« ForrigeFortsett »
21 to 20. After a twenty-hour fight, the proponents of the bill were for the moment defeated.
Senator Wright moved to amend the bill by striking out the provision that the right "to carry on business of any particular kind, or at any particular place, or at all," shall not for the purposes of the act be held to be a property right.
be one of the 27, so in the case of the 21 votes required to reconsider the President's vote likewise could not be one of the 21. Senator Wolfe urged on the Lieutenant-Governor the seriousness of the situation and his great responsibility.
Wallace declared his agreement with Senator Wolfe in the statement that as President of the Senate he was placed in a responsible position, and stated that the Senate and the people of the State would not consider any man fit to preside in this Senate, who would shirk the serious and the disagreeable, and be willing to act only where things were pleasant.
The Lieutenant-Governor then read from the clause of the State Constitution quoted above, and insisted that it in no way limited the cases in which the casting vote could be employed. He pointed out that the clause referred to in sustaining Rule 50 of the Senate, which required 21 votes to carry any motion to re consider, did not designate the kind of votes nor directly nor indirectly suggest that the President of the Senate could not in this case as well as in other cases of a tie give the casting vote. Wallace further called attention to the fact that in the recent Congress, in the vote on the Ship Subsidy bill, Vice-President Sherman gave a casting vote, and that that casting vote was preceded by either one or two motions which related to the same bill, which resulted in a tie, and in which cases the Vice-President gave the casting vote, though they were subsidiary motions. Wallace therefore claimed that unquestionably Senator Wolfe's point of order was not well taken, and that the President of the Senate in this case had full right and authority to give the casting vote. At this point Wallace gave his vote, aye, and was in the act of declaring that there were 21 ayes, when Senator Caminetti claimed the floor, but Wallace declined to recognize him until the completion of the act in which he was engaged, and proceeded to say: "Ayes 21, noes 20; the motion to reconsider is carried." After the declaration was made, Senator Caminetti claimed that it had been his intention to appeal from the ruling on Senator Wolfe's point of order, and that his rights had been infringed.
Wallace held that he had no means of knowing what the Senator intended, and that it was the right of the presiding officer to finish the item of business that was almost completed, and that without interruption.
After some desultory discussion by various members of the Senate, Senator Curtin made the point that the President was within his rights when he determined to complete the item of business without being interrupted, and Senator Stetson stated that even if Senator Caminetti's appeal had not been stated as such, and recognized, that it would have been out of order because, if the appeal had prevailed it would have been set aside by the Constitutional provision which directs that the President of the Senate shall in the case of a tie cast the deciding vote. In other words, that Senator Caminetti's appeal would have run counter to the plain provision of the Constitution.
The proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of 18 to 21.822
Senator Wright moved a further amendment to provide that in all labor disputes it shall be unlawful to threaten injury to person or property.
This proposed amendment was also defeated by a vote of 18 to 21.322
The bill was then put upon its final passage, and passed by a vote of 22 to 18.32
The fight against the bill was then transferred to the Assembly side of the Capitol.
The measure reached the Assembly on March 23, four days before adjournment. In the ordinary course of legislative business it was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Under the rules, the committee had ten days in which to report upon the bill. The committee took the bill up on the afternoon of the following day, but before action could be taken, a motion to adjourn prevailed by a vote of 9 to 5. Late that night, however, the committee met in special session to consider the bill, and decided to return it to the Assembly with the recommendation that
322 The vote on these amendments was the same in each instance, as follows:
For the amendments: Avey, Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Boynton, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Gates, Hewitt, Holohan, Hurd, Larkins, Roseberry, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson and Wright-18.
Against the amendments: Beban, Black, Bryant, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Cassidy, Finn, Hans, Hare, Juilliard, Lewis, Martinelli, Regan, Sanford, Shanahan, Tyrrell, Walker, Welch and Wolfe-21.
323 The vote by which the anti-Injunction bill finally passed the Senate was as follows:
For the bill: Beban, Black, Bryant, Burnett, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Cassidy, Finn, Hans, Hare, Juilliard, Lewis, Martinelli, Regan, Rush, Sanford, Shanahan, Tyrrell, Walker, Welch and Wolfe-22.
