Imágenes de páginas


before Senator Brown could get his measure up for passage.315

On April 25, when it did come up, it was defeated by a vote of seventeen for to fourteen against, twentyone votes being necessary for its passage. Brown, however, gave notice that he would, on the next legislative day, move to reconsider the vote by which the measure had been defeated.

But the vote on reconsideration was not taken until four days later. On April 29, reconsideration was granted by a close vote of twenty-one for reconsideration to sixteen against.317

Senator Juilliard offered amendments to strike out

315 The opposition to the measure was led by the San Francisco delegation, several of whom had seen service in the prize ring. Their arguments were amusing.

Senator Regan, for example, gave boxing the credit of developing such men as Supervisor Andy Gallagher of San Francisco, Jimmy Britt, now wealthy and respected real estate owner and actor, James J. Corbett, and “Bat” Nelson and others who were made at home in Washington by_former President Roosevelt for their prowess in the prize ring. Regan declared that he had received far more injury in one football game than in eighteen glove contests in which he took part when scaling the beam at 125 pounds. The sport, he claimed, developed his weight and strengthened his nerves, and improved him otherwise. He gave his weight as 290 pounds.

316 The vote by which the Senate prizefight bill was defeated on April 25, was:

For the bill--Anderson, Avey, Benson, Boynton, Breed, Butler, Caminetti, Carr, Curtin, Gates, Hewitt, Jones, Kehoe, Larkins, Mott, Shanahan, and Thompson-17.

Against the bill— Beban, Birdsall, Brown, Bryant, Finn, Flint, Gerdes, Grant, Juilliard, Lyon, Regan, Strobridge, Tyrrell, and Wright-14.

Brown changed his vote from "aye" to "no" that he might give notice of reconsideration.

317 The vote by which reconsideration of the Senate prizefight bill was granted was:

For reconsideration and for the bill-Anderson, Avey, Benson, Boynton, Breed, Brown, Butler, Caminetti, Campbell, Carr, Cogswell, Curtin, Flint, Gates, Grant, Hewitt, Jones, Kehoe, Mott, Shanahan, and Thompson--21.

Against reconsideration and against the bill-Beban, Birdsall, Bryant, Cartwright, Finn, Gerdes, Hans, Juilliard, Larkins, Lyon, Owens, Regan, Rush, Strobridge, Tyrrell, and Wright—16.

the provisions of the Brown bill, and to substitute provisions permitting definitely matches not to exceed twenty rounds and with five-ounce gloves. This amendment would, if adopted, have defeated the purposes of the bill. But before the amendment was acted upon consideration of the whole subject matter went over until May 1. When the bill came up on that date the proposed Juilliard amendment was defeated.

Senator Brown, author of the bill, however, accepted amendments to permit an admittance charge to boxing matches not to exceed twenty-five cents; increasing the number of rounds permitted from four to eight, and providing for a one-minute intermission between rounds.3

These amendments were adopted. Senator Hewitt, to safeguard municipalities not controlled by tenderloin interests from possible abuses of the provisions of the bill, offered an amendment permitting any municipality to prohibit by ordinance the holding of boxing contests. The Hewitt amendment was also carried. A motion to have the bill finally acted upon on the following day, May 2, prevailed. Nevertheless, it was not until May 5 that it came up for final consideration.


318 The amendments brought support to the bill of Senators who had regarded the provisions of the original measure as too drastic. Of the original bill, Senator Grant said, in explanation of his vote against it: To prohibit the admi sion charge to clean boxing, as this bill provides for, would practically stop legitimate boxing as a healthful recreation, as well as the evils of the extreme of prizefighting. If it is lawful to permit clean boxing, as this bill provides for, it should be lawful to charge admission.” After the amendment of the bill, Grant became one of its strongest supporters. Of Grant's support, Senator Brown wrote: “Senator Grant voted to give me a reconsideration, thus making the necessary twenty-one votes to accomplish this, and subsequently he has consistently been one of my most loyal supporters. His vote with me last night against the Juilliard amendment (which practically enacts the present law) was a vote in favor of my bill."

The opponents of the measure had made good use of the four days' delay. Juilliard, when the bill came up on May 5, proposed the same amendment which he had offered on May 1, and which on that day had been rejected. Mr. Juilliard had better fortune on May 5. His amendment, by a vote of twenty to seventeen,319 was adopted. The adoption of the Juilliard amendment was practically defeat of the Brown bill. In this way was the Senate Anti-Prizefight bill defeated.

