exceptions the San Francisco delegation had been made up of ignorant and for the most part vicious men, thoroughly in accord with tenderloin and groggery interests, but completely out of touch and sympathy with all that make for representative government and wholesome conditions. Such a delegation lent itself for easy manipulation. A dependable trading quantity, the public service corporation found the San Francisco delegation readily adjustable, under all conditions, to corporation plans and purposes. Because of the character of this, the largest delegation in the Legislature, the corporation-controlled “Organization" was able to prevent the passage of measures to give the electors free expression of their purposes at the polls; to block the passage of bills providing for effective railroad regulation; and, on the other hand, to force the enactment of laws, the passage of which was portunity to vote on this issue, that city voted against gambling. The San Francisco vote was: Against racetrack gambling. Majority against racetrack gambling.... .43,962 .38,641 5,321 The injustice of judging The People of San Francisco by the delegation which represents that community in the Legislature is apparent. 6 This was true regardless of the party or element which was responsible for the delegation's election. Abe Ruef in his "confessions" brings this out sharply. Ruef says of his instructions to the San Francisco members when he began to send them to Sacramento in the name of Organized Labor: "I told the legislators to vote on all labor questions and legislation directly involving labor interests, always for the labor side. I told them on all other questions to follow the Herrin program. Herrin was appreciative. He expressed his sense of obligation."-Abraham Ruef's confession, published in San Francisco Bulletin, July 6, 1912. not in the interest of good government, wholesome moral conditions, or State progress and development." Under the legislative re-apportionment, the San Francisco delegation was reduced from a representation of eighteen in the Assembly to thirteen, and from a representation of nine in the Senate to seven.8 7 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," for the attitude of the San Francisco delegation in the defeat of the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill; in the opposition to the Direct Primary bill, in the passage of the Change of Venue bill; also, Chapter XXIII, "The Influence of the San Francisco Delegation," page 237. 8 On the strict basis of population, San Francisco could have been allowed as many as fourteen Assemblymen and seven Senators. The politicians of that city, however, perfected a combination to give San Francisco, regardless of Constitutional provisions, sixteen Assemblymen and eight Senators. (See "Story of the California Legislature of 1911," Chapter XXIV, "Reapportionment," page 284.) The opposition of the country districts prevented this. Because of the united stand of the country members of the Assembly, San Francisco's plan was blocked, but so strong was the opposition to the country members, that no reapportionment was possible at the regular 1911 session. The country members were brought into conference by a call signed by W. F. Chandler of Fresno. It was as follows: "Without doubt the matter of reapportionment will remain unsettled at the adjournment of the Legislature. There will probably be an extra session of the Legislature to complete the unfinished business of this session, which will include the reapportionment. "It is absolutely necessary that when this question comes up the members from the country districts be thoroughly organized to see that justice is done them in redistricting the State into Assembly and Senatorial districts. "You are requested to attend a meeting of the country Assemblymen to meet in the Judiciary Committee room, 127, immediately after afternoon adjournment, to confer and organize. "Don't fail to be present. "W. F. CHANDLER." Forty-two members of the Assembly attended the conference. They were: J. F. Beckett, W. F. Chandler, J. W. Hamilton, J. W. Stuckenbruck, W. B. Griffeths, E. C. Gaylord, J. H. Guill, Jr., Herbert W. Slater, L. H. Wilson, G. A. Jasper, J. H. Tibbetts, D. W. Mott, Fred H. Hall, J. L. Mendenhall, Harry Polsey, Geo. E. Malone, R. L. Telfer, L. D. Bohnett, F. E. Judson, D. R. Hayes, E. H. McGowen, J. R. Cronin, Geo. H. Harlan, G. W. Wyllie, Chas. A. Bliss, John C. March, Frank M. Rutherford, J. B. Maher, F. J. Walker, Wm. R. Flint, Clyde Bishop, G. R. Freeman, G. H. Bennick, W. R. Sutherland, W. D. L. Held, M. R. Jones, C. L. Preisker, D. E. Williams, F. G. Stevenot, C. B. Rosendale, Henry Ward Brown, Thos. F. Griffin. These forty-two Assemblymen signed the following agreement: "We, the undersigned, members of the Thirty-ninth Session of the California Legislature from the country districts, hereby The result of this reduction was shown from the hour the members of the Legislature began to assemble at Sacramento. Plans to organize the Assembly