ponement was granted. This put the final vote over until Saturday, March 5.

The position of the bill's supporters was by this time critical. The Attorney General had advised that the measure to be effective for 1921 had to be enacted not later than Monday, March 7. Fifty-four votes were necessary for its enactment. Brought to vote, only fifty-three members would vote for it, which meant its defeat. On the other hand, if the delay continued until adjournment on Monday, the 7th, even though the bill be passed, the corporations, banks, and insurance companies, according to the opinion of the Attorney General, would escape equalization of their taxes for a year. The leaders supporting the measure, in private, frankly admitted themselves beaten.

When the Assemblymen met for Saturday's session, however, it became known that Heck of Bakersfield, who had been voting with the opposition, had decided to vote for the bill. This, with the fifty-three votes cast for it three days before, would give the fifty-four necessary for its passage.

Heck, when his contemplated change became known, was surrounded by members of the type of J. O. Bishop of San Diego, W. F. Beal of Imperial, E. O. Loucks of Los Angeles, J. B. Badaracco and George Warren of San Francisco, reinforced by Senator McDonald, and urged to reconsider his decision. But Heck, his mind made up, refused to be influenced. This apparently meant the bill's passage.

But at once the story got out that Stevens of Sonoma, and McCloskey of San Benito, who had voted against the first bill in January, but who had

voted for the second bill on the first roll-call, would vote with the opposition. This, without other changes, would give the bill only fifty-two votes, two less than the number required for its passage. Then it became known that McPherson of Vallejo, who had been voting no, had decided to vote yes and that Mitchell of San Francisco had decided to take the same course. This would give the fifty-four votes necessary for the bill's passage.

Confusion reigned in the Assembly Chamber. While the debate went on, the leaders of the opposition, Bishop, Graves, Hurley, Loucks, and Beal, made frantic efforts to reorganize their forces. Stevens stood on the outside of the group of the bill's opponents that were laboring to hold Heck in line, and watched the effect of their arguments upon him. McPherson was surrounded by a similar group. And through it all the debate went on and on. In the midst of this confusion the bill was brought to final vote.

Stevens and McCloskey, as had been anticipated, voted against it. Heck, McPherson, and Mitchell for it. This gave 5476 affirmative votes, the minimum number required for its passage.

76 The vote by which the King tax bill finally passed the Assembly was:

For the bill-Assemblymen Anderson, Bernard, Broughton, Christian, Cleary, Cleveland, Colburn, Coombs, Crittenden, Cummings, Eksward, Fellom, Fulwider, Hawes, Heck, Heisinger, Hornblower, Hughes, Hume, Johnson, Johnston, Jones, G. L.; Jones, I.; Kline, Lee, G. W.; Lee, I. A.; Lewis, Long, Manning. Mather, McDowell, McKeen, McPherson, Mitchell, Morrison, Parker, Parkinson, Pettis, Powers, Prendergast, Roberts, Rosenshine, Ross, Saylor, Schmidt, Smith, Spalding, Spence, Webster, Wendering, West, Windrem, Wright, H. W., and Wright, T. M.-54.

Against the bill-Assemblymen Badaracco, Badham, Baker, Beal, Benton, Bishop, Bromley, Brooks. Burns. Graves, Gray, Greene, Hart, Hurley, Loucks, Lyons, McCloskey, McGee, Merriam, Morris, Pedrotti, Ream, Stevens, Warren, Weber, and White-26.

The corporations had lost; the general taxpayers had won.

The King tax bill, having passed both Houses, went to the Governor for his signature."

77 Certain of the corporations have since taken the tax bill into the courts. In this connection the following news dispatch dated San Francisco and published in the Sacramento Bee for April 7, 1921, is significant:"(William) F. Herrin, chief counsel for the Southern Pacific Railroad, left for New York today, for the purpose, it is reported here, of conferring with Eastern banking interests regarding a possible fight in the Federal Courts against the King tax bill. While Herrin was silent regarding his mission, it is generally believed that he has been summoned East by Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and other banking interests, which have underwritten large issues of California bonds, to discuss the tax ques.tion. Possible Court action against the Act will be based, it is said, on the ground that it is confiscatory and thus in violation of the Federal Constitution."

CHAPTER IX.

ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT EVILS OF TAX SYSTEM FAIL

The contest over the King taxation measure had brought the extraordinary advantages given the corporations under the Plehn taxation system squarely before the 1921 Legislature, precisely as eight years before a like struggle over a similar attempt to increase the corporations' tax rates had brought those same advantages before the Legislature of 1913.78

In 1913, men of the type of Cram in the Assembly and Avey in the Senate, urged the abolishment of the Plehn system, and introduced constitutional amendments to that end. But the system had then been in operation only two years, the general opinion was that it should be given a fair trial, and neither the Cram nor the Avey amendments was brought to vote.

The corporations' rates were again increased in 1915. There was something of a struggle, but it passed quickly. Legislators of the type of William Kehoe of Humboldt denounced the increases as inadequate and unjust to the people.79 The Plehn system was not put to the test in 1915 as it had been in 1913; the comparatively small increase in rates passed with little publicity.

As the corporations' rates remained practically

78 See Story of the California Legislature of 1913. 79 See Story of the California Legislature of 1915.

stationary for the next six years, the public all but forgot Professor Plehn and his system.

When, at the 1921 session, another attempt was made to equalize the corporation's taxes under the Plehn system, public and Legislature were brought up with a jerk, as they had been in 1913, to realization that under the Plehn system the banks, insurance companies, and corporations have the better of it at every point.

To wipe out these inequalities, two constitutional amendments were introduced.

The first was offered in the Assembly under the joint authorship of Frank Merriam of Long Beach and Isaac Jones of San Bernardino. It offered the same remedy as had been proposed by Assemblyman Cram and Senator Avey eight years before, namely, abolishment of the Plehn system.

The second measure was offered by Senator King. Under this measure, as introduced, the Plehn system was retained, but an attempt was made to eliminate some of the more objectionable features.

The Jones-Merriam amendment got further than the Cram-Avey measure had eight years before. The Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments recommended that it be adopted. In the Assembly a determined effort was made to secure its adoption. Nevertheless it was defeated by a vote of 30 to 31.80 The King measure was adopted by both houses,

80 The vote by which the constitutional amendment to abolish the Plehn taxation system was defeated was:

For the measure-Assemblymen Badham, Beal, Benton, Bernard, Brooks, Eksward, Fellom, Hart, Heck, Hume, Johnson, Jones, I.; Kline, Lee, I. A.; Lewis, Loucks, Mather, McCloskey, McDowell,