Measure Was Passed in the Senate By Narrow Margin, But Defeated in the Lower House, Because of the Inability of Its Proponents to Compel Action Before the Hour of Adjournment Arrived.

The so-called "Anti-Injunction" bill was introduced by Senator Caminetti of Amador." Its introduction was


309 The full text of the Anti-Injunction bill (Senate bill 965) was as follows:

Section 1. No restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of this State, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and employee, or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed and persons seeking employment, or involving or growing out of a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property or to a property right of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law; and such property and property right must be particularly described in the application, which must be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his, her, or its agent or attorney. And for the purposes of this act no right to continue the relation of employer and employee, or to assume or create such relation with any particular person or persons, or at all, or to carry on business of any particular kind, or at any particular place, or at all, shall be construed, held, considered, or treated as property or as constituting a property right. Sec. 2. In cases arising in the courts of this State or coming before said courts, or before any judge or the judges thereof, no agreement between two or more persons concerning the terms or conditions of employment, or the assumption or creation or termination of any relation between employer and employee, or concerning any act or thing to be done or not to be done with reference to or involving or growing out of a labor dispute, shall constitute a conspiracy or other civil or criminal offense, or be punished or prosecuted, or damages recovered upon as such, unless the act or thing agreed to be done or not to be done would be unlawful if done by a single individual; nor shall the entering into or the carrying out of any such agreement be restrained or enjoined unless such act or thing agreed to be done would be subject to be restrained or enjoined under the provisions, limitations, and definitions contained in the first section of this act.

Sec. 3. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.

signal for the opening of a controversy, which continued until the day of adjournment.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, to which the measure was referred, divided upon it, sending two reports to the Senate. The majority of the committee recommended its passage; the minority 310 against its passage. This was on March 8. Twelve days later, March 20, a week before adjournment, the bill came before the Senate for final action.

Caminetti, in charge of the bill, compelled attendance

310 The majority report was signed by Chairman Stetson for the committee. On a question of personal privilege, Stetson made the following statement regarding the report:

"I voted with the majority of the committee, but did so because I thought there were excellent features in the bill, and wished to see it considered on the floor of the Senate. I stated at the time I voted that I should not finally vote for the bill unless amended. The amendments I referred to are those suggested in the minority report."

The minority report was signed by Gates, Wright, Thompson, Estudillo, Boynton and Roseberry. It was as follows:

"The undersigned members of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, constituting a minority of said committee, to which committee was referred Senate Bill No. 965, being "An Act to regulate the issuance of restraining orders and injunctions and procedure thereon and to limit the meaning of conspiracy in certain cases," beg leave to submit the following minority report:

"The bill provided that no injunction or restraining order shall be issued unless it is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property or to a property right. It then proceeds to define property, and in the opinion of the minority of the Judiciary Commfttee to place an unconstitutional limitation upon property rights by the use of the following language: 'And for the purposes of this Act no right to carry on business of any particular kind, or at any particular place, or at all, shall be construed, held, considered, or treated as property or as constituting a property right.'

"Under the Constitution of the State of California one of the first declarations of the people is 'that all men are by nature free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.' The right of protecting property is therefore an inalienable one which is as dear to all Anglo-Saxon people as the right of life and liberty itself. We deny that it is within the power of the Legislature, by a legislative act, to say what is and what is not property. The right to carry on business if that business be a legitimate one is inalienable. The good will of a business owned by an individual, a copartnership, an association, or corporation has been held to be property from time immemorial. In this respect we consider Senate Bill No. 965 an invasion of constitutional rights and an assault upon the right of property and we therefore respectfully recommend that the bill do not pass.'

by a call of the Senate, although the hour was well on toward midnight, and the Senators had been at work continuously, if committee meetings be considered, since 10 o'clock that morning. Nor were the doors opened until thirty-six of the forty members were in attendance. The bill was then passed by a vote of 22 to 14.811 Senator Gates gave notice that the following day he would move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been passed.312

This, on the following day, Senator Gates did, just before the noon recess, and the Senate decided to take the matter up that afternoon immediately after consideration of the third reading of Assembly bills. Thus, every Senator had opportunity to know that this important Anti-Injunction bill would be up for final consideration that afternoon after the third reading of the Assembly bills.

