Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

In the Senate the Progressives and Republicans took all the patronage for themselves with the exception of twenty dollars a day which they gave to the ten Democratic members to divide as they saw fit. The trouble which the Democrats had in dividing that twenty dollars a day-two dollars each-resulted in hours-long debate, which, counting the time of the Senate, cost the State hundreds of dollars. These debates gave the reactionary press opportunity for criticism.30

30 These criticisms were resented and met:

"We have," said the Fresno Republican in its issue of January 11, 1913, "conceded that petty wrangling over patronage is unseemly, even when confined to the limits of decency and honesty now observed. But there is something much more unseemly than wrangling over patronage, and that is lying about it. That is what the San Francisco Chronicle did yesterday, and did it in a particularly snarling and stupid fashion, too. In an editorial headed, 'Patronage Pigs; Sacramento Seems to be Specially Full of Them Just Now,' the Chronicle, after a half a column of sneer at reformers for not being perfect, ended by the fling, 'We are compelled to say that in the disgraceful scramble for petty patronage the officers and soldiers of the "Army of the Lord" are about the greediest this State has seen.'

"The Chronicle is not 'compelled' to say anything of the sort, and if it had any regard for the truth it would be 'compelled' to say the exact contrary. It is of a piece with the cheap fling that the present reform government has established a 'machine that would make Herrin green with envy.' You hear shallowpated parrots echo that too, though it is so absurdly false that it will not stand three seconds' serious analysis. Doubtless if some political upheaval should turn out a grafter who stole the funds and put in a reformer who smoked cigarettes, we should hear that a cigarette-smoker was infinitely worse than a thief. And we have all seen an administration which closed all the saloons but only succeeded in abolishing nine-tenths of the drunkenness, berated as having produced conditions 'far worse than before.' It is the commonest refuge of vicious stupidity to pretend that reformers, if they are not quite perfect, are far worse than any sort of thieves and grafters.

It

"This is the cheap, police-shyster device of the Chronicle. The Chronicle remembers the patronage grabs and grafts of other days. It recalls the Assembly that appointed eighty-three doorkeepers to keep three doors opening into a narrow corridor in which the eighty-three could not have found standing room. recalls the appointments of 'stenographers' who could not read and write. It has seen State Senators appoint common prostitutes as 'committee clerks,' and brazenly flaunt their painted faces on the very floor of the Senate. It has seen great hordes of appointees on the pay roll who did not even stay in Sacramento, but discounted their whole session's pay and went back to San

A not-very-well supported attempt was made to change the system, by removing the attaches from control of majority caucus. Senate bill 108 (Caminetti) provided, as finally amended, that each member of Senate and Assembly should be entitled to a clerk whose compensation was fixed at five dollars a day. Further provision was made that such clerks should be competent stenographers. The clerk of each chairman of a committee was required to act as clerk of his principal's committee, in which event provision was made for compensation in excess of five dollars a day. The measure failed, however, to pass the Senate.31 When the 1915

Francisco to carouse on it. It has seen this 'patronage grab' transformed from a foul public scandal to the present system, which is absolutely honest and decent and thoroughly efficient, and stops just one step short of being perfectly economical and idealistically unselfish. And, because it is just a shade short of ideal, the Chronicle maliciously, stupidly and falsely says that it is about the worst in the history of the State.

"This is a small matter, in its way-though it was a big matter once, in the old, grafting days. But it is not a small matter when a metropolitan newspaper deliberately lies to the people about the character of their representatives. The People cannot all go to Sacramento, to watch the Legislature. They must get their information from the newspapers. When the Legislature was dominated by a pack of slaves and thieves, the Chronicle rendered a useful service by saying so. Now that honest, decent and free men have been substituted, some generous appreciation of that fact is the duty of every man with a soul. And if the Chronicle has no soul, and can appreciate nothing, it can at least not lie about it. We have repeated the word 'lie' several times in this connection, for the purpose of being offensive. It is intended as an insult, and we hope the Chronicle will take it as such."

31 There were valid arguments which could be brought against the measure in the form in which it was finally acted upon. While, for example, stenographers are necessary as legislative attaches, stenographers do not necessarily make competent committee clerks. The advisability of employing 120 stenographers might well be questioned. Again, the patronage of each House is now limited by the State Constitution to $500 a day. The employing of eighty stenographers in the Assembly at five dollars a day or more, would about exhaust the Assembly's allowance without leaving provision for porters, desk clerks, sergeant-at-arms and other necessary attaches. However, the measure furnished basis for a practical bill. It was defeated in the Senate by the following vote: For the bill-Senators Avey, Butler, Campbell, Cohn, Grant,

Legislature convenes, its members will be confronted with the same inadequate method of employing attaches which developed during the days of "machine" domination.

Committee organization was along practically the same lines as had been followed at the 1911 session. Committees were not appointed as had been the case during the days of "machine" domination, for the purpose of stifling good legislation. The Public Morals Committees, for example, were not made up of men calculated to block legislation which might interfere with the freedom of exploitation of gambling hell, brothel and groggery. The committees on corporations were not named for the purpose of defeating measures which might prove objectionable to large corporative interests. The chairmen of the Judiciary committees were not named because they could be depended upon to make their committees the "grave-yards of good bills." Instead, the personnel of the various committees indicated a desire upon the part both of Speaker Young in the Assembly, and of President Wallace in the Senate, to give all factions committee representation.

In some instances this purpose was followed to an absurd degree. In selecting the Assembly Committee on Public Morals, for example, the Assemblyman from the district covered by the San Francisco tenderloin was

Hewitt, Juilliard, Kehoe, Larkins, Owens, Sanford, and Shanahan -12.

Against the bill-Senators Anderson, Beban, Benson, Boynton, Breed, Caminetti, Carr, Finn, Gates, Gerdes, Hans, Jones, Regan, Strobridge, Thompson, Tyrrell, and Wright-17.

Caminetti changed his vote from aye to no to give notice to move for reconsideration. The following day reconsideration was granted, and the bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee from which it was never returned.

given place there. The same thing had been done at the 1911 session. That year Mr. Victor A. Sbragia had represented the district. At the 1913 session the district was represented by Mr. Victor J. Canepa. The gentlemen from the San Francisco tenderloin district may have been high-class men, peculiarly well-fitted for place on the Public Morals Committee, or they may have been quite the reverse. But if they were named for this particular committee, solely because the district from which they came embraces the most shameful spot in California, the motive governing their selection was, of course, absurd.

A more reasonable policy governed in the selection of the chairman of the Assembly Public Morals Committee. Nelson of Humboldt was given this chairmanship.

Nelson had defeated the candidate who had been given the endorsement of the "dry" element of his district. He was generally credited with having had the support of the liquor political combine. But it did not matter so much whether the chairman of the committee had had "dry" support or "wet" support, or the opposition of either, so long as he was broad-gauged and prepared to consider the measures brought before his committee on their merits. Nelson was appointed to his important position, not because the "drys" had opposed his election, or because the "wets" had supported him, but because the Speaker regarded him as broadminded, with the discernment to see the right thing to do and the courage to do it. The developments of the

session showed that Speaker Young's judgment in this instance was not misplaced.

The committee organization of both Houses, made in the main for fitness and service, was in marked contrast to the organization of the days of "machine" domination, when committees were appointed at the behest of special interests, to block the passage of good measures, and to promote the passage of the undesirable.82

32 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," page 24, Senate committee organization, and page 35, Assembly committee organization.

« PředchozíPokračovat »