« AnteriorContinuar »
reprinted. It was returned from the printer on May 1. On May 2, thirty-one days after the measure had been returned to the Assembly by the Committee on Conservation, it was brought to vote.
A method of legislative bribery not yet reached by the criminal statutes is that of vote-trading; a form of intimidation not yet defined in the Codes is that of threatening a legislator with defeat of his important measures to force him to vote against his convictions. Eventually both these corrupt practices will be properly classified, both in public opinion and in law. For a member to agree to vote for a measure which he knows to be bad, or against a measure which he knows to be good, to secure support for his own bill, is quite as mischievous as though he had taken cash for it. For a legislator or lobbyist to threaten a member with defeat of some measure in the passage of which the member or his constituents may be interested, classifies very well with threat to do injury to property or to person. One of the weaknesses of the present legislative system is that it lends itself to such bribery and to such intimidation. And while it might have been difficult to pick an individual case of either of these particular forms of corruption, no informed observer of the campaign to defeat the Conservation bill when it came to vote in the Assembly, could doubt there had been trading for votes,140 and that members were threat
140 The legislative correspondent of the Fresno Republican, in a letter to his paper published May 3, touched upon the part trading had in the campaign against the bill.
"This (Conservation) bill," he said, “encountered more opposition from the first than any other of the large measures before this session of the Legislature. By clever tactics it was amended every time it
up, and its
course delayed until it got
ened with defeat of measures in the passage of which they were interested, or with the passage of measures which constituents looked to them to defeat.
As the roll-call proceeded, it became apparent there were not enough supporters of the bill present to ensure its passage. A call of the House was demanded that the absentees might be brought in. For nearly three hours the sergeants-at-arms hunted for the absent members. Twice the opponents of the bill endeavored to have the call of the House dispensed with and the hunt for the absent members discontinued,141 but the motions
entangled with petty local fights. It became involved with the fight to exclude the Claremont Hotel from the University mile dry zone, with the fight to place a dry zone around Santa Clara University, and with other fights. Opponents traded right and left to secure votes against this measure.'
141 The first motion to dispense with the call of the House was made by Libby of Sonoma. Libby's motion was defeated by a vote of 29 to 43 as follows:
To dispense with call-Alexander, Bagby, Beck, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Dower, Ford, Gelder, Griffin, Guill, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Killingworth, Libby, Murray Palmer, Polsley, Richardson, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Stuckenbruck, Walsh, Weldon, White—29.
Against_dispensing with' call-Ambrose, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bush, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Cram, Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Fish, Gabbert, Gates, Green, Hinkle, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, A.; Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McCarthy, McDonald, Moorhouse, Morgenstern, Mouser, Nelson, Peairs, Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Shartel, Smith, Strine, Sutherland, Wall, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie, Young-43.
The second motion to that end was made by Killingsworth of Solano.
Killingsworth's motion was defeated by a vote of 30 to 38, as follows:
To dispense with the call Alexander, Bagby, Beck, Bowman, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Clarke, Geo. A.; Dower, Ford, Gelder, Griffin, Guiberson, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Killingsworth, Libby, Morgenstern, Murray, Palmer, Polsley, Richardson, Shannon, Shartel, Shearer, Simpson, Stuckenbruck, Wall, Weldon, and White --30.
Against dispensing with the call-Ambrose, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Cram, Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Finnegan, Fish, Gabbert, Gates, Green, Guill, Hinkle, Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, Moorhouse, Mouser, Nelson, Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Slater, Smith, Strine, Sutherland, Tulloch, Walsh, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young -38.
to that end were voted down. After three hours' hunt, absentee members had been found and brought to the Assembly Chamber, until there were enough recorded as present in the room, who were regarded as favoring the bill, to ensure for it the forty-one votes necessary for its passage. Among these were Inman of Sacramento, at whose instigation the bill had been amended to meet his objection; Canepa of San Francisco and Cram of San Bernardino. But after the hunt for absentees was discontinued, and the roll was called, Inman 142 of Sacramento voted "no"; Canepa 143 and Cram had disappeared. The vote stood forty for the bill, one short of the forty-one necessary for its passage, and thirty-five against.144 The Assembly Chamber was
142 "One amendment (to the Conservation bill)" says the legislative correspondent of the Fresno Republican, in the issue of that paper for May 3, "was agreed to especially to meet objections by Inman, Progressive of Sacramento, but on the final vote Inman was with the opposition."
