Late in April, when the session's work was fast getting into an all but hopeless tangle, eight Senators and eight Assemblymen 374 joined in the introduction of the most comprehensive plan of change in the legislative system that had been offered.

The amendment provided for a Legislature of a single House to be known as the Senate. The members were to be forty in number, elected to serve for fouryear terms. Each member was to be allowed $5,000 as compensation for the biennial session. It was provided that each regular session should continue for a period of one year.

Probably none of those who joined in the introduction of this amendment expected it to be adopted. But . its introduction brought the necessity of an effective legislative body squarely before the Legislature and the State. The amendment came to vote in each House, and although it failed to secure the necessary two-thirds vote for adoption in either body, the vote that was given it was a surprise. In each House, more voted for the change than voted against it. In the Assembly thirtyseven members voted for the proposed change and thirty against it.375 In the Senate the vote was nineteen for

374 The Senators were Boynton, Carr, Gates and Avey, Progressives, and Cartwright, Campbell, Owens and Cohn, Democrats. The Assemblymen were Sutherland, Bohnett, Benedict and Clark, Progressives, and Bagby, Weldon, Killingsworth and Guiberson, Democrats. The proposed amendment was No. 91 in the Assembly and No. 73 in the Senate series.

375 The vote on the amendment in the Assembly was:

For the proposed change-Alexander, Ambrose, Beck, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bush, Canepa, Cram, Ellis, Farwell, Ford, Gabbert, Gates, Guiberson, Hayes, Inman, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Kuck, Moorhouse, Morgenstern, Palmer, Peairs, Ryan, Schmitt, Scott, Shannon, Smith, Strine, Stuckenbruck, Walsh, Weldon, White, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-37.

Against the proposed change-Bagby, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Chandler, Clarke, Geo. A.; Dower, Emmons, Ferguson, Finnegan,

it and fifteen against.376 Thus out of a Legislature of 120 members, fifty-six went on record as favoring a one-House Legislature to consist of forty adequately compensated members, while forty-five opposed. Nineteen members did not vote.

But whatever may be said for or against the legislative plan presented in this amendment, the fact remains that the Legislature as organized under the present plan has at the test proven cumbersome and inadequate. That radical changes are necessary, few if any in touch with the situation will dispute. The ability of The People of California for self-government, may be largely determined by their ability or inability to meet this issue.

Fish, Gelder, Guill, Hinkle, Johnson, Geo. H.; Judson, Kingsley, Libby, McDonald, Mouser, Murray, Nelson, Polsley, Richardson, Roberts, Simpson, Slater, Sutherland, Tulloch, and Weisel-30.

376 The vote on the amendment in the Senate was:

For the proposed change-Anderson, Avey, Benson, Boynton, Breed, Bryant, Campbell, Cohn, Finn, Gates, Hans, Hewitt, Jones, Kehoe, Larkins, Lyon, Regan, Rush, and Shanahan-19.

Against the proposed change-Beban, Birdsall, Brown, Caminetti, Cogswell, Curtin, Flint, Grant, Juilliard, Mott, Sanford, Strobridge, Thompson, Tyrrell, and Wright-15.

RESOLUTIONS OF PROTEST OF PANAMAPACIFIC EXPOSITION COMPANY.

(Referred to on Page 254.)

Whereas, The State of California, at its urgent solicitation, was selected by the Congress of the United States through the medium of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition to act, in behalf of the Government, as the host for the people of the United States to all peoples who may so desire to join with the United States in celebrating the opening of the Panama Canal by participating in the universal exposition of nineteen fifteen; and,

Whereas, In pursuance of this Act of Congress so passed at the urgent request of the State of California and its Legislature, the President of the United States invited all nations and all peoples without regard to race, creed, political system or social development to take part in the celebration of the opening of the great international highway; and,

Whereas, In accepting this trust at the hands of the people and government of the United States and in special behalf of the State of California, the Exposition has been seriously requested and has solemnly agreed to provide every facility and to offer every encouragement that physical preparation can afford or the broadest spirit of universal fellowship suggest, and has intended and still intends so to do in a manner responsive to the invitation of the United States and to the sentiment of universal brotherhood that this celebration is intended to promote; and,

Whereas, Any action upon the part of the people of California through its Legislature or otherwise, calculated to lessen the interest of all nations and peoples in the success of this celebration, will negative and nullify the implied and expressed covenants of the State of California; therefore, be it

Resolved, By the board of directors of the PanamaPacific International Exposition, that any action on the part of the Legislature of California that shall be regarded by any foreign country or government as offensive to their pride as a people or their honor as a nation, must and will challenge the good faith of the commonwealth of California.

