Sutherland of Fresno, Bohnett of San Jose, Benedict of Los Angeles and Young of Berkeley-who, as Republicans, had at previous sessions been identified with the "anti-machine" or Progressive movementand Killingsworth of Solano, a Democrat.

Had the Progressive Republicans caucused while the several Progressive candidates were in the fight the probabilities are that the largest minority would have been found for Benedict, 18 although Benedict might not have had the necessary majority of the caucus to nominate. Benedict, too, would have been strong in a strictly non-partisan caucus of Progressive Republicans and Democrats.

On the other hand it was generally conceded that if the fight were carried to the floor of the Assembly Sutherland would have the best of it, although it was by no means certain that he could secure the necessary majority vote of the Assembly to elect. At any rate, Bohnett believed the situation favorable to his own election. But it developed at the test that he was placing more dependence in promises of San Francisco Assem

18 One of the few pleasant features of the situation which developed over this contest for speakership, was the broad-minded attitude taken by Benedict. The Fresno Republican, which favored Sutherland for the Speakership, in its issue of January 6, 1913, when the contest was hot on, said of Benedict's course:

"The immediate contest is over the Speakership, with the prospect, apparently, still favoring Sutherland of Fresno. The reported objections of some of the Progressives from Southern California to a non-partisan caucus indicates that they concede that Sutherland would be the choice of such a caucus. On the other hand, probably the necessary signatures could not be secured for any other sort of a caucus, and without any caucus Sutherland would win, too. It is only fair to say, however, that Benedict, the Southern California candidate, himself signed the call for the non-partisan caucus, and has shown throughout a very excellent spirit. So there is no likelihood of any truculent split with his consent."

blymen than their records justified. San Francisco members who had pledged themselves in writing to Bohnett, were not for him when they arrived at Sacramento.

Young's candidacy was not regarded seriously even by himself until the hour of the decision in his favor.19

As for Killingsworth, in a strict party division, he could, if he controlled the Democratic caucus, count upon twenty-five votes. This was within sixteen of enough to elect. With the Reactionary Republican votes he would have four or five more, which was still ten or more less than the forty-one necessary for election.

When the members of the two Houses arrived at Sacramento on the day before the Legislature was. to convene none could say what action would be taken.

Leaders among the Senators had decided to attempt to get a majority of the Senate into caucus, using as a basis of the caucus call, declaration for continuance of the general policies of the Legislature of 1911. The Assembly could not even get so far as that until some solution of the Speakership controversy should be reached.

Under this call all the Progressive Senators of all the parties could have consistently joined in organization of the Senate. But not a Democrat availed himself of the opportunity. On the other hand, all the Pro

19 Young made no contest for the position. He declared that he was not to be considered until it became evident that none of the other three Progressive candidates could be agreed upon. His election was unique. He had made no campaign for the position; he had asked no member's support. This left him absolutely independent. Significant indication of the character of his candidacy is found in the fact, that although Young was elected Speaker at noon of Monday, January 6, San Francisco morning papers of that day announce that Young's candidacy was not seriously considered.

gressives and all the Republicans who had reached Sacramento went into the caucus. Perhaps the most glaring absurdity of the situation was the presence of Senator Leroy A. Wright of San Diego. Senator Wright in the 1911 Legislature stood firmly in opposition to the policies of that session. He was, during the 1913 session, to remain in opposition to continuance of such policies. And yet, for the purposes of Senate organization we find Senator Wright participating in a caucus made up in the main of men whom he had consistently opposed at the 1911 session, and in large measure was to continue to oppose at the session of 1913. But Wright was nevertheless admitted to the caucus. On the other hand,

Democratic Senators of the type of Campbell and Shanahan, whose consistent support of the Progressive policies of 1911 had made the enactment of progressive measures possible, did not appear at the caucus.

Of such are the absurdities of the partisan political alignments.

The caucus thus constituted, containing a majority of the Senate, provided for Senate organization by naming Senator A. E. Boynton of Butte to be President pro tem.,20 Walter N. Parrish of Stockton to be Secretary, and Joseph L. Coughlin of Oakland to be Sergeantat-Arms.

The several-cornered fight for Speakership of the Assembly was not so easily settled.

