 0 0 0 0 0 27 Welch 0 * 0 0 0 28 Bates * 0 0 0 29 Price * 0 0 0 0 0 30 Savage * 0 0 0 0 31 Bills * 0 0 0 0 0 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Hare 0 0 * 0 0 34 Hurd 0 0 0 0 0 35 Martinelli * 0 0 0 0 36 Wolfe * 0 0 0 0 0 37 Reily 0 * 0 0 0 38 Weed 0 0 0 0 0 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 0 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___________________________________________________________________________ Totals 29 5 16 22 20 15 12 25 19 16 20 19
N O P
__________________________________________________________________ To Test Totals
Change To To
of reconsider investigate For Against Absent Venue Change of Freight Reform Reform Bill. Venue Bill. Rates.
__________________________________________________________________ Senator Aye No Aye No Aye No
__________________________________________________________________ 1 Bell * * * 15 0 0 2 Thompson * * * 15 1 0 3 Roseberry * * * 14 1 1 4 Walker * * 14 1 1 5 Cutten * * * 14 2 0 6 Campbell * * 13 0 2 7 Boynton * * * 13 1 2 8 Sanford * * * 13 2 0 9 Cartwright * * 12 0 3 10 Caminetti * * * 12 3 0 11 Estudillo 0 * * 12 4 0 12 Black * * * 11 1 4 14 Miller 0 * 11 2 2 15 Birdsall * * * 11 3 2 16 Stetson * * 10 0 6 17 Rush * 10 2 4 18 Curtin * * 10 3 2 19 Strobridge * * 10 4 2 20 Wright 0 0 0 9 7 0 21 Anthony 0 0 7 8 1 22 Burnett * 5 7 4 23 McCartney 0 0 5 8 3 24 Kennedy * 0 5 9 1 25 Lewis 0 * 0 5 10 1 26 Willis 0 0 0 5 11 0 27 Welch 0 0 4 9 3 28 Bates 0 0 0 4 10 2 29 Price 0 0 4 11 1 30 Savage 0 0 0 4 11 1 31 Bills 0 0 0 4 12 0 32 Leavitt 0 0 0 4 12 0 33 Hare 0 0 3 10 2 34 Hurd 0 0 0 3 11 2 35 Martinelli 0 0 0 3 12 1 36 Wolfe 0 0 0 3 13 0 37 Reily 0 0 0 2 12 2 38 Weed 0 0 0 1 13 2 39 Finn 0 0 0 0 15 1 40 Hartman 0 0 0 0 16 0 _________________________________________________________________ Totals 21 16 18 18 12 16 311 259 60
Table B-Records of Assemblymen on Eleven Test Votes
Forty Members Making Best Records
* indicates vote on side of Progress and Reform
0 indicates vote against Progress and Reform
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
_________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bohnett * * * * * *
2 Callan * * * * * *
3 Cattell * * * * * *
4 Costar * * * * * *
5 Gibbons * * * * * *
6 Hewitt * * * * * *
7 Johnson, P. H. * * * * * *
8 Mendenhall * * * * * *
9 Polsley * * * * * *
10 Preston * * * * * *
11 Telfer * * * * * *
12 Whitney * * * * * *
13 Wilson * * * * * *
14 Young * * * * * *
15 Cogswell * * * * *
16 Drew * * * * * *
17 Gillis * * * * *
18 Juilliard * * * * *
19 Kehoe * * * * *
20 Maher * * * * *
21 Sackett * * * * * *
22 Wyllie * * * * *
23 Flint * * * * * *
24 Hinkle * * * * * *
25 Stuckenbruck * * * * * *
26 Gerdes 0 * * * * 27 Holmquist 0 * * * * *
28 Otis * * * * * 0 29 Irwin * * * *
*
30 Rutherford * * * * * 0 31 Griffiths 0 * * * * 32 Odom * 0 * * * 33 Hayes * * * *
0 *
34 Lightner * * * * 0 35 Melrose * * * * * 0 36 Silver * * * * * 0 37 Beatty * * * 0 38 Cronin * * * * * 0 39 Barndollar 0 * * * * 0 40 Rech * * * * 0 0 ________________________________________________________________________________ Totals 32 4 1 38 40 0 0 40 33 2 9 28
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 __________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Bohnett * * * * * 11 0 0 2 Callan * * * * * 11 0 0 3 Cattell * * * * * 11 0 0 4 Costar * * * * * 11 0 0 5 Gibbons * * * * * 11 0 0 6 Hewitt * * * * * 11 0 0 7 Johnson, P. H. * * * * * 11 0 0 8 Mendenhall * * * * * 11 0 0 9 Polsley * * * * * 11 0 0 10 Preston * * * * * 11 0 0 11 Telfer * * * * * 11 0 0 12 Whitney * * * * * 11 0 0 13 Wilson * * * * * 11 0 0 14 Young * * * * * 11 0 0 15 Cogswell * * * * * 10 0 1 16 Drew * * * * 10 0 1 17 Gillis * * * * * 10 0 1 18 Juilliard * * * * * 10 0 1 19 Kehoe * * * * * 10 0 1 20 Maher * * * * * 