worth, Speaker pro tem., and Cunningham Sergeant-atArms, an ideal non-partisan organization of the Lower House would be assured. But this tentative arrangement soon gave way to the more positive statement that the combination would be: Sutherland for Speaker, Ryan of San Francisco for Speaker pro tem. and Cunningham for Sergeant-at-Arms.

But these arrangements were a little too suggestive of "practical politics" of the old "machine" days to get far with the majority of the members of the 1913 Legislature. The criticism which resulted made Sutherland's election difficult if not impossible. Bohnett announced his willingness to support Young for Speaker. The practical elimination of Sutherland left Benedict of Los Angeles for the moment the strongest of the candidates.

In this situation, Sutherland went to Benedict on the morning of the day the Legislature was to convene, and suggested that both withdraw from the contest.

Whether Benedict realized the strength of his own position, or the weakness of Sutherland's, so great was the confusion of the time, may be questioned. It was held that five Democratic Assemblymen were prepared to go into a non-partisan caucus, expressly for the purpose of voting for Sutherland. But Benedict must have known his chances to be quite as good as those of Sutherland. However, there were other influences to move him.

He knew that continuance of the fight between them, regardless of the outcome, bade fair at the opening of the session to divide the not-greatly-in-the-majority Progressive forces in the Assembly hopelessly. To have

won would have meant the defeat in contest of Sutherland, and the estrangement of Bohnett, who was supporting Young. Sutherland and Bohnett, with Young, were the only prominent Progressives prepared by experience to take care of the floor for the Speaker. With these leaders out of sympathy with the Speaker, the Progressive strength in the Assembly would have been broken down.

Benedict consulted with as many of his supporters as could be gathered together. They advised that in the interest of party harmony it might be better for Benedict to withdraw with Bohnett and Sutherland, in the interest of Young. And this, in the interest of a united Progressive majority, Benedict did.

Benedict's course assured the election of Young. It also eliminated from serious consideration the candidacy of Cunningham and of Ryan.

A majority of the Assembly met in caucus under a non-partisan call,25 and nominated Young 26 for Speaker,

25 But one Democrat signed this call, Guill of Butte.

26 The election of Boynton, President pro tem. of the Senate, and Young, Speaker of the Assembly, illustrated the changes which had taken place in California politics since 1909.

When, for example, at the 1909 session, Senator Boynton was advocating the passage of a Local Option law, the then President pro tem. of the Senate, Senator E. I. Wolfe of San Francisco, warned Boynton against that course. In his speech against the bill Wolfe told Boynton that he (Wolfe) thought much of him.

"But I want to warn you, Senator Boynton," said Wolfe in effect, "that if you continue in your support of this measure you will never be returned to this Senate. Oroville will not stand for it."

Senator Boynton is from Oroville.

Wolfe's warning in 1909 was serious. The groggery and gambling interests were then all-powerful in California politics.

It is interesting to note, however, that not only did Senator Boynton continue his support of the Local Option bill, but Oroville united at the 1910 election with the remainder of his district to return Boynton to the State Senate. Boynton was, at the 1911 session, named to take Wolfe's old place as President pro tem. At the 1913 session, Boynton was again elevated to the position

W. A. Johnstone of Los Angeles, Speaker pro tem.; L. B. Mallory of Los Gatos, Chief Clerk, and Ed. E. Reese of Sacramento, Sergeant-at-Arms.

These officials were duly elected.27

The distribution of "patronage" was conducted upon the same vicious system of division among members as had ruled during the days of "machine" domination. At each session of the Legislature it is necessary

of President pro tem.

Wolfe did not sit in the 1913 Legislature. He had been defeated for re-election on the issue of his record. Incidentally, under the Local Option law of 1911 which Boynton had supported and Wolfe opposed, Oroville had, by the time the 1913 Legislature convened, voted "dry.”

Young

Young's election as Speaker was quite as suggestive. also took important part in the legislative session of 1909. After the 1909 session had adjourned, two of Young's friends occupied seats on a train to San Francisco immediately behind two politicians of the old "machine" type. The "machine" men were discussing the events of the 1909 session. They were very sure of one thing, namely, that Young of Berkeley should not be returned to the Legislature. The grounds for opposing him were that he had been perniciously active in supporting an anti-racetrack gambling bill, which threatened to close up the machineprotected Emeryville gambling establishment. Young's friends were seriously concerned. The "machine" was powerful. They didn't want to see their friend Young on the black list.

