Angeles and San Francisco to have united on this issue, had it not been for the fight over the Throop bill. In siding with Alameda in that controversy, San Francisco lost the opportunity to get Los Angeles support for the Greater San Francisco amendment, nor did San Francisco gain Alameda as an ally. In a previous chapter it was shown how in the reapportionment fight, Alameda finally went over to Los Angeles. All that San Francisco got for her opposition to the Throop bill, was the satisfaction given some of the San Francisco delegation that Los Angeles had been denied something which that city appeared to want badly. San Francisco went into her contest with Alameda over the Greater San Francisco amendment with Los Angeles apparently indifferent to the out come. The amendment was introduced by Senator Wolfe. Its immediate purpose was to provide means for consolidation of the cities about San Francisco bay, including those on the Alameda county shore. It was asserted, and so far as I know not denied, that thirty-two communities, large and small, were affected. The opposition to the measure came principally from the cities of Alameda county, the City of Alameda, population 23,383, being the only community of the county to favor the proposed scheme for annexation. Oakland opposed the amendment vigorously, Senator Stetson leading the fight against it. San Francisco labored under the great disadvantage of poor representation on the floor of the Senate.361 The day when bombast, 361 The San Francisco Chronicle dubbed the San Francisco members "pygmies." On the night of the hearing on the Greater San Francisco amendment before the joint Senate and Assembly committees, the writer was talking to a prominent San Francisco vilification and personal abuse can be substituted for argument on the floor of the California Senate has passed. With nine San Francisco members on the floor of the Senate, when the Greater San Francisco amendment came up for adoption, only nineteen members, two of them from Los Angeles (Hewitt and Hurd) voted for it.862 Four days later, the amendment was again brought before the Senate on a motion to reconsider. But again was it refused adoption,363 failing to secure the necessary twenty-seven votes. San Francisco, with a representation of almost twenty-five per cent. of the Senate, found herself defeated in her principal fight of the session. The completeness of the defeat was well recognized. businessman while waiting for the meeting to be called to order. As the San Francisco delegation came in the businessman eyed the members closely. Soon after, two Los Angeles Assemblymen, clean-cut, well dressed, confident of their position, came in. "Who are those men?" the San Franciscan asked. I told him. "Why," he demanded, "cannot San Francisco send such men to the Legislature?" "We cannot," said the San Francisco Chronicle bitterly, in an editorial article, "rely on our (San Francisco) representatives in the_Legislature to secure us fair treatment, for we send pygmies to Sacramento to deal with the able and united phalanx which the South sends up." The Chronicle might have added that as able a phalanx comes from Alameda County as from the South. 362 The vote on the Greater San Francisco amendment was as follows: For the amendment-Beban, Bills, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Bryant, Burnett, Cassidy, Estudillo, Finn, Hare, Hewitt, Holohan, Hurd, Regan, Shanahan, Walker, Welch, and Wright-19. Against the amendment-Avey, Bell, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Gates, Hans, Juilliard, Larkins, Lewis, Martinelli, Roseberry, Rush, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Tyrrell, and Wolfe-21. 363 The second vote on the Greater San Francisco amendment was as follows: For the amendment-Beban, Bills, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Bryant, Burnett, Caminetti, Cassidy, Estudillo, Finn, Hare, Hewitt, Holohan, Hurd, Martinelli, Regan, Shanahan, Walker, Welch, Wolfe, and Wright-22. Against the amendment-Avey, Bell, Campbell, Cartwright, Curtin, Cutten, Gates, Hans, Larkins, Roseberry, Sanford, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, and Tyrrell-15. "This means," said a legislative representative of the San Francisco Call in a dispatch sent from Sacramento, March 18, "that the people about the lower end of San Francisco bay will not be enabled to vote upon consolidation unless the Hewitt amendment designed for the needs of Los Angeles be adopted, and the inhabitants within the San Francisco metropolitan area avail themselves of it.” This Hewitt Greater City amendment was later on adopted in the Senate without a dissenting vote, but it was noted that only one Alameda county member (Strobridge) voted for it.364 The Hewitt amendment was not adopted in the Assembly, however, and was not submitted to The People for ratification. 364 The Hewitt Greater City amendment (S. C. A. 28) was adopted in the Senate by the following vote: For the amendment-Avey, Bell, Bills, Black, Boynton, Bryant, Burnett, Campbell, Cartwright, Cassidy, Finn, Gates, Hare, Hewitt, Holohan, Hurd, Juilliard, Lewis, Martinelli, Regan, Roseberry, Rush, Strobridge, Thompson, Walker, Welch, Wolfe, and Wright -28. Against the amendment-None. The names of the Senators from San Francisco, Los Angeles and Alameda counties are printed in black. CHAPTER XXVII. CONCERNING MANY MEASURES. Board of Control-Home Rule for Counties Amendment -Amendment of Banking Act-Equal SuffragePrison Reform Measures-Commonwealth Club Bills -Short Ballot Measures-Japanese Bills. Few of the Progressive measures considered in previous chapters received favorable consideration except in the teeth of opposition from influences outside the Legislature. Thus, many holding judicial office exerted themselves, more or less directly, to prevent provision for recall of the judiciary being included in the Recall amendment. In this, as has been seen, they were unsuccessful. The so-called Superintendent of Banks act (Assembly bill 684) was another measure which became a law in AMENDMENT OF BANK ING LAW. spite of powerful opposition. The measure amended the 1909 Bank act. Originally, the law made the term of the State Superintendent of Banks four years, unless the Superintendent were removed for cause. The 1911 amendment made the tenure of office at the pleasure of the Governor. The change in the law was brought about because of a series of perhaps the least creditable acts of Governor Gillett's administration. Alden Anderson, State Superintendent of Banks un der Gillett, had resigned his office, July 1, 1910. Anderson was then candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor. There was some talk at the time that Anderson's resignation "had a string to it," but this was hotly denied. Nevertheless, Anderson's resignation was not accepted, and he continued Bank Superintendent. A month before Gillett's term as Governor expired, he re-appointed Anderson Bank Commissioner to serve for "the term prescribed by law." The term is for four years. Even more reprehensible was Gillett's appointments of Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor, and of Building and Loan Commissioners. The term of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor would have expired on July 1, 1911. On January 2, 1911, the Commissioner resigned. This was the day before Gillett's term of office expired. Gillett promptly appointed the Commissioner's successor to serve four years. The terms of the Building and Loan Commissioners would have expired on January 7, 1911. On January 2, five days before their terms would have expired, the commissioners resigned their offices, and Governor Gillett appointed their successors to four-year terms. Governor Johnson, in a special message to the Legislature, recommended legislation which should make such sharp practice impossible in the future.365 This would 365 Referring to Governor Gillett's forced appointments, Governor Johnson in his message to the Legislature said: "By this simple short cut, these four important offices were appropriated in the last hours of my predecessor. "This sort of practice I believe to be detrimental to the public service, and beyond that, I believe it is beneath the dignity of the |