tion on the Senatorial contest. Under ordinary conditions the machine would have followed the procedure usually taken in such situations. The members of the Democratic minority would have been eliminated from the contest under the theory that they, being Democrats, could take no part in the election of a Republican to the Upper House of Congress. Thus set to one side, the Democratic members would have cast numberless, meaningless, complimentary votes for Senator, while the Republican members fought among themselves.88

With the Democrats thus happily disposed of, if a Senator satisfactory to the machine element could not be elected, a deadlock could have been forced which would have prevented the election of any United States Senator at all.84

cisely as they are bound by any other pledge. But in the absence of such definite pledge there is nothing binding upon them.

"They are at liberty to vote for Mr. Spalding, Judge Works, John Brown, Richard Roe or John Doe, as they see fit.

"The Star trusts that they will vote for the most desirable candidate, the candidate whom they believe will make California and the Nation the best Senator.

"Incidentally The Star hopes the experience of the last few months with a meaningless and unsatisfactory provision for binding the Legislature to abide by the choice of the electors, will awaken the Legislature to the necessity of giving California an effective law to this end such as is enjoyed by Oregon.

"The machine element will oppose such legislation.

"No intelligent and at the same time honest member of the Legislature will refuse to support it."

83 This was the course taken in the Grant-Burns Senatorial deadlock in 1899. For nearly three months, the Democratic members of the Legislature permitted themselves to be denied a voice in naming the Senator, when, by combining the 33 votes which they had in the Legislature of that year with those of the Republicans who opposed the Burns element, they would have been able to elect some worthy citizen to the Federal Senate. Rather than be guilty of such political heresy, however, they saw the session adjourn without electing any United States Senator at all.

84 To elect a Federal Senator, a majority of the votes of the Legislature is required-in California 61 out of the 120 in Senate and Assembly. In the 1911 Legislature were 19 Democrats and 101 Republicans. By scattering the votes of 41 Republicans among various Senatorial candidates, the Reactionaries would have prevented any candidate securing the necessary 61 votes to elect.

Had the Progressive Republicans faltered in their course during the first days of the session, it is not unlikely that such a situation would have been created, as at the session of 1899. Had a less positive stand been taken in the organization of Senate and Assembly, for example, had any weakness been shown in the appointment of the committees, had Stafford won his fight for Sergeant-at-Arms of the Assembly, or any other comparatively unimportant incident demonstrated the inability of the Progressives to hold their position, there would have been an immediate loss to the Progressive side of that element of the Legislature which was waiting to join with the probable majority.

But not only did the Progressives hold their position, but they grew stronger, during the first month of the session, with every move.

By far the greatest strength came from Johnson's inaugural address. The reading of this message did more in the issue under discussion, to strengthen the position of the Progressives than all else combined. That address at once lifted the Legislature out of the sordidness of partisanship in which the machine element had long held it. The Democratic members saw that at the 1911 session, at least, good citizenship was to be placed above partisanship. At once, every Democratic member worth while aligned himself on the side of Progressive policies, a course which carried him into the Progressive camp in the fight for the election of United States Senator.8 85

85 "If my vote is needed for Judge Works on the first ballot," said Senator Campbell (D) the day after Johnson's address had been made public, "I shall vote for Judge Works." Senators Caminetti and Juilliard, Assemblyman Griffin and other Democratic leaders expressed the same view.

A movement had been started to give Congressmanelect Raker the Democratic complimentary vote, and several Progressive Democrats were desirous of thus recognizing him, but they were even more desirous that no slip should come in the election of a Progressive to the Federal Senate. They regarded the election of a Progressive as part of the necessary work which, as Senators and Assemblymen, they were called upon to perform, not as Democrats, but as representatives of The People of California.

Republicans who had been as wobbly in the Senatorial fight as they were uncertain of their position on Progressive policies, after the reading of Johnson's address joined with the more positive Progressives in the Senatorial contest.

Judge Works, for the sole reason that he had received the highest vote at the polls, had been selected as the logical Progressive candidate.86 After the reading of Johnson's message, his election was conceded by all who were in touch with conditions at Sacramento.87

The Reactionary element, led by the San Francisco

86 Judge Works was not accepted as the logical candidate because he was the spontaneous, unanimous choice of the members of the Legislature personally. He was elected because he came nearer being the popular choice for the Federal Senate than any other candidate. The same motive which led State Senator Caminetti at the 1909 session to break through the cobwebs of partisan superstition, and vote for Federal Senator Perkins, prompted many at the 1911 session to vote for Judge Works.