Against the bill: Avey, Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Boynton, Curtin, Cutten, Estudillo, Gates, Hewitt, Holohan, Hurd, Larkins, Roseberry, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson and Wright-18.
it do not pass. This was done on Saturday morning, March 25.
Under the Constitution, a bill before it can become a law, must be read on three several days in each House, unless, by a two-thirds vote, the House in which the bill is pending shall, as a matter of urgency, dispense with this constitutional provision.
When the Anti-Injunction bill was returned from the committee, it had been read once only. Unless twothirds of the Assembly, fifty-four members, voted to suspend the constitution, the measure would have to be read on two separate days. There remained three days before adjournment, Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
Saturday and Sunday passed without the bill having been read for the second time. With the coming of the last day of the session, the only way in which it could be put upon its passage was by suspending the Constitution. This required fifty-four votes.
Coghlan of San Francisco introduced a resolution for the suspension of the Constitution. But instead of receiving the fifty-four votes necessary for its adoption, only thirty-four were cast for it to forty against it.324
And the Anti-Injunction bill had failed of enactment into law.
324 The vote on Coghlan's resolution to make the anti-Injunction bill a matter of urgency was as follows:
For the resolution: Beatty, Brown, Callaghan, Coghlan, Cronin, Cunningham, Denegri, Feeley, Griffin of Modesto, Guill, Hall, Hayes, Kennedy, Lynch, Maher, Malone, March, McDonald, McGowen, Mullally, Polsley, Rimlinger, Rodgers of San Francisco, Rosendale, Ryan, Sbragia, Schmitt, Slater, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Telfer, Walker, Walsh and Williams-34.
Against the resolution: Beckett, Benedict, Bennink, Bishop, Bliss, Bohnett, Butler, Cattell, Chandler, Clark, Cogswell, Crosby, Farwell, Flint, Freeman, Gaylord, Griffiths, Hamilton, Harlan, Held, Hewitt, Hinkle, Hinshaw, Jasper, Jones, Joel, Judson, Kehoe, Lamb, Lyon of Los Angeles, Mendenhall, Mott, Preisker, Randall, Rogers of Alameda, Stevenot, Sutherland, Tibbits, Wyllie, Young-40.
Shifting of Population to Large Cities, for the First Time in the State's History Presented Problems in Redistricting the State Which the Legislature Failed to Meet.
The lines of division between Northern and Southern California were more sharply drawn at the 1911 session than at any previous meeting of the Legislature. For the first time in the history of the State, too, a second line of division, that between large centers of population and the rural and suburban districts, became an important factor in shaping legislation. The dividing lines crossed and recrossed. Antagonistic members on one sectional issue found themselves close allies on another. Thus on the question of establishing in Southern California a State School, which it was charged would have approached the State University in importance, the Los Angeles and the Alameda county delegations—in the main progressive, by the way-were hopelessly divided. But when it came to turning the San Pedro waterfront over to the city of Los Angeles and the Oakland waterfront over to Oakland, the two groups became firm allies again.
The key to the situation is found in extraordinary increase in population in Los Angeles and Alameda coun
ties, and the comparatively slight increase in San Francisco county.
For the ten years ending in 1910, the population of San Francisco county increased from 342,782 to 416,912, an increase of not quite 22 per cent. The increase in Alameda county was nearly 90 per cent, from 130,197 in 1900 to 246,131 in 1910; while in Los Angeles county the increase was from 170,298 in 1900 to 504,131 in 1910, an increase of about 220 per cent.
Thus in 1900, the population of San Francisco county was more than double that of Los Angeles; but in 1910, the population of Los Angeles county was almost 100,000 more than that of San Francisco. This not only touched the vanity of San Francisco politicians, but, as will be seen in a moment, their prestige.
Add to this, the different policies in treating the labor problem pursued by Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the not-very-well-understood struggle for control of the waterfronts of the several California seaports, and we have the basis of sectional division which will play an important part in the politics of California during the next ten years.
The public service corporation element, which, in connection with the gambling and tenderloin interests, controlled until the 1910 election, the politics of the State, sees its opportunity to recover lost ground, by playing section against section, interest against interest. Although hint of this was given at the 1911 session, its more complete expression will come at the sessions of 1913 and 1915.
The primary division that came in the 1911 Legisla