features of the Primary Election law, and many others as meritorious, could be shown much the same opposition as has been considered in the preceding chapters. Some idea of what this opposition was can be gathered from the fact that not one of the several measures mentioned in the preceding paragraphs had, previous to April 21, passed either House. This was almost four months after the Legislature convened. Not one of them had passed both Houses until the mad rush of the last week of the session. The narrow margin by which the Conservation bill was passed has been shown; the narrow margin by which the Insurance bill was defeated has been given. Had not the Progressive members in the chaos in which they found themselves in the closing days of the session, united on the passage of what were deemed the most important bills, the record of all of them, Conservation bill and all, would have been that of the Insurance bill. It was only by ignoring the lobby in those last days, and acting according to their own best light, that the Progressive members succeeded in enacting any progressive legislation at all. That legislation thus enacted could be carefully considered, or even intelligently passed upon, few will contend. But it was the best that could be done under the present legislative plan. Of all the measures introduced at the 1913 session, none was more important than the Workmen's Com WORKMEN'S This measure car pensation act.354 COMPENSATION policy355 that accidents in industry. ACT. should be made a charge against the industry in which they occur. The provisions of the act were made compulsory instead of elective. Provision was made for State industrial insurance to protect employees from extortion by private companies. At once opposition to the bill was developed in all parts of the State. The principal source of opposition was from insurance companies doing an industrial accident business. Such companies started a State-wide campaign against the provisions of the measure. The insurance companies' interest was to prevent the State engaging in industrial insurance. But this was not given prominence in their opposition. Farmers were led to believe that the provisions of the bill meant ruin for them. Clever lobbyists appeared at Sacramento to present arguments against the bill directly to members of the Legislature. Such publications as the San Francisco Chronicle kept up an almost daily tirade of condemnation. Letters and telegrams from misinformed constituents poured in upon the members urging them to vote against the measure. There were the delays common to all measures which powerful interests oppose. There were the usual committee meetings, the almost endless 354 Senate Bill 905, introduced by Boynton. 355 The State adopted this policy in 1911 with the passage of the Roseberry act. See "Story of the California Legislature of 1911," page 236. debates of the opposition, and the constant stream of proposed amendments. The most important amendments opposed by the proponents of the bill were offered by Senator Wright. The first of these was in the form of a resolution recommitting the bill to the Committee on Labor and Capital with instructions to amend it so that the provisions of the measure should be made elective instead of compulsory. The resolution was defeated by a vote of six to twenty-two.356 The second of Wright's proposed amendments struck from the measure those sections relating to State insurance. This amendment was also offered in the form of a resolution recommitting the bill to the Committee on Labor and Capital with instruction to amend. But the second amendment, as in the case of the first, was overwhelmingly defeated.357 The third of the important amendments offered by Wright eliminated the paragraphs relating to an inspection department for accident prevention, and proposed, as a substitute, an entirely new act. The proposed change was also defeated by a six to twenty vote. The bill finally passed the Senate on April 28 by a vote of thirty to five. It passed the Assembly, after at 356 The vote by which this first move to amend the bill was defeated was as follows: For Wright's plan-Campbell, Cohn, Curtin, Julliard, Larkins, and Wright-6. Against Wright's plan-Anderson, Beban, Benson, Birdsall, Boynton, Breed, Brown, Bryant, Butler, Caminetti, Carr, Cogswell, Finn, Flint, Gates, Gerdes, Regan, Rush, Shanahan, Strobridge, Thompson, and Tyrrell-22. 357 The Senate votes on progressive measures referred to in this chapter will be found in Table I of the appendix, and the Assembly votes in Table II. The Senate votes on labor measures will be found in Table V, and the Assembly votes in Table VI. tempts to amend it had failed, three days before adjournment, with only thirteen of the eighty members voting against it, and fifty-five for it. Legislature. The enactment of a "Blue Sky" law was opposed quite as resourcefully as that of any measure before the A publicity bureau THE "BLUE SKY" kept the press of the State supplied with arguments against the measure. The usual opposing lobby was main MEASURE. tained at the Capital. The measure was repeatedly rewritten to meet objections which were from time to time proposed.358 It finally passed both Houses in form so effective, at least, as to mean continuance of the opposition which had been waged against such legislation from the opening days of the session. The measure is one of those whose operations have been suspended by invoking the Referendum. The bill passed the Assembly with only one member, Schmitt of San Francisco, voting against it. Fifty-five Assemblymen voted for it. There was but one Senator who voted against it. Twenty-five Senators voted for it, making the vote of the Legislature for the bill eighty to two. At the 1911 session a constitutional amendment was submitted to the electors under which the Legislature 358 The bill (Assembly Bill 2086) was a Judiciary Committee substitute for Assembly Bills 4, 55 and 352. As it finally passed the Senate, the measure created a State corporation department, charged with supervision of investment companies. WEIGHTS AND could enact laws to safeguard the public against dishonest measuring and weighing. At the extra session of the 1911 Legislature, however, the measure establishing uniform weights and measures failed of passage. Such a bill was introduced at the 1913 session, and, although its passage was delayed until the last days of the session, it was finally passed without a vote being cast against it in either House. One of the most important Progressive measures considered at the 1913 session was the so-called Minimum THE MINIMUM Wage for Women bill (Assembly Bill 1251). The measure provides for an Industrial Welfare Commission consisting of five members. It is made the duty of the commission to ascertain the wages paid, the hours and conditions of labor and employment in the various occupations, trades and industries in which women and minors are employed, and to make investigations into the comfort, health, safety and welfare of such women and minors. If upon investigation the commission is of the opinion that the wages paid to women and minors are inadequate to supply the cost of proper living, or that the hours or conditions of labor are prejudicial to the health, morals or welfare of the workers, the commission may call a conference composed of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees in the occupation under consideration. This conference must, on request of the commission, report its findings, including: |