But Young was returned to the Legislature in 1911, and again in 1913. He was that year elected to the highest position in the gift of his fellows.

Incidentally, The People of California, by overwhelming Statewide vote, have declared that no racetrack gambling shall be permitted in their State.

27 The Democrats nominated J. W. Stuckenbruck of San Joaquin for Speaker. The vote for that office was as follows:

For Young-Messrs. Ambrose, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bowman, Brown, Bush, Byrnes, Canepa, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Clarke, Collins, Cram, Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Fish, Fitzgerald, Gabbert, Gates, Gelder, Green, Guill, Hayes, Hinkle, Inman, Johnson of Santa Barbara, Johnston of Contra Costa, Johnstone of Los Angeles, Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McDonald, Moorhouse, Morganstern, Mouser, Murray, Nelson, Nolan, Peairs, Roberts, Ryan, Schmitt, Scott, Shartel, Smith, Strine, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Weisel, White, Woodley, and Wyllie-56.

For Stuckenbruck-Messrs. Alexander, Bagby, Beck, Bradford, Dower, Finnegan, Ford, Griffin, Guiberson, Killingsworth, Libby, McCarthy, Palmer, Polsley, Richardson, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Tulloch, Wall, Walsh, Weldon, and Young-24.

The Democrats nominated Bagby of Santa Barbara for Speaker pro tem. Mr. Bagby received twenty votes. Mr. Johnstone received fifty-six. The Democrats did not contest the election of Chief Clerk nor of Sergeant-at-Arms.

to employ clerks, stenographers, assistant sergeants-atarms, porters, pages and other help. This employment has not, either under "machine" domination, or under the new order, been given on the basis of ability to do the work.

The method has been-and was continued at the 1913 session to permit members to employ whom they would. regardless of the ability of the attaches thus employed to do the work.

Under "machine" rule, the distribution of this patronage had been limited to members of that party which had the most votes. Thus, if there were in the Senate twenty-five Republicans and fifteen Democrats, and the patronage agreed upon totaled $1000 a day, the twentyfive Republican members would each take a twenty-fifth of the $1000, or $40 a day each. The Democrats would get nothing. Each Republican member would proceed to put men and women on the pay roll until the daily wage of his appointees totaled $40.

The majority of the appointees thus named would do little more than draw their salaries. The real work of the session would fall upon the competent and conscientious few.

A less defensible plan could not have been devised. Under it, the State's money is squandered; the Legislature fails to secure dependable employees.28

Fur

28 The importance of dependable legislative attaches is apparent. A dishonest-or even a blundering-attache can set at naught action of both Houses. Many examples could be given where this has actually been done. At the 1907 session, for example, a bill was passed, providing for the submission to the electors of the State the question of a bond issue for important improvements at Islais Creek, San Francisco harbor. The measure had been strongly opposed by certain large interests. After the session had taken adjournment, discovery was made that a single line had

thermore, injustice is worked Senators and Assemblymen of the minority party, who are arbitrarily denied clerical assistance.

As a matter of fact, one member of Assembly or Senate, regardless of party label, is as much a legislator as any other member. He has the same responsibilities, the same duties, the same obligations to give courteous treatment to constituents; the State provides for the payment of competent help for all. One legislator, therefore, is as much entitled to clerical assistance as any other member.29 But the most serious objection to the system is, of course, that under it incompetent, irresponsible, and at times dishonest attaches, are placed in position where by blunder or worse they may defeat the purpose of the Legislature.

At the 1913 session, however, the division of "patronage" was placed on a more equitable basis than before.

In the Assembly, the places were apportioned among all the members, Progressive, Republican, Democratic and Socialist alike.

been omitted from the bill. The omission rendered the measure valueless. At the 1909 session, the Maher bill, providing for adequate management of the Big Basin Park, after it had passed both Houses, dropped out of sight completely. The measure had been opposed by a powerful lobby. Such cases could be multiplied. The attaches responsible have proved themselves more potent in legislative matters than the legislators themselves.

29 Many minority members found it necessary to employ clerical assistance at their own expense, services for which the State makes more than generous allowance. At the extraordinary session of 1911, for example, Senator Shanahan, being a member of the minority, was out of the patronage division. He had, however, far more work than the average member of the Senate. It was necessary for him to have a stenographer. He accordingly employed one, paying $5 a day out of his private funds. Senator Shanahan received $10 a day for his services as State Senator, out of which he had his expenses to pay.