Francisco of three Senators and eight Assemblymen. Although the amended Randall bill met with the most bitter denunciation from San Francisco interests, it passed the Assembly by a vote of 47 to 20.329

In the Senate, the Randall bill went to the Committee on Apportionment and Representation. The measure never left the committee.

The so-called Welch plan of reapportionment did not find expression until the middle of March. The Reapportionment bill which Welch had introduced (S. B. 780) did not give expression to the plan. Indeed, this bill was scarcely a reapportionment measure at all. The first section dealt with Senatorial districts, and merely assigned districts to the several counties, while the second section, dealing with Assembly districts, was a reprint of the old apportionment law of 1901.

But on the evening of March 14, the Senate Committee on Apportionment and Representation met to face the reapportionment problem. It developed immediately that San Francisco, Alameda and Santa Clara 380 counties

329 The vote by which the Randall re-apportionment bill (A. B., 887) passed the Assembly was as follows:

For the bill: Beckett, Benedict, Bennink, Bishop, Bliss, Bohnett, Brown, Butler, Cattell, Chandler, Clark, Cogswell, Cronin, Farwell, Flint, Freeman, Gaylord, Griffiths, Guill, Hall, Hamilton, Harlan, Held, Hinshaw, Jasper, Jones, Judson, Lamb, Lynch, Lyon of Los Angeles, Maher, Mendenhall, Mott, Polsley, Preisker, Randall, Rodgers of San Francisco, Rogers of Alameda, Rutherford, Slater, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Tibbits, Walker, Wyllie, Young, and Mr. Speaker-47.

Against the bill: Coghlan, Cunningham, Denegri, Feeley, Gerdes, Hayes, Joel, Kennedy, Lyon of San Francisco, March, McDonald, Mullally, Nolan, Rimlinger, Rosendale, Sbragia, Schmitt, Smith, Telfer, and Williams-20.

330 As a matter of fact the so-called Welch plan-which had been worked out by Senator Walker of San Jose, by the wayhinged on the situation in Santa Clara county. That county has long been represented in the Legislature by two Senators and three Assemblymen. The 1910 census gives Santa Clara a population of 83,539. This entitles her, on the basis of population, to one Senator, with 24,101 of population toward a second; and to two As

had combined on a scheme of reapportionment and had the votes to put it through the committee.

In a riot of generosity, the combination gave Los Angeles county-population 504,131-eight Senators and sixteen Assemblymen; San Francisco-population 416,912-eight Senators and sixteen Assemblymen; Alameda -population 246,131-four Senators and eight Assemblymen; and Santa Clara-population 83,539-two Senators and three Assemblymen, a total for the four counties of twenty-two Senators and forty-three Assembly


The other fifty-four counties of the State were allowed eighteen Senators and thirty-seven Assemblymen.

After this generous division, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Alameda and Santa Clara representatives considerately withdrew, to let the representatives of the remaining fifty-four counties of the State "scrap it out" for their eighteen Senators and thirty-seven Assembly



The Senators representing the fifty-four counties

semblymen, with 24,101 of population toward a third. Inasmuch as this extra population can not, under Constitutional provisions, be added to another county for purposes of reapportionment, Santa Clara presents one of the hardest of the many hard problems of equitable reapportionment.

Ordinarily, Santa Clara would have been allowed one Senator and three Assemblymen. This would be about as fair a reapportionment as could be made, but even so, Santa Clara would suffer. But under the Welch plan, Santa Clara was given its old representation. This gave the county one Senator for each 41,769 of population, 17,669 less than the 59,438 required on the basis of population for a Senatorial district, and three Assemblymen, an Assemblymen for each 27,846 of population, or 1,873 short of the 29,719 required for a full-sized Assembly district.


331 Under this arrangement the country districts would have been large. For example, Fresno county would have had one Senator for 75,651 of population; Sonoma and Marin, combined in one Senatorial District, one Senator for 73,508 population. Senatorial District in Los Angeles county would have required 64,016 inhabitants. But San Francisco would have been allowed a Senatorial District for every 52,115 population. Santa Clara county

spent much time in efforts to come to an understanding.382 No understanding was reached. And, too, differences developed in the Alameda-San Francisco-Santa Clara combination, which took in, by the way, several members from outside counties.

The committee had adjourned on March 14 to meet March 16. But the committee did not meet on the 16th, nor did it meet until March 24, when the Legislature was on the eve of adjournment.

In the meantime rumors had multiplied that no reapportionment bill would be passed. Such an accomplishment would be distinctly to the advantage of San Francisco, and to the disadvantage of Los Angeles. If a reapportionment bill were passed, San Francisco's legis

would have fared even better, getting a Senatorial District for each 41,769 inhabitants.

