the opposition threatened to use the twenty-eight votes to defeat the Gates-Clark measure.

On the floor of the Assembly, the leadership in the fight against the Gates-Clark Recall passed into abler hands than those of Assemblyman Bishop. Assemblyman M. R. Jones of Contra Costa County 155 headed the opposition.

Mr. Jones offered an amendment to exclude Justices of the Supreme Court, Justices of the District Court of Appeal and Judges of the Superior Court, from the Recall provisions.

Here was the test of the strength of the Recall principle in the Assembly. The amendment which Mr. Jones had proposed had behind it the Reactionaries bent upon defeating the Recall in any form, and the ultra-conservative Progressives, who were opposing the application of the Recall to the Judiciary. Nevertheless, Jones' amendment, after a day of debate, was defeated by a vote of 20 to 59.156 The 28 votes which the opposition had boasted, had not shown.

The vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Jones was decisive defeat of the opponents of the Recall.

155 Assemblyman Jones during the session showed himself one of the cleverest men who have sat in the Lower House of the California Legislature. But Assemblyman Jones can scarcely be regarded as a Progressive. In the reorganization of California politics during the next half decade, that must come after the re-setting of the lines which has followed Johnson's election, the case of Assemblyman Jones bids fair to be an interesting study in politics. Mr. Jones is connected with the Law Department of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

156 The vote on the Jones amendment was as follows: For the Jones amendment-Messrs. Bennink, Bishop, Bliss, Brown, Coghlan, Cronin, Crosby, Freeman, Griffiths, Hall, Harlan, Jones, Lynch, Maher, McGowen, Rosendale, Schmitt, Stevenot, Sutherland and Walker-20.

Against the Jones amendment-Messrs. Beatty, Beckett, Benedict, Bohnett, Butler, Callaghan, Cattell, Chandler, Clark, Cogswell, Cunningham, Denegri, Farwell, Feeley, Fitzgerald, Flint, Gaylord,

Other amendments were proposed by Brown and Bishop, but they lacked hearty backing or support. The effective opponents of the Recall had, with the announcement of the vote on the Jones amendment, recognized their defeat. Other amendments were offered, but Mr. Jones was author of none of them. When the final roll call came the Recall amendment was adopted by a vote of 70 to 10, every member being in his seat and voting.157 In Senate and Assembly 106 legislators voted for the Recall amendment, and 14 against. Every member of both houses voted for or against it. Seldom, if ever, has the entire vote of the California Legislature been In this particular, the record of the

cast for a measure.

Recall amendment is unique.

The consideration given the amendment was also exceptional. Never before, probably, had a measure before the California Legislature been so thoroughly studied and discussed. Especially is this true of that feature of

Gerdes, Griffin of Modesto, Guill, Hamilton, Hayes, Held, Hinkle, Hewitt, Hinshaw, Jasper, Joel, Judson, Kehoe, Kennedy, Lamb, Lyon of Los Angeles, Lyon of San Francisco, Malone, March, McDonald, Mendenhall, Mott, Mullally, Nolan, Polsley, Preisker, Randall, Rimlinger, Rodgers of San Francisco, Rogers of Alameda, Rutherford, Ryan, Sbragia, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Tibbits, Walsh, Williams, Wilson, Wyllie, Young-59.

157 The Assembly vote on the Recall amendment was as follows:

For the amendment-Messrs. Beatty, Beckett, Benedict, Bennink, Bliss, Bohnett, Butler, Callaghan, Cattell, Chandler, Clark, Cogswell, Cunningham, Denegri, Farwell, Feeley, Fitzgerald, Flint, Freeman, Gaylord, Gerdes, Griffin of Modesto, Griffiths, Guill, Hamilton, Hayes, Held, Hewitt, Hinkle, Hinshaw, Jasper, Joel, Judson, Kehoe, Kennedy, Lamb, Lynch, Lyon of Los Angeles, Lyon of San Francisco, Maher, Malone, March, McDonald, McGowen, Mendenhall, Mott, Mullally, Nolan, Polsley, Preisker, Randall, Rimlinger, Rodgers of San Francisco, Rogers of Alameda, Rosendale, Rutherford, Ryan, Sbragia, Slater, Smith, Stevenot, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Telfer, Tibbits, Walsh, Williams, Wilson, Wyllie, Young-70.

Against the amendment-Messrs. Bishop, Brown, Coghlan, Cronin, Crosby, Hall, Harlan, Jones, Schmitt and Walker-10.

