« AnteriorContinuar »
mont would then have been outside the new dry-zone
The proponents of the Butler bill rejected the proposed compromise. They were not laboring to close the saloons in any particular community. They were endeavoring to have the State's University "dry-zone” policy applied to all the universities in the State.
Before the bill came to vote in the Senate, it was amended, but, with but one exception, not materially changed. The “dry zones” at Stanford and the State University were left unchanged. A mile dry zone was put around every other university of the State, but one. Because of the attitude of San Francisco legislators, the exception was made in the case of St. Ignatius University in San Francisco.305 As amended, the bill passed
304 The proposed compromise which the proponents of the Butler bill rejected, read as follows:
"Every person who, upon or within one and one-half miles of the university grounds or campus, upon which are located the principal administrative offices of any university having an enrollment of more than one thousand students, more than five hundred of whom reside or lodge upon such university ground or campus (or within half a mile of any other university now in existence in this State), sells, gives away, or exposes for sale, any vinous or alcoholic liquors, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Provided, however, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to nor prohibit the sale of any of said liquors by any regularly licensed pharmacist who shall maintain a fixed place of business in said territory, upon the written prescription of a physician regularly licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the State of California, when such prescription is dated by the physician issuing it, contains the name of the person for whom the prescription is written, and is filled for such person only and within forty-eight hours of its date. Provided further, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to nor prohibit the sale of any of said liquors for chemical or mechanical purposes, or the sale or gift of any of said liquors for use beyond said limits."
305 The people of the town of Santa Clara where Santa Clara University is situated, were particularly desirous that this bill be passed. They sent Senator Jones, in whose district Santa Clara University is located, many petitions, letters and telegrams urging that he give the bill his support. Senator Jones did not give these communications publicity.
During the debate on the final passage of the bill, Senator Finn, of San Francisco, demanded if any one had heard of anyone
the Senate with only Bryant, Finn and Regan-all of San Francisco-voting against it.306
The Assembly Public Morals Committee, after several hearings in which every provision of the measure was thoroughly discussed, recommended that the bill be passed in the same form that it had passed the Senate. Proponents of the Ferguson bill, however, had not given up hope that the Butler-Ellis bill would be amended to release Claremont Hotel from the State University "dry zone.” The proposal was made to the Butler-Ellis supporters that they permit the amendment of the measure, so that the Claremont would be left without the restrictions of the State University zone. The passage of the measure would then have been assured. But the proponents of the bill not only stated that they would resist such amendments, but that if the bill were amended as proposed, and passed they would place the facts before Governor Johnson, and request him to veto the measure. This stand resulted in the retirement of the Claremont people. The Butler bill seemed then in a fair way of passage.
However, when the bill, late at night after several of those who were counted upon to vote for it, had left the chamber, came up for passage, Inman of Sacramento offered an amendment to exclude cities of the sixth class from its provisions. This amendment practically abolished the Stanford “dry zone” by permitting
in Santa Clara who wanted the bill passed. All eyes were turned on Senator Jones. But Senator Jones sat mute. The question went unanswered.
306 For the Senate vote on the University Dry Zone bill see Tablo III of the Appendix.
saloons at Mayfield, and—should Menlo be organized as a city of the sixth class—at Menlo. It also excluded the University of Santa Clara from the bill's provisions.
The proponents of the bill opposed the Inman amendment vigorously. They asked for a call of the House-almost always allowed—that the absent members might be brought in. But this privilege, by a vote of twenty-eight to thirty-eight, was denied them.307 The proposed amendment, under which Stanford and Santa Clara Universities were excluded from dry-zone privileges, was finally authorized by a vote of thirty-nine to thirty-two.308
When the bill came up for final passage many of its original supporters opposed its passage on the ground that it would, as amended, allow the reopening of the
307 The vote by which the bringing in of absent members was denied was as follows:
To bring in the absent members-Ambrose, Bagby, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Brown, Clark, Wm. C.; Ellis, Emmons, Finnegan, Fish, Gabbert, Gates, Guill,' Hinkle, Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Moorhouse, Morgenstern, Mouser, Polsley, Roberts, Smith, Strine, Sutherland, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-28.