As hard a fight was carried on against the Assembly measure as had been given the Senate bill. As in the Senate, the principal opposition came from the San Francisco members.320

The measure, when it was finally brought to vote,

319 The vote by which the Juilliard amendment was on May 5 adopted, was as follows:

For the Juilliard amendment and against the bill-Beban, Birdsall, Boynton, Bryant, Campbell, Cartwright, Cohn, Finn, Flint, Gerdes, Hans, Juilliard, Lyons, Owens, Regan, Rush, Sanford, Shanahan, Tyrrell, and Wright-20.

Against the Juilliard amendment and for the bill-Anderson, Avey, Benson, Brown, Butler, Caminetti, Carr, Cogswell, Curtin, Gates, Grant, Hewitt, Jones, Kehoe, Larkins, Mott, and Thompson -17.

320 The reasons given by San Francisco Assemblymen-some of whom, as in the case of the San Francisco Senators, had won distinction in the prize ring—why the bill should be defeated, were quite as amusing as the reasons given by the San Francisco Senators.

Assemblyman Ryan, of San Francisco, declared that the best argument for prizefighting was the fact that thousands of young men had shouldered muskets and gone to the Civil War and Spanish-American War and never returned. He endeavored to show it more brutal than prizefig ting.

Assemblyman Canepa wanted prizefights to continue because the “best of our citizens get enjoyment from them.'

Assemblyman McDonald declared his father before him had been a fighter and a boxer, his brothers had been boxers, and he had won the amateur welterweight championship of America, and the game had not hurt him, had not left him a crook or a criminal.

was defeated, twenty-three voting for it and thirty-nine against it. 321

When the bill was voted upon the second time under reconsideration, it came within two votes of the fortyone necessary for its passage. Thirty-nine members voted for the bill, and only thirty-four against.


321 The vote by which the Assembly Anti-Prizefight bill was defeated on May 1 was:

For the bill-Ambrose, Bagby, Benedict, Bloodgood, Clark, Wm. C.; Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Gates, Guiberson, Hinkle, Kingsley, Kuck, Moorhouse, Peairs, Polsley, Roberts, Simpson, Tulloch, Weldon, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-23.

Against the bill-Beck, Bowman, Bradford, Brown, Bush, Byrnes, Canepa, Cary, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Dower, Ferguson, Ford, Gabbert, Gelder, Green, Griffin, Guill, Hayes, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Johnston, T. D.; Judson, Killingsworth, Libby, McCarthy, McDonald, Nelson, Nolan, Richardson, Ryan, Scott, Shannon, Shartel, Shearer, Slater, Wall, Walsh, and Weisel—39.

322 The vote by which the Assembly Anti-Prizefight bill was for the second time defeated was:

For the_bill-Alexander, Ambrose, Bagby, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bowman, Brown, Cary, Clark, Wm. C.; Clarke, Geo. A.; Cram, Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Fish, Gabbert, Gates, Griffin, Guiberson, Hinkle, Johnson, Geo. H.; Kingsley, Kuck, Libby, Murray, Palmer, Peairs, Polsley, Roberts, Simpson, Strine, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Tulloch, Wiesel, Weldon, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-39.

Against the bill-Beck, Bohnett, Bradford, Bush, Byrnes, Canepa, Chandler, Collins, Dower, Ferguson, Finnegan, Ford, Gelder, Green, Guill, Hayes, Inman, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Killingsworth, McCarthy, McDonald, Nelson, Nolan, Richardson, Schmitt, Scott, Shannon, Shartel, Slater, Smith, Wall, and Walsh–34.



As the question of permitting racetrack gambling in California had been the chief moral issue fought out at the 1909 legislative session, and of local option in saloon licensing at the session of 1911, the question of providing practical legal machinery for reducing prostitution to its minimum by making investments in exploitation of the social evil insecure, was the principal moral issue raised at the 1913 session.

This machinery was provided in the so-called Redlight Abatement Act, introduced in the Senate by Grant, and in the Assembly by Bohnett.828

There were, however, a large number of measures dealing with the problem introduced in each House. They were readily divided into two classes :

(1) Those directed against persons, both male and female, who have part in the social evil.324

(2) That directed against property employed in the exploitation of the social evil, the Grant-Bohnett measure.

And it is important to note that, although the opponents of these bills insisted that the social evil should be recognized as a necessity and regulated, not a regula

323 Senate Bill 320 and Assembly Bill 353.

324 Important among the bills in this class were Assembly Bills 118 and 376; and Senate Bills 390, 675, 676 and 677. It is interesting to note that the cry of “freak' was raised against all these bills. Not one of them became law.

« AnteriorContinuar »