Resolved, That it is the deliberate and unqualified conviction of this board that by accepting this great trust for the Nation, rendered of deep international dignity and import by the request of the American Government, to all

nations and all people without exception, to share with our Nation the gratification and pride all patriotic Americans feel in the tremendous gift of the Panama Canal to the world, with its immeasurable commercial and civilizing advantages, the State of California unquestionably pledged to all participants equal opportunity and courtesy and indiscriminating welcome and hospitality.

Resolved, further, That we, as a board of directors, deeply impressed with the responsibility we have assumed on behalf of the State of California, emphatically protest against the passage of any measures in the Legislature of the State that are in any wise contrary to the spirit of the obligation incurred by this State at the time it assumed the responsibility conferred upon it by Act of Congress.

Resolved, further, That the President of this Exposition be authorized and instructed to sign and the secretary of the company to place the seal of the corporation upon these resolutions, and to suitably engross and copy the same_and transmit them to each house of the Legislature of the State of California, with the request that they be printed in the Journal thereof; and such other bodies or persons as in the opinion of the president it shall be deemed advisable to do, thereby confirming similar previous acts by this board and the representations of committees of this board before the Legislature at Sacramento, as well as official statements previously given to the press and public.

Please transmit above to Governor Johnson, also to both houses of Legislature, informing them that engrossed and signed copies will follow.

CHARLES C. MOORE, President.

RUDOLPH J. TAUSSIG, Secretary.

GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S REPLY TO SECRETARY BRYAN.

(Referred to on Page 273.)

Hon. William J. Bryan, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.:

Your very courteous telegram relating to the alien land bill reached me late Sunday night. I take it from your conversations and your request made to me to withhold executive action until opportunity was accorded for the presentation of suggestions from the Federal Government, that your telegram embodies what it was your wish and the wish of the President to say to us before final action.

In this response it is my design most respectfully to pre

sent the situation from our standpoint, and the views that actuated our Legislature in passing the bill, and that impel me to sanction it.

For many years, a very grave problem, little understood in the East, has confronted California; a problem the seriousness of which has been recognized by statesmen in our Nation, and has been viewed with apprehension by the people of this State. When the present Constitution of California was adopted more than thirty years ago, it contained the following declaration: "The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared to be dangerous to the well-being of the State, and the Legislature shall discourage their immigration by all means within its power."

Of late years, our problem from another angle has become acute, and the agitation has been continuous in the last decade in reference to our agricultural lands, until finally affirmative action in an attempted solution became imperative. This attempted solution is found in the action of our Legislature in the passage of an alien land bill. In the phraseology of this bill, in those whom it affects, in its scope and in its purpose, we believe we are within our legal and our moral right, and that we are doing only what is imperatively demanded for the protection and preservation of our State. In this enactment we have kept ever in mind our national good faith as evidenced by existing treaties, and our desire and anxiety have been to act only in such fashion as would commend us to our sister States and would justify us to our fellow countrymen.

The objections to our bill are based, first, upon the treaty obligations of the Nation; and, secondly, upon the assertion that our act is offensive and discriminatory. The protest to our measure, as your telegram states, comes from the representative of Japan. The bill that is now before me, as you know, provides substantially in its first section that all aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States may acquire real property in the same manner as citizens of the United States, and the second section provides that all aliens other than those mentioned in the first section, may acquire real property in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such aliens are citizens or subjects, and may, in addition, lease for a period of three years lands for agricultural purposes. Thus, we have made existing treaties a part of our law, and thus have we preserved every right that any foreign nation, by international contract, has insisted upon preserving with our Na