10 0 1 21 Sackett * * * * 10 0 1 22 Wyllie * * * * * 10 0 1 23 Flint * * 0 * * 10 1 0 24 Hinkle * * 0 * * 10 1 0 25 Stuckenbruck * 0 * * * 10 1 0 26 Gerdes * * * * * 9 1 1 27 Holmquist * * * * 0 9 2 0 28 Otis * * 0 * * 9 2 0 29 Irwin * 0 * 0 * 8 2 1 30 Rutherford 0 * * * 0 8 3 0 31 Griffiths * * 0 * 7 2 2 32 Odom * 0 * * 7 2 2 33 Hayes * 0 0 * 7 3 1 34 Lightner 0 0 * * * 7 3 1 35 Melrose 0 * 0 * 0 7 4 0 36 Silver * 0 0 * 0 7 4 0 37 Beatty 0 * * 0 * 6 3 2 38 Cronin 0 * 0 0 6 4 1 39 Barndollar 0 * 0 * 0 6 5 0 40 Rech 0 * 0 * 0 6 5 0 __________________________________________________________________________________ Totals 7 33 6 34 10 28 36 2 31 7 373 48 19
Table C-Records of Assemblymen on Eleven Test Votes
Forty Members Making Poorest Records
* 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 ____________________________________________________________________________ Drew’s
Motion to To Return Vote on To To recall Reject Walker-Otis Walker- reconsider S. J. R. Committee’s Bill to Otis Walker-Otis No. 3 from Rules. Committee Bill. Bill. Committee. ____________________________________________________________________________ Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No ____________________________________________________________________________ 41 Hammon * * * * 42 Hawk 0 * * * * 43 Stanton 0 * * * * 44 Transue 0 * * * 45 Hanlon * * * * 0 46 Wagner * 0 * 0 * 47 Webber * 0 * * 0 48 Butler * * * 0 49 Collum * 0 0
50 Dean 0 * * * 0 51 Perine 0 * * * 52 Pulcifer 0 * * * 0 53 Collier 0 * * * 0 54 Moore 0 0 * 0 55 Leeds 0 * * * 0 56 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 57 Fleisher 0 * * * 0 58 Flavelle 0 * * * 0 59 McClelland 0 * * * 0 60 Beardslee 0 0 * 0 0 61 Hans 0 * * * 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 0 0 * 0 0 63 Baxter 0 0 0 64 Wheelan * * 0 65 Schmidt 0 0 0 0 66 Black * 0 0 0
67 O’Neil * 0 0 0 0 68 Coghlan 0 0 0 0
69 Hopkins * 0 0 0 70 Johnson, T. D. 0 0 * 0 0 71 Pugh 0 0 0 0 0 72 Feeley 0 * 0 0 73 Johnson, P. A. 0 0 * 0 0 74 Greer 0 0 * 0 0 75 Mott 0 0 * 0 0 76 Cullen 0 0 0 0
77 Beban 0 0 0 0 78 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 79 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Totals 9 28 22 15 27 10 19 17 3 27 Totals from Table B 32 4 1 38 40 0 0 40 33 2 Grand Total 41 32 23 53 67 10 19 57 36 29
F G H I J K _______________________________________________________________________ To To To deny
amend Test Vote amend Party Vote on Vote on S. J. on Direct Islais Circle Stanford Judicial R. No. Primary. Creek Bill Bill. Column 3. Harbor Second Bill. Bill. Reading.
_________________________________________________________________________ Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No _________________________________________________________________________ 41 Hammon 0 0 0 *
42 Hawk * 0 0 0 0 43 Stanton 0 0 * 0 0 44 Transue 0 0 * 0 * 0 45 Hanlon 0 0 0 0 * 0 46 Wagner 0 0 * 0 * 0 47 Webber *
48 Butler 0 0 * 0
49 Collum 0 0 * * 0 * 50 Dean 0 * 0 0
51 Perine 0 0 0 0 * 52 Pulcifer 0 0 0 * 53 Collier 0 0 0 0 *
54 Moore 0 * * 0 0 * 55 Leeds 0 0 * 0 0 0 56 Nelson 0 0 * * 0 0 57 Fleisher 0 0 0
58 Flavelle 0 0 0 0 59 McClelland 0 0 0 0 0 60 Beardslee 0 * 0 0 * 0 61 Hans 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Johnson, G. L. 0 0 0 * * 0 63 Baxter 0 0 * * 64 Wheelan 0 0 0 0
65 Schmidt 0 * * (a) 0 66 Black 0 0 * 0 0 67 O’Neil 0 0 0 *
68 Coghlan 0 0 * * 0 0 69 Hopkins 0
70 Johnson, T. D. 0 0 0
71 Pugh 0 0 * 0 72 Feeley 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 Johnson, P. A. 0 0 0 0 0 74 Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Mott 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 Cullen 0 0 0 0 0 77 Beban 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Macauley 0 0 0 0 0 79 McManus 0 0 0 0 0 _________________________________________________________________________ Totals 34 2 31 3 24 11 26 7 9 15 4 22
