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.