CHAPTER I.

THE NEW ORDER.

At the Primary and Final Elections of 1910, Those Candidates for the Legislature Who, as Members of Senate and Assembly of 1909, Had Opposed Progressive Policies Were Defeated, While Those Who Had Supported Such Policies Were Re-elected-But the Progressives of Both Houses, While Presumably in Strong Majority, Previous to the Meeting of the 1911 Legislature, Were Without Definite Plan of Action, or Even Fixed Policies.

The election of Hiram W. Johnson, Governor of California, carried with it the defeat of the "machine" members of Senate and Assembly who had for years dominated the Legislature.1 On the other hand, those members of Senate and Assembly who, during the session of 1909 had opposed machine measures and policies,

1 The following statement issued immediately after the November elections (1910), by Meyer Lissner, Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, indicates how complete was the anti-machine victory:

"Four years ago the first serious organized effort to take the control of the government of California from the political bureau of the Southern Pacific Railroad was begun. Those loyal, real Republicans, who initiated that movement, were scoffed at for their pains. The railroad had so long been in control, its tentacles were so firmly fastened in every governmental department, State, county and municipal, that it was generally considered invincible. It was a big job to attempt to smash the machine of the interests, but it has been accomplished. Like all great undertakings that are right in principle, this movement in California needed a man to lead it to victory, and that great leader was found in Hiram W. Johnson. Without a man of his calibre, ability and unselfish devotion to the cause, we could not have won; but we have suc

were, in the majority of cases, re-elected to serve in the Legislature of 1911. This is particularly true of the Senate.

At the session of 1909, the Senate had divided, for example, on the question of a State-wide practical vote for nomination of United States Senator.2 The antimachine members had advocated the State-wide vote. The so-called organization or “machine" Senators had advanced, with eventual success, the "district, advisoryvote" plan.

Of the twenty Senators whose terms expired at the close of 1910, eleven had supported the "district, advisoryvote" plan. One only of the eleven, Senator Leroy A. Wright of San Diego, was re-elected. The ten re

ceeded, and it is a great day for California. It is not altogether a victory for the Republican party; it is equally the victory of Progressive Americanism; it transcends all party lines because the issue that was made was not a party issue at all. It was the allied special interests on one side against the people on the other, and the people won.

"The next Legislature will be the best Legislature ever assembled in the State of California; and with Governor Johnson in the State Capitol and Lieutenant-Governor Wallace presiding over the State Senate and appointing the Senate Committees, unquestionably the pledges of the party platform will be redeemed and more progressive, constructive legislation enacted than California has been given for a generation.

"Our campaign was conducted on principle and on absolutely clean lines. We did not barter, or pledge, or compromise in any manner. No candidate elected on the Republican ticket is in any way obligated except to the people themselves.

"To the thousands of loyal citizens throughout the State who gave so generously of their time and money in this campaign, we extend our sincere thanks and appreciation, and to the loyal Republican and Independent press of the State, without whose aid the victory could not have been won, we feel under still greater obligations."

2 See Chapters VIII, IX, X, XI, "Story of the California Legislature of 1909."

3 Of the ten, four, Hartman, Leavitt, McCartney and Savage, were defeated at the primaries; two, Kennedy and Price, were defeated at the final election; four, Willis, Bates, Reily and Weed, were not candidates for re-election.

maining, although the majority were candidates for reelection, were not returned to the Senate.

The nine retiring Senators, who had opposed the machine on this issue, were Anthony, Bell, Black, Boynton, Caminetti, Cartwright, Curtin, Miller and Sanford.

4

Of the nine, Miller declined to be a candidate for re-election. Anthony was a candidate for nomination for re-election in a district which probably contains a greater percentage of disreputable characters than any other Senatorial district of the State. Anthony was defeated. The remaining seven Senators of the nine who had voted for the practical State-wide plan for nominating United States Senators were re-elected.

Another issue which divided the Senate of 1909 sharply was that of Railroad regulation. The two measures over which the division came were the Wright Railroad Regulation bill, and the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill.