[ocr errors]

the amendment which extends the principle of the Recall to the Judiciary. Had the vote on the measure been taken on the opening day of the session, a different showing would unquestionably have been made. But after thorough investigation and consideration members who had, at the beginning of the session doubted the policy of making judges subject to the Recall, came to the view expressed by Heney as set forth in the previous chapter; and by Governor Johnson,158 who, when the final contest in the Assembly had been won, said: "Under an elective system the Recall should be applied to all officers. It will make no weak Judge weaker, nor a strong Judge less strong. It will be a warning and a menace to the corrupt only."

158 Governor Johnson in an interview printed in the Sacramento Bee the day following the adoption of the Recall by the Assembly said:

"We began this administration with a very simple plan for accomplishing what we told The People of the State of California we intended to do.

"The one pledge to The People was that we would restore this Government to The People.

"The administration sought to do this by taking from those who had represented private interests in the Government, and making the public service responsible alone to The People.

"When the administration had accomplished its design in this respect, then the Legislature had its part to play in bringing to The People the power by which The People could continue to make their servants responsive alone to the Government.

"The Legislature accorded this power by the adoption of the Initiative and Referendum amendment in the first instance, and of the Recall, which was yesterday adopted, in the last instance. "The plan by which we began the administration has therefore been as far as possible consummated.

"The public service, wherever it could be made so has been made servant of The People alone.

"With_the_adoption of the Constitutional Amendments providing for the Initiative, Referendum and Recall, it is now up to The People for themselves to determine whether the power shall continue to be lodged hereafter, where, under our form of government it always should be, in The People themselves.

"Under an elective system the Recall should be applied to all offices. It will make no weak judge weaker, nor a strong judge less strong. It will be a warning and a menace to the corrupt only."



The Legislature, So Far as Lay in Its Power, Granted, by Statute, the Recall, Initiative and Referendum to Municipalities and Counties.

In addition to the Recall, and the Initiative and Referendum amendments submitted to the electors for ratification, the Legislature passed two Direct Legislation measures. The first of these, introduced by Senator Marshall Black of Palo Alto, grants powers of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall to municipalities of the fifth and sixth classes,159 and the second, introduced by Assemblyman Held of Mendocino, extends the same powers to counties.1


The purpose of these measures was to establish the Recall, Initiative and Referendum in California so far can be done without Constitutional amendment. Neither of the two measures, however, was given the


159 All California cities, other than those of the fifth and sixth classes, may adopt charters, in which provision may be made for the Initiative and Referendum, and for the Recall. The principal cities of California, San Francisco and Los Angeles, and most of the smaller cities, have already availed themselves of this opportunity.

160 Governor Johnson in his inaugural address said on this point: "It has been suggested that by immediate legislation you can make the Recall applicable to counties without the necessity of constitutional amendment. If this be so, and if you believe in the adoption of this particular measure, there is no reason why the Legislature should not at once give to the counties of the State the right which we expect to accord to the whole State by virtue of constitutional amendment."

careful consideration accorded the amendments. Questions were raised as to the constitutionality 181 of the measures. But the bills were finally passed.

Nevertheless, there was opposition. Since the opponents of Direct Legislation—while pretending, by the way, to be in hearty accord with it-could not defeat the Direct Legislation measures, the attempt was made to amend them into ineffectiveness.

The Black bill had been referred to the Senate Committee on Municipal Corporations. That committee, in the absence of several members known to favor the measure, raised the percentage of votes required to invoke a Recall election from 25 to 40 per cent.1 162 The 'measure was then referred back to the Senate with the recommendation that it become a law with the 40 per cent. provision.

Had the amendment been adopted, the high percentage required to invoke a Recall election, would have been practically prohibitive.168

161 The Held law, for example, provides for the recall of county supervisors. The terms of office of supervisors are fixed by the State Constitution. The objection was raised that an amendment of the Constitution is necessary before supervisors can be made subject to the Recall principle.

162 The percentages required for an Initiative petition were also raised, but the increase was not necessarily prohibitive as in the case of the Recall. All the percentages, as provided in these bills, it will be observed, are high. This is due to the fact that they affect comparatively small bodies of voters, and a lower percentage would make the number of individuals necessary to validate a petition unreasonably few. This is particularly true of the Black bill, which affects the smallest municipalities of the State.

163 Milton T. U'Ren, Secretary and Treasurer of the Direct Legislation League of California, in speaking of the committee's amendment, said: "The effect of such a requirement (the 40 per cent. requirement) will be, of course, to absolutely prevent any use of the power granted. It would be just as well and certainly a great deal more honest to vote directly against the bill. To those who have made a study of the operation of Direct Legislation in other States as well as this, such a requirement is absolutely ridiculous."

« ForrigeFortsett »