143 There were various versions of the disappearance of Canepa and Cram. The Associated Press, in dispatches sent from Sacramento, May 2, 1913, stated: “Cram and Canepa took advantage of the confusion and slipped from the room.” The Fresno Republican (issue of May 4) states that Canepa was in the cloak room “and caused the defeat of the bill." The Sacramento Union (issue of May 3), stated that “while Bohnett's back was turned, Cram, whose constituents disapproved of the bill, jumped through a side window, clambered along the narrow coping of the building and dodged into the Assembly ante-room unobserved. Canepa crawled down the outside aisle of the chamber on his hands and knees from his seat in the front row and hid in the lavatory.'
But whichever version was correct, wherever Cram and Canepa were, or how they got away, a few minutes before the vote was taken they were in the Assembly chamber, and when the roll was called they were not there. The presence of either of them, had he voted for the bill, as Canepa did the following day, would have saved the bill from defeat.
144 The vote by which the bill was defeated on May 2 was as follows:
For the bill-Ambrose, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bush, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Fish, Gabbert, Gates, Green, Hinkle, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McDonald, Moorhouse,
in great disorder and excitement. The opponents clamored for announcement of the vote, and the recording of the defeat of the bill. Supporters were demanding another call of the House that the absent Assemblymen might be brought back.
Speaker Young paused a moment, and then brought his gavel down, announcing the vote, and the defeat of the bill.145
Morgenstern, Mouser, Nelson, Peairs,
Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Shartel, Strine, Sutherland, Walsh, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie, Young-40.
Against the bill-Alexander, Bagby, Beck, Bowman, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Dower, Ford, Gelder, Griffin, Guiberson, Guill, Hayes, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Killingsworth, Libby, McCarthy, Murray, Palmer, Polsley, Richardson, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Tulloch, Wall, Weldon, and White-35.
145 There was a tendency to criticise Young for announcing the vote, on the ground that Bohnett was at the moment of announcement demanding a call of the House. Had Young adopted the much condemned tactics of Speakers, who, under "machine" rule, acted as mere puppets in carrying out “machine" policies, he would have withheld the announcement, assisted in jockeying for a call of the Assembly, and compelled the attendance of the skulking members. But Young was not acting as a puppet. He was acting as a Speaker of a deliberative body. As Speaker of a deliberative body it was his duty to announce the vote, without playing to give either side the advantage. He announced the vote.
CONSERVATION BILL PASSES ASSEMBLY.
The Conservation bill had not been voted down; more members had voted for it than against it; with the attendance of all compelled, the passage of the measure was assured. But the bill had been defeated. And seldom had an important measure been in a more hopeless tangle at announcement of the vote. In the confusion none of the leaders in its support had taken the precaution to change his vote to the winning side, to place himself in the parliamentary position to give notice of intention to move for reconsideration. If, before the end of the day, one of the thirty-five members who had voted against the bill would announce his intention to move for reconsideration, there would be one chance more to secure a full vote, which would mean the bill's passage.146)
During the noon recess the bill's supporters labored to find some member who had voted against the bill who would be willing to give notice of intention to move for reconsideration. McCarthy of San Francisco agreed finally to give the notice. This he did.
. But there was
no little speculation as to whether or not
146 There was still another chance to compel a vote, but so desperate that none of the friends of conservation put much dependance upon it. The companion Kehoe bill (Senate Bill 606) was pending in the Senate. If the Kehoe bill could be put through the Senate, a vote upon it might be compelled in the Assembly. But the session was so near final adjournment that it is not probable that this could have been done.