Totals from Table B 9 28 7 33 6 34 10 28 36 2 31 7
Grand Total 43 30 38 36 30 45 36 35 45 17 35 29
Totals
___________________________________________ For Against Absent
Reform Reform
___________________________________________ Assemblymen
___________________________________________ 42 Hawk 5 5 1
43 Stanton 5 5 1
44 Transue 5 5 1
45 Hanlon 5 6 0
46 Wagner 5 6 0
47 Webber 4 2 5
48 Butler 4 4 3
49 Collum 4 5 2
50 Dean 4 5 2
51 Perine 4 5 2
52 Pulcifer 4 5 2
53 Collier 4 6 1
54 Moore 4 6 1
55 Leeds 4 7 0
56 Nelson 4 7 0
57 Fleisher 3 5 3
58 Flavelle 3 6 2
59 McClelland 3 7 1
60 Beardslee 3 8 0
61 Hans 3 8 0
62 Johnson, G. L. 3 8 0
63 Baxter 2 5 4
64 Wheelan 2 5 4
65 Schmidt 2 6 3
66 Black 2 7 2
67 O’Neil 2 7 2
68 Coghlan 2 8 1
69 Hopkins 1 4 6
70 Johnson, T. D. 1 7 3
71 Pugh 1 8 2
72 Feeley 1 9 1
73 Johnson, P. A. 1 9 1
74 Greer 1 10 0
75 Mott 1 10 0
76 Cullen 0 9 2
77 Beban 0 10 1
78 Macauley 0 10 1
79 McManus 0 10 1
________________________________________ Totals 107 258 64
Totals from Table B 373 48 19
Grand Total 480 306 83
Table D-Record of Assemblymen on Anti-Racetrack Gambling Bill (Walker-Otis Bill)
F shows vote For the Bill
A shows vote Against the Bill
A B C D
__________________________________________________________ Assembly Vote Motion to Reconsider Butler’s Motion to on Walker-Otis Return Bill Defeat of Motion Put Bill Bill. to Mott’s to Amend on its Committee. Motion. Bill. Passage. __________________________________________________________ Assemblymen Aye No Aye No Aye No Aye No __________________________________________________________ Barndollar F F F A
Baxter A A A A
Beardslee A A A A Beatty F F F
Beban A A A A
Black A A A A
Bohnett F F F F
Butler F F A A
Callan F F F F
Cattell F F F F
Coghlan A A A A Cogswell F F F
Collier F F F F
Collum A A A A
Costar F F F F
Cronin F F F F
Cullen A A A
Dean F F F F
Drew F F F F
Feeley A A A
Flavelle F F F F
Fleisher F F F F
Flint F F F F
Gerdes F F F F
Gibbons F A F
Gillis F F F F
Greer A A A A
Griffiths F F F F
Hammon F F F F
Hanlon F F F F
Hans F F F F
Hawk F A F F
Hayes F F F F
Hewitt F F F F
Hinkle F F F F
Holmquist F F F F
Hopkins A A A A Irwin F A A A
Johnson, G. L. A A A A Johnson, P. A. A A A A
Johnson, P. H. F
Johnston, T. D. A A A A Juilliard F A A A
Kehoe F F F F
Leeds F F F F
Lightner F F F A Macauley A A A A
Maher F F F A
McClellan F A F A McManus A A A A
Melrose F F F F
Mendenhall F F F F
Moore A A F A
Mott A A F A
Nelson A A A A
Odom A A F A
Otis F F F F
O’Neil A A A A
Perine F F F A
Polsley F F F F
Preston F F F F
Pugh A A A A
Pulcifer F F F F
Rech F F F F
Rutherford F F F F
Sackett F F
Schmitt A A A A Silver F F F F
Stanton F F F F
Stuckenbruck F F F F Telfer F F F F
Transue F F F F
Wagner A A F F
Webber A A A A
Wheelan A A A
Whitney F F F F
Wilson F F F F
Wyatt
Wyllie F F F F
Young F F F F
__________________________________________________________ Totals 23 53 30 48 23 52 44 32
E F Totals
__________________________________________________________ Assembly Vote Vote Vote on For Against on Walker-Otis on Motion to the the Absent. Bill. Bill. Reconsider. Bill. Bill. __________________________________________________________ Assemblymen Aye No Aye No
__________________________________________________________ Barndollar F F 5 1
Baxter A 5 1
Beardslee F A 1 5
Beatty F F 5 1
Beban A A 6
Black A A 6
Bohnett F F 6
Butler F F 4 2
Callan F F 6
Cattell F F 6
Coghlan A A 6
Cogswell F F 5 1
Collier F F 6
Collum A 5 1
Costar F F 6
Cronin F F 6
Cullen A A 5 1
Dean F F 6
Drew F F 6
Feeley F A 1 4 1
Flavelle F F 6
Fleisher F F 6
Flint F F 6
Gerdes F F 6
Gibbons F F 4 1 1 Gillis F F 6
Greer F A 1 5
Griffiths F F 6
Hammon F F 6
Hanlon F F 6
Hans F F 6
Hawk F F 5 1