When the third reading of Assembly bills had been concluded, and before the Anti-Injunction bill could be taken up, Senator Cassidy, as chairman of the Commit

311 The vote by which the Anti-Injunction bill passed the Senate on the night of March 20 was as follows:

For the bill: Avey, Beban, Black, Bryant, Caminetti, Campbell, Cartwright, Finn, Gates, Hare, Holohan, Juilliard, Lewis, Martinelli, Regan, Rush, Sanford, Shanahan, Tyrrell, Walker, Welch, and Wolfe-22.

Against the bill: Bell, Bills, Birdsall, Boynton, Cutten, Estudillo, Hewitt, Hurd, Larkins, Roseberry, Stetson, Strobridge, Thompson, and Wright-14.

312 Under the rules of the Senate, on the day following that on which a final vote is taken on a bill, such vote may be reconsidered on the motion of any Senator, provided notice of intention to move to reconsider shall have been given on the day on which such final vote was taken by a Senator voting with the prevailing side. When a motion to reconsider is made, if twenty-one Senators vote for reconsideration, the bill is again put upon its final passage and, regardless of the former vote upon it, passed or defeated.

tee on Engrossment and Enrollment, presented two reports.

And then Senator Cassidy dropped out of sight as completely as though the earth had opened and swallowed him up. For hours, because of his disappearance, the members of the Senate of the State of California remained locked up in the Senate Chamber. For him the force of the Senate sergeant-at-arms, the police of Sacramento and San Francisco, and the sheriffs of a half dozen counties scoured the country. But they did not find Cassidy.313

Twenty-one votes were necessary to carry Senator Gates's motion that the bill be reconsidered. When it came to the vote, thirty-four Senators were in their seats. That twenty-one of them would vote to reconsider was improbable. The Senate doors were accordingly locked, and the Sergeant-at-Arms ordered to bring in the absentees.

Four of the six absentees, Avey, Bills, Welch and Burnett, were brought in within a few minutes. After an hour's search, Senator Hare was found and brought in also. This left only one absentee, Cassidy.

A canvass of the Senate showed that twenty of the Senators present were for reconsideration, and nineteen against.

By constitutional provision, in the event of a tie in the Senate, all forty Senators voting, the Lieutenant-Governor has the deciding vote. Lieutenant-Governor WalThus, with

lace was known to favor reconsideration.

313 The story was published the following day that Cassidy had left the Capitol so hurriedly that he went off with another man's


Cassidy present, there would be reconsideration no matter how Cassidy might vote. If he voted to reconsider, he would furnish the twenty-first vote necessary for reconsideration. If he voted against reconsideration, he would tie the vote, thus giving the Lieutenant-Governor his constitutional right to decide the issue.

Those who wished to defeat the bill were for reconsideration. Their purpose was to compel the attendance of Cassidy. Those who were for the passage of the measure proposed that the vote of the day before should stand. They accordingly wished to defeat reconsideration. To this end they aimed to force a vote on reconsideration before Cassidy could be found. But the vote on reconsideration could not be taken while the doors, under the call of the Senate, were locked, and the doors could not be opened until a majority of the Senators present voted to open them. As twenty of the Senators were for reconsideration they could keep the doors locked until Cassidy's return. And this they proceeded to do.

The call of the Senate had began at half past five in the afternoon. Many of the Senators had not taken time for lunch. By eight o'clock they were hungry and angry. Then the charge was made that Senators had escaped from the room. The roll was called and only thirty-five of the thirty-nine members who should have been present answered to their names. Hare, Campbell, Tyrrell and Hans were missing.

Half an hour later the four, ostentatiously and exasperatingly picking their teeth, were brought in by the sergeant-at-arms. It developed that they had escaped

« ForrigeFortsett »