The vote by which the Welch plan was put through the committee on the night of March 14 was on Finn's motion that San Francisco be given eight Senators and sixteen Assemblyman. was as follows:


For the Welch plan: Birdsall, Burnett, Campbell, Estudillo, Finn, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Walker and Welch-10.

Against the Welch plan-Bell, Boynton, Cutten, Hewitt, Roseberry and Thompson-6.

332 Some of the divisions suggested thoroughly exasperated some of the members from the interior. A fairly good example of this was furnished by the situation in the thirty-second Senatorial District represented by Senator E. O. Larkins.

The District at present includes the counties of Kings, Tulare and Kern.

During the last decade these counties have waxed prosperous. Their population has increased to 89,385. This is 29,947 of population more than is required for a Senatorial District established on the population basis, and 37,385 more than the proposed San Francisco Senatorial Districts of 52,000 population would contain.

More in sorrow than in anger Senator Larkins was preparing to accept this extraordinary reapportionment, when, to meet the demands of other sections, Kings county was cut out of his district, and hooked up to Monterey and San Luis Obispo, with the distressing probability that some unknown quantity would be hooked up to Tulare and Kern.

Far from attaining increased harmony by the change, the new plan started further wrangling. The entire group of counties of which Kings is the center, became involved. Agreement seemed out of the question. From wrangling the country members fell to sulking. Gradually, the full meaning of the Welch plan of reapportionment was forced home to them.

lative representation would be reduced at least one Senator and two Assemblymen, with some probability that the reduction would be even greater.

On the other hand, the passage of the bill meant substantial increase in the Los Angeles legislative delegation.

But if no bill were passed, the legislative representation of the rival communities would, for another two years, unless there were an extra session, continue what it had been, namely, nine Senators and eighteen Assemblymen for San Francisco, and five Senators and nine Assemblymen for Los Angeles.

When the committee finally got together on the 24th, Alameda was found to have deserted San Francisco and Santa Clara, and to be in combination with Los Angeles. The Senators from the interior were confused and without definite plan. The Alameda-Los Angeles combination 333 easily controlled the committee. The test of its strength came when Senator Walker moved that the

333 Senator Hewitt of Los Angeles, as spokesman of the new combination, announced its policy to be as follows:

"We must," said Hewitt, "in reapportioning the State, follow the provisions of the State Constitution. The Randall bill, which has passed the Assembly and which is before this Committee, is obnoxious to Los Angeles, for it gives that county only seven Senators when it is entitled to eight.

"The bill is obnoxious to San Francisco because it gives that city only six Senators. In readjusting these differences we must follow the law.

"This can be done easily in reapportioning the large centers of population. There should be no difficulty in fixing the reapportionment of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

"Such reapportionment is a matter of State-wide concern. It is not a matter of the interest of this city or that. It is a matter in which the whole State is concerned.

"Prospective growth of a given community is not to be considered. The Constitution makes no provision for prospective growth. "The situation calls for exercise of a just rule for all. That rule will follow the provisions of the State Constitution. It will not draw distinctions between the cities and the country as is done in the Randall bill; nor distinctions between sections of the State, as is done in the Welch bill."

Randall bill be amended by substituting in it the provisions of the Welch reapportionment plan. The motion was lost by a vote of 6 to 8, the Alameda and Los Angeles members voting against the motion.334

After a short recess to give the several factions opportunity to confer, Hewitt moved that a sub-committee of five be appointed to prepare a scheme of reapportionment for the consideration of the Committee.

The San Francisco members of the Committee, and some of their supporters, refused to vote on the ground that several sub-Committees appointed at the meeting ten days before, when the San Francisco-Alameda combination was running things, had not been discharged. Nine members, however, voted for Hewitt's motion.335

Chairman Thompson appointed Hewitt, Strobridge, Roseberry, Sanford and Welch to serve on the subCommittee.

Welch asked to be excused from serving. But Chairman Thompson firmly refused to excuse him, thus closing the incident.

So far as the writer knows, the sub-Committee never reported. Three days later the Legislature adjourned without any reapportionment bill having been passed.336

334 The vote on Walker's motion was as follows:

For Walker's motion: Burnett, Campbell, Finn, Sanford, Walker, and Welch-6. Against Walker's amendment-Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Cutten, Hewitt, Stetson, Strobridge, and Thompson-8.


335 The nine members who voted for Hewitt's motion Bell, Birdsall, Boynton, Hewitt, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Cutten and Roseberry.

336 After the Legislature had adjourned, Assemblyman Randall issued a statement in which he denounced the Welch plan of reapportionment. In concluding his statement Mr. Randall said:

"The Welch-Walker combination in the Senate, which proposed to hand over to the three largest cities of the State almost onehalf of the legislative body, if it had been successful, would have

« ForrigeFortsett »