In that body the three important places to be filled

20 For President pro tem. the Democrats nominated Curtin of Sonora. Curtin received eight votes, all Democratic with the exception of Boynton's; Boynton received twenty-nine, Curtin being the only Democrat to vote for him. The Democrats offered no candidate for Secretary nor for Sergeant-at-Arms.

other than the Speakership, were, Speaker pro tem., Chief Clerk, and Sergeant-at-Arms.21 No serious opposition developed to the election of L. B. Mallory of Los Gatos to the chief clerkship.22

But the San Francisco delegation made characteristic contest for the office for Sergeant-at-Arms. The candidate whom San Francisco advanced for this office was Andrew Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham, as an Assemblyman from San Francisco, had served in the 1911 Legislature.2

23

21 The position of Sergeant-at-Arms of either House is most important. That official executes the commands of the Speaker; he has supervision of a large number of the attaches; he acts as bookkeeper and purchasing agent. He is at the same time businessman and policeman of the House, which he serves. At times the ability or desire-of members of the Sergeant-at-Arms' office to locate absent members, may turn the tide for or against the passage of a bill. When, for example, the Brown (Senator) AntiPrize Fight bill (Senate Bill No. 735) was pending in the Senate, Senator Boynton was wanted. The deputy Sergeant-at-Arms who was sent to get him, was unable to do so. Senator Brown's clerk, however, had no difficulty in finding the absent Senator in one of the places a member of the Upper House was most likely to bethe Governor's office. When the Brown (Assemblyman) AntiPrize Fight bill was pending in the Assembly, Assemblyman Mouser was wanted. Mouser was in the Senate Chamber at the time. The Sergeant-at-Arms' office failed to locate him. Had he been told that he was wanted he would have voted for the bill, which would have brought it within one vote of passage.

His San

22 Mallory had served as Chief Clerk of the 1911 session. work had been generally satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Francisco Call from the beginning to the end of the 1911 session, labored to discredit Mallory's work. So persistent were The Call's attacks, that Mallory found it necessary to issue a statement showing their falsity. Mallory's election, practically without opposition, to be Chief Clerk of the 1913 session, indicated the amount of credit given The Call's attacks.

one

23 Mr. Cunningham's legislative voting record on the big Progressive policies considered at that session was somewhat mixed. He was one of the five members of the 1911 Assembly, for example, who voted against the anti-Racetrack Gambling bill; of the twelve Assemblymen who voted against the Constitutional Amendment to give suffrage to women; one of the sixteen Assemblymen who voted against Chandler's resolution condemning the whitewashing of Lorimer by the United States Senate; one of the twenty-one Assemblymen who voted against the short ballot measure, making the office of State Printer appointive; one of the five members who voted against the Constitutional Amendment granting home rule to counties. On six out of eighteen roll-calls where

The story was circulated, and generally credited, that the San Francisco delegation, good, bad, and indifferent, would support Sutherland for Speaker. This made the San Francisco ticket Sutherland-Cunningham.

"The San Francisco Bull Moose members," said the San Francisco Chronicle," "are not committing themselves. They favor Sutherland personally, but the orders have not been given. They plan to trade their votes for the best they can get."

The next step in the growing combination was the advancement of W. S. Killingsworth for Speaker pro tem. Mr. Killingsworth had been the Democratic candidate for Speaker, but with the on-sweep of the Sutherland-Cunningham combination, Killingsworth for a time was "mentioned" for Speaker pro tem. It was argued that the Democrats were entitled to "recognition"; that by electing Sutherland, Speaker; Killings

big policies of the 1911 Legislature were under consideration, Mr. Cunningham is not recorded as voting. See Table II of legislative votes, Story of the California Legislature of 1911," Records of Assemblymen on eighteen test votes.

24 See Chronicle, issue of January 5, 1913, page 89, column 1. Of the Chronicle's frank statement of the attitude of the San Francisco delegation, the Fresno Republican in its issue of January 6 said:

"There is no other delegation that would not resent that declaration as an insult, and it is to be hoped the San Francisco legislators will do so, also. If they 'personally favor' any candidate, or if, later in the session, they 'personally favor any particular legislation, then it is their duty as free men to vote that personal preference, and not wait for 'orders.' It is just this assumption that San Francisco legislators do not own themselves, but that they prefer to be the property of some one who does their thinking for them, that has brought San Francisco into such ill repute legislatively. The present delegation is greatly improved in personal quality over most of its predecessors. It would be refreshing to see this improvement in persons manifest itself in personal freedom of action on personal convictions and preferences. Probably their action on this particular issue will be in accordance with their own preferences, anyway. But they should resent and put a stop to these insinuations, from their own town, that their conduct in general is actuated by anything but personal choice. To be another man's property is to be less than a man.'