Against bringing in the absent members-Beck, Bowman, Bradford, Bush, Byrnes, Canepa, Cary, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Dower, Farwell, Ferguson, Fitzgerald, Gelder, Green, Griffin, Hayes, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Johnston, T. D.; Killingsworth, Kuck, Libby, McDonald, Nelson, Nolan, Richardson, Schmitt, Scott, Shannon, Shartel, Simpson, Stuckenbruck, Wall, Walsh, Weisel, Weldon, and White-38.
308 The vote by which amendment of the Butler bill was authorized so that Stanford and Santa Clara Universities would have been excluded from “dry-zone” privileges was as follows:
For the amendment-Bagby, Beck, Bowman, Bradford, Bush, Byrnes, Canepa, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Dower, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Fitzgerald, Gelder, Green, Griffin, Hayes, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Johnston, T. D.; Killingsworth, Kuck, Libby, McCarthy, McDonald, Nolan, Richardson, Ryan,
Schmitt, Shannon, Shartel, Simpson, Stuckenbruck, Wall, Walsh, Weisel, Weldon, and White-39.
Against the Amendment-Ambrose, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Brown, Cary, Clark, Wm. C.; Cram, Ellis, Finnegan, Fish, Gabbert, Gates, Guill, Hinkle, Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Moorhouse, Morgenstern, Mouser, Nelson, Peairs, Polsley, Roberts. Scott, Smith, Striné, Sutherland, Tulloch, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-32.
groggeries which had so long menaced Stanford University.
“With the understanding,” said Assemblyman Cary, in making explanation of his vote against the bill in the journal, “that the passage of Senate Bill No. 672 [the University “Dry Zone” bill], as amended, would permit saloons within one and one-half miles of Stanford University, I changed my vote from aye to no.”
Such was the position of many who voted against the bill.
In this way was the University “dry-zone” bill defeated. With its defeat came suggestions that a University dry-zone bill, under the initiative, be submitted to a vote of the people of California. 309 That is at present writing being done. Petitions are being circulated for the initiation of such a measure, which provides not only for a dry zone for universities, but for State Normal Schools also.
309 "The incident,” said Assemblyman Nelson, Chairman of the Assembly Public Morals Committee, “demonstrates the necessity for action to prevent these constantly recurring attempts in behalf of special interests to break down the State no-saloon zone policy for universities. I am in favor of a law being initiated to extend this policy to all universities. The ratification of such a law by The People would place the policy beyond danger of legislative tinkering, for the Legislature cannot amend an initiated law."
Senator Kehoe coincided in Nelson's views. “I would suggest, however,” said Kehoe, “that State Normal Schools be included in such a measure. Normal school students, as in the case of university students, are compelled to leave their homes for training, and are entitled to the same protection as university students. Parents of Normal students, too, are entitled to the same protection for their children w are sent away to school as is accorded parents of university students."
But the idea had found expression even before the Legislature of 1913 convened. In discussing the saloon problem, the San Francisco Monitor, official organ of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, in its issue of November 30, 1912, said:
"When we consider how saloons flock thick around the vicinity of our colleges and university-we know of one Catholic institution that is harassed and annoyed by no less than thirteen grog-shops, all within 300 feet of its doors-then we begin to realize how earn. estly some of us grow to wish for an opportunity to vote the saloon out of our neighborhood.”
THE PRIZEFIGHT BILLS.
The most popular act of Governor Gillett's administration was his positive stand against the Jeffries-Johnson prizefight. Governor Gillett let it be known that the law would be enforced against those responsible for that fight, even though the State militia were called out to enforce it. There was the usual protest that such interference would hurt business at San Franciscodrive money out of the State. But Governor Gillett refused to yield. The aggregation of white, black and mixed sports crossed over the line into Nevada. California was spared the disgrace of the Jeffries-Johnson mill.
Governor Gillett's action was generally commended. The tenderloin didn't like it, but the people of California did.
There was a general suspicion throughout the State, however, that Governor Gillett had acted not so much on what the law governing prizefights was, but on what it should have been.
The fact must not be lost sight of that tenderloin interests had had much to do with the Legislatures which up to 1911 had considered anti-prizefight legislation.
The corrupting influence of prizefight promoting, however, was generally recognized. The public had read closely the story of the corruption of the Schmitz