apparently deemed of greater moment than effective organization.

The chief consideration in favor of the change, however, a consideration which probably did not occur even to Senator Wright himself, was that a two-house Legislature has proved unwieldy and ineffective, and anything which promises relief is worthy of attention.

On the other hand, the State Constitution provides for a two-house Legislature. Under the proposed rules, Senate and Assembly would have entered into a compact to ignore, so far as lay in their power, this constitutional provision. Until the Constitution be changed, the conservative and even the radical urged, independent organization of the two Houses should be maintained.

The single committee organization feature of the Wright rules was finally rejected. Nevertheless, the joint rules governing the two Houses, as finally adopted, contained several features which had their origin in the discussion.

(1) It was definitely provided that twenty-six identical standing committees should be appointed by each House.38

(2) Definite provision was made for joint meetings of Senate and Assembly committees to consider identical measures pending before corresponding committees of, the two Houses.89

38 The twenty-six committees were Agriculture, Banking, Commerce and Navigation, Corporations, County Government, Drainage, Swamp and Overflowed Lands, Education, Elections, Federal Relations, Finance in the Senate and Ways and Means in the Assembly, Fish and Game, Hospitals and Asylums, Insurance, Irrigation, Judiciary, Labor and Capital, Military Affairs, Mines and Mining, Municipal Corporations, Oil Industries, Public Health and Quarantine, Public Morals, Prisons and Reformatories, Revenue and Taxation, Roads and Highways, Rules.

39 See Joint Rule No. 33, session 1913.

(3) Two joint standing committees of Senate and Assembly were actually provided for:

(a) Committee on Revision and Printing to consist of three Senators and five Assemblymen.40

(b) Committee on Joint Rules to consist of the members of the rules committee of each House.

The discussion created by the proposed departure in committee organization not only resulted in significant change in committee arrangements, but brought out the weak features of the two-house legislative system. Discussion of the possibilities of a one-house body had been started, which may eventually have far-reaching effect.

40 This committee was given extraordinary powers. No. 30, of the Joint Rules provided that, "unless otherwise ordered by the House in which the bill was introduced, all bills before being printed shall be immediately sent to the Committee on Revision and Printing. The committee, by and with the written assent of the author filed with it, shall have authority to correct any clerical error such as in orthography, adding or correcting the enacting clause, mistakes in numbering sections and references thereto, errors in grammar, phraseology, or in the form of the bill."

The powers given this committee were, in the draft of the rules submitted to Senate and Assembly, even more drastic. The provisions of the original draft were:

"Unless otherwise ordered by the House in which the bill was introduced, all bills before being printed shall be referred to Committee on Revision and Printing for correction of errors. The committee shall have jurisdiction to correct any mere clerical error, such as in orthography, adding the enacting clause to a bill when such has been omitted, and all mistakes in numbering sections and references thereto, and by and with the written assent of the author filed with the committee, to correct errors in grammar, phraseology and to otherwise alter the text of the bill.

"If upon comparison by the Committee on Revision and Printing it be found that two bills, one of which has been introduced in the Senate and the other in the Assembly, are in all material respects the same in substance and words, such bills, unless otherwise ordered by the committee, shall be considered companion bills and printed jointly as of both Houses. If first introduced in the Senate, the bill shall be printed with the appropriate Senate heading at the top, giving number of bill, name of author, date of introduction and committee reference. Following this shall be a corresponding Assembly heading, after which shall follow the title of the Act, the enacting clause and text of the bill. If the bill is first introduced in the Assembly the position of the Senate and Assembly headings shall be reversed."

Another addition to the rules, proposed after the original draft had been submitted to the committee, would, had it been adopted, have relieved the members of Senate and Assembly of the responsibility of dealing with newspaper writers who may prove objectionable to members of either body.

The printing of facts or even gathering data— which reflect upon members of the Legislature, is not at all pleasing to some members. At the 1909 session, for example, George B. Anderson, Secretary of The People's Legislative Bureau, and acting as correspondent for several small papers printed in country districts, was denied admittance to the floor of the Assembly and incidentally of the Senate,"1 primarily because he had addressed a letter 42 to a member of the San Francisco delegation, inquiring why the member in question had been absent when a vote affecting the Walker-Otis AntiRacetrack Gambling bill had been taken.

At the 1907 session, Ed. J. Livernash, correspondent for the San Francisco Bulletin, was denied press privileges, because of that writer's criticism of the methods of "machine"-dominated members who were in control.43 But such rulings have been rare. They are usually unjust. In every case they have brought criticism and condemnation upon the members responsible. Besides, there have been times in the history of the California Legislature when to be an unpopular writer

41 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapter XXI.

42 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," footnote 99, page 221.

43 Had Mr. Livernash's statements been false, action for libel, both criminal and civil, would have held against him and against his paper. But ne such suits were instituted.

at Sacramento has not necessarily brought the blush of shame to the undesirable one's cheek.

However, there are at every session persons who secure press privileges who are unquestionably undeserving of them. They may be divided into two classes:

(1) Newspaper writers who abuse the privileges of the floor by wandering from desk to desk while the House is in session, taking the attention of the members whom they engage in conversation, and annoying the entire Senate or Assembly with arrogant assumption of special privilege. This class engages in more or less lobbying. During the old "machine" rule such men practically had the run of the floor. During the 1909 session, for example, the lobbying of one writer against wholesome provisions of the Direct Primary bill of that year became notorious.

(2) Men who do not do legitimate newspaper work, but who go to Sacramento each session to oppose or promote the passage of given measures, and secure admittance to the floor by representing themselves to be newspaper writers.

The Legislature could very readily reach such persons by adopting rules to exclude them from Senate and Assembly floor-and enforcing such rules.

But members of the Legislature do not care to assume responsibility for such reasonable action. Under the method proposed, the legislators were relieved of this responsibility.

The proposed rule" provided for a committee of

44 The rule as proposed read: "Such applicant (to be a press representative) shall be authenticated by a committee of not less than three press representatives from each House, who shall be

newspapermen to authenticate the credentials of all applicants for admittance to the floor as newspaper writers. This committee was expected to do what the legislators apparently did not wish to do, exclude those who might be deemed undesirable.

But it was asked where would the line between the desirable and undesirable be drawn? The legislators themselves-however machine-ridden they might be might hesitate before daring to deny admittance to the floor of a newspaper writer whose only offense was the stating of facts which some members might not like.. Would it be possible for a bad Legislature to secure by indirection the removal of such a writer, and disclaim all responsibility for it?

For example, the admitted purpose of the proposed rule was to put out a man who it was alleged did not bathe regularly. In a Legislature of Senators and Assemblymen who themselves might not be addicted to the bathing habit, would it be possible to exclude a man who did bathe regularly?

This may be taken both literally and figuratively.

Another objection to the proposed change was that the country press would be hampered in sending newspaper writers to the State Capitol. That the country

selected from correspondents assigned by the respective newspapers, to be present during the session of the Legislature, and such committee shall be selected by duly accredited press representatives. Such Press Committee shall not authenticate any application not signed by a bona fide correspondent of a bona fide newspaper engaged in reporting and publishing the proceedings of the Legislature. It shall be the duty of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to assign one or more rooms for the exclusive use of correspondents during the legislative session, which room shall be known as the press room. The press room shall be under the control of the Press Committee, provided that all rules and regulations shall be approved by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House."