87 The question as to whether the block of votes popularly supposed to have been controlled by Senator Tom Finn of San Francisco was necessary for the election of Judge Works has been raised. The outcome does not indicate it. The most votes ever credited to Finn were ten. On the first ballot, Works received 92 votes, 31 more than were necessary for election. Finn's 10 votes could have been dispensed with, and still Works would have had 21 to spare. But the Finn votes didn't have to be spared in such a situation. Had they been really needed, however, they might not have been so available.

Call, had, however, started a campaign for Mr. Spalding. The Call vilified those who had announced themselves for Judge Works, much as that publication had in March, 1909, vilified those anti-machine Senators and Assemblymen who were laboring to save the Direct Primary law from amendment at the hands of the "machine" element. The Reactionary press throughout the State joined with the Call in its campaign of abuse 88 and misrepresentation.89

But, from the first, Spalding's fight lacked the vitality which, in the case of Colonel D. M. Burns, twelve years before, had made the 1899 Senatorial deadlock possible.

When the issue finally came to vote, Senator Works received 62 votes in the Assembly, one more than was necessary for his election, even though he had not re

88 An example of this misrepresentation was the San Francisco Examiner's publication of a statement that the Thirty-ninth Senatorial District, represented by Senator Estudillo, had gone for Spalding, and therefore Estudillo was bound to vote for Spalding. As a matter of fact, the Thirty-ninth Senatorial District went for Works, giving him 2,538 votes, and Spalding only 1,861. Thus, under the terms of the district, advisory plan itself, which the machine had succeeded in forcing into the law, Estudillo was "at liberty" to vote for Works. The Reactionary small fry of the press from one end of the State to the other took the Examiner's story up, however, and abused Estudillo like a pickpocket for refusing "to be bound by the decision of his district," and vote for Spalding.

89 A characteristic story was started that unless members of the Assembly agreed to vote for Works they could not secure desirable committee appointments. In one instance the story was made to apply to Assembly Crosby of Alameda, who was seeking an important committee chairmanship. Speaker Hewitt, a few days before the balloting for United States Senator took place, called Crosby into his private office and asked him abruptly if anyone had told him he could not get a committee chairmanship unless he voted for Works. Without waiting for a reply, Hewitt told Crosby that he (the Speaker) was naming the committees, and regardless of Crosby's vote for Senator, Crosby was to have a chairmanship.

ceived a single vote in the Senate; Spalding received 16 and Meserve 1.90

In the Senate, Works received 30 votes; Spalding 5; Raker (D.) 3, and William Kent 1.91

For the first time in the political history of California the anti-machine element of both parties had united in the election of a United States Senator, and had come within twenty-eight votes of making him the unanimous choice of the Legislature.92

90 The Assembly vote for United States Senator was as follows: For Spalding-Bennink, Brown, Coghlan, Cronin, Freeman, Griffiths, Hayes, Hinkle, Joel, Judson, Kehoe, Lynch, March, Schmitt, Stevenot and Williams-16.

For Works-Beatty, Beckett, Benedict, Bishop, Bohnett, Butler, Callaghan, Cattell, Chandler, Clark, Cogswell, Crosby, Cunningham, Denegri, Farwell, Feeley, Fitzgerald, Flint, Gaylord, Gerdes, Griffin, Guill, Hall, Hamilton, Harlan, Hewitt, Hinshaw, Jasper, Jones, Kennedy, Lamb, Lyon of Los Angeles, Lyon of San Francisco, Maher, Malone, McDonald, McGowen, Mendenhall, Mott, Mullally, Nolan, Polsley, Preisker, Randall, Rimlinger, Rodgers of San Francisco, Rogers of Alameda, Rosendale, Rutherford, Ryan, Sbragia, Slater, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Telfer, Tibbits, Walker, Walsh, Wilson, Wyllie and Young-62.

For Meserve-Held-1.

91 The Senate vote for United States Senator was as follows: For Spalding-Bills, Cassidy, Martinelli, Wolfe and Wright-5. For Works-Avey, Beban, Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Bryant, Burnett, Caminetti, Cartwright, Cutten, Estudillo, Finn, Gates, Hans, Hewitt, Hurd, Juilliard, Larkins, Lewis, Regan, Roseberry, Rush, Shanahan, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, Tyrrell, Walker and Welch-30.

For Raker-Curtin, Hare and Sanford-3.

For Kent-Holohan-1.

92 Several members of Senate and Assembly had explanations of their vote printed in the Journal. Their explanations will be found in the appendix.