The Stetson bill was regarded as practical and effective, and was, indeed, made the basis of the Eshleman Railroad Regulation measure which became a law at the 1911 session. The Wright bill was not-to put it very mildly-regarded as so effective as the Stetson bill. The Stetson bill was defeated at the session of 1909, however, the Wright bill becoming a law.

5

Of the twenty Senators whose terms expired at the

4 The Twenty-fourth Senatorial District (1901 apportionment), which includes the San Francisco Chinatown and tenderloin. Anthony made the best record of the San Francisco delegation in the 1909 Senate. Nevertheless, he opposed several important Progressive measures, notably the Stetson Railroad Regulation bill.

5 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapters XII and XIII.

6 About the first thing the Legislature of 1911 did was to repeal the Wright law. See Chapter XI.

close of 1910, twelve at the test supported the Wright bill, and eight the Stetson bill.

Of the twelve who supported the Wright bill, only one was re-elected, Wright of San Diego. The remaining eleven did not sit in the Senate of 1911.

On the other hand, of the eight who supported the Stetson bill, one, Miller, was not a candidate for re-election, while the remaining seven were re-elected.

8

Such examples could be multiplied. With but one or two exceptions, those retiring Senators, who, at the session of 1909 had supported progressive policies, were re-elected, while those who had opposed such policies were not returned to the Senate.

The same was largely true of the Assembly.

9

On the eleven votes which were generally accepted as the test votes of the Assembly of 1909, forty of the eighty Assemblymen voted only five times each, or less than five times each, for the so-called progressive policies. Of these forty Assemblymen, only two 10 were re-elected to the Assembly, although two 11 were elevated to the Senate.

On the other hand, of the forty Assemblymen who, at the session of 1909 were recorded as voting for progressive policies six times or more on the eleven test

7 Anthony, Bates, Hartman, Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Price, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis.

8 Black, Bell, Boynton, Caminetti, Cartwright, Curtin and Sanford.

9 See Tables B and C, "Story of the California Legislature of 1909."

10 Assemblymen Schmitt and Coghlan, both of San Francisco. 11 Beban of San Francisco, and Hans of Alameda.

12

votes, no less than twenty-one were re-elected to the Assembly, while one 18 was elected to the Senate.

13

Although the election returns which showed the defeat of the old machine guard of Senate and Assembly were most gratifying to the Progressives of both parties, nevertheless there was nothing to show conclusively that the Progressives would be in control of either House. Indeed, there was good reason to believe that the contrary would develop. The San Francisco delegationelect to both Senate and Assembly 14 was known to be something less desirable, if such could be possible, than the San Francisco delegation that had sat in the Legislature of 1909. The only thing of which the Progressives could be certain was that twenty-one Assemblymen had been re-elected, whose records at the session of 1909 would indicate that they could be counted upon to support Progressive measures. In the new Senate were eighteen 15 members who had made good records at the

12 The 1909 records on the eleven test votes of the twenty-one members of the Assembly of 1909, who were returned to the Assembly of 1911, were as follows: For Progress and Reform eleven times: Bohnett, Cattell, Hewitt, Mendenhall, Polsley, Telfer, Wilson, Young; for Progress and Reform ten times and once absent, Cogswell, Kehoe, Maher and Wyllie; for Progress and Reform ten times and once against, Flint, Hinkle and Stuckenbruck. The six remaining Assemblymen, Gerdes, Rutherford, Griffiths, Hayes, Beatty and Cronin, on the eleven tests, voted six times or more with the Progressives.

13 Juilliard of Sonoma. At the session of 1909, on the eleven test Assembly votes, Mr. Juilliard is recorded as voting ten times for Progress and Reform, and once absent.

14 Mr. Frederick O'Brien, of the United Press, in his "Call of the Roll," of the 1911 Legislature, names four San Francisco members outright as saloonkeepers or bartenders. The claim has been made that no less than twelve of the twenty-seven members of the San Francisco legislative delegation of 1911 were barkeepers or otherwise connected with the saloon business.

15 At the meeting of Senators at Santa Barbara following the November elections, some went so far as to claim that in the Senate but seventeen members could be counted upon on every occasion to support progressive policies. This was four members less than the majority of twenty-one necessary for the control of the Senate.