by using the solid block of Assembly votes from San Francisco as a basis failed. What could be done with a block of eighteen San Francisco votes could not be done with a block of thirteen. Conditions in the Senate were further improved by the election to that body from San Francisco of Fred C. Gerdes and Edwin E. Grant. Gerdes had, as an Assemblyman, stood for good measures and in opposition to bad, combating the majority of his San Francisco colleagues. Grant at the 1912 election had defeated Eddie Wolfe, the San Francisco legislative leader. Grant's campaign had consisted principally of an attack on Wolfe's legislative record." He had pledged himself to a policy directly the reverse to that which Wolfe had followed. Grant adhered to that policy from the beginning to the end of the session. The reduction of the San Francisco delegation from agree to be bound by the following resolution adopted at a meeting held by us the 25th day of March, 1911. "Resolved, that in no case shall any member of this caucus or meeting pledge himself to stand by or vote for any reapportionment bill not previously considered by the members present at this meeting or caucus. This shall apply to a regular or special session of the Legislature." A committee of seven, consisting of Chandler, Bishop, March, Bohnett, Rutherford, Jasper and Guill, was appointed to draft a legislative apportionment bill to be presented at the extraordinary session of the 1911 Legislature which was even then contemplated. It was due to this action, that at the extraordinary session of 1911, the country districts were able to meet successfully the united delegations from the_large cities on the reapportionment issue. The plan of San Francisco politicians to secure greater legislative representation for that city than its population warranted, failed. 9 For Wolfe's legislative record, see "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," and the companion review of the session of 1911. Also, the journals of the California State Senate from 1897 to 1911, inclusive. nine to seven, and, by the election of Gerdes and Grant, the further reduction of the number of the type which San Francisco ordinarily sends to the Senate, had important bearing upon the work of the Upper House and of the entire Legislature. Not only did the 1913 Legislature convene under conditions theretofore unknown to any California legislative body, but it was called upon to meet entirely new issues. The issues which had divided the "machine" and "anti-machine" factions of previous legislatures had been, in a large measure, met at the 1911 session.10 Railroad regulation, bitterly contested at the 1909 11 session, was at the time the 1913 session convened accepted even by its one-time opponents as a fixed State policy, desirable and necessary. The issue which had divided the 1909 session most sharply, election of 10 Charles K. McClatchy in the Sacramento Bee of April 5, 1913, described the work of the Progressive administration as follows: "Never before in the history of California has there been a State administration which promised so much and which has kept so many of its promises. "Never before in the history of the State has there been a time when the throat of California has been so free from corporate clutch. "Never before in the history of California has there been a Governor who has honestly, and earnestly, and faithfully, and conscientiously, and pugnaciously endeavored to do so much for The People. "And never before in the annals of this Golden State has there been a Governor who has succeeded in accomplishing so much. "No need here to recapitulate. "The record is before the eyes of all men. "Big Business, the Interests, the Southern Pacific, the grasping and greedy public-service corporations, the unclean and the vile in politics and in social and in commercial life-these longer dominate in the halls of legislation. no "The money-changers-the legions of Mammon and of Satanthese have been lashed out of the Temple of The People." 11 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapters XII and XIII. United States Senators by direct vote of The People, had been settled for all time-and settled right-by amendment of the Federal Constitution. The policy of the Direct Primary, combated by the machine element at the 1907 and 1909 sessions, was at the 1913 session accepted by all factions as a matter of course. The simplification of the Australian Ballot, the taking of the Judiciary out of politics, local option in saloon licensing, the submission of an Initiative Amendment to The People, free distribution of school text-books, all defeated in 1909, were, when the 1913 Legislature convened, accomplished facts, accepted and generally endorsed as good. Indeed, the watchword of the 1913 session was, "Continuance of the policies of 1911." But the attempted continuance of the 1911 policies created new issues, which brought to Sacramento the most powerful lobby ever assembled there; aroused new opposition; forced new alignments. |