Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909 | Page 7

in the strict
sense of the word. It simply gives the man on trial the right to
disqualify the Judge on the ground of bias on the slightest pretext."
"The worst feature about the bill is that it grants this right to the
accused after the jury has been secured. Why, if the defendant didn't
like the adverse rulings of the Judge he could easily claim bias and the
law would upheld his demand for another Judge. Think of how that
would operate in the Calhoun trial in San Francisco. Such a law would
cost the State thousands of dollars. It's vicious and I will not sign it."
[2] Most suggestively shown in the amendment of the Direct Primary
bill.
[3] The seriousness of the mistake made by the reform element in
acquiescing in Wolfe's election, was emphasized at the time of the
deadlock in the Senate over the Direct Primary bill. The President of
the Senate, Lieutenant-Governor Porter - and in his absence the
President pro tem., Wolfe, - was charged with the duty of calling the
Senate to order. Inasmuch as it did not suit the machine's interests that
the Senate should be called to order, the Senators were obliged to sit in
idleness for hours at a time, while the machine leaders and lobbyists
were working openly on the floor of the Senate to force certain of the
pro-primary Senators to join the machine forces. Had the President pro
tem. been one of the group of Senators who were opposing the machine
he would have called the Senate to order, thus permitting the regular
work of the session to proceed. See

Chapter 10
, "Fight on Assembly Amendments."
[4] The action of the Assembly Committee on Public Morals on the
Anti-Racetrack Gambling bill was a notable exception to this. See
chapters 6 and 7.

Chapter II.

Organization of the Senate.
Anti-Machine Republicans, Led Into a Caucus Trap, Surrendered the
Appointment of President Pro Tem., Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms to
the Machine - Machine Given the Selection of the Standing
Committees.

In the light of the events of the session, the division between the
machine or "organization" and anti-machine forces in the Senate for
purposes of organization may be regarded as follows:
Anti-machine - Anthony[5], Bell, Birdsall, Black, Boynton, Burnett[5],
Cutten, Estudillo, Hurd[5], Roseberry, Rush, Stetson, Strobridge,
Thompson, Walker (labeled Republicans), Caminetti, Campbell,
Cartwright, Holohan, Miller, Sanford (labeled Democrats) - 21.
Machine - Hare, Kennedy (labeled -Democrats), Bates, Bills, Finn,
Hartman, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli, McCartney, Reily, Savage, Weed,
Willis, Wolfe, Wright (labeled Republicans) - 16.
Doubtful - Curtin (Democrat).
Seekers of the winning side - Price and Welch (labeled Republicans).
Curtin is put down as doubtful because, justly or unjustly, he was at the
opening of the session so regarded. But Curtin's record shows that
generally speaking from the beginning to the end of the session he
voted with the anti-machine element. Had the anti-machine forces
made a determined effort to organize the Senate and demonstrated a
strength of twenty-one votes, which would have been enough to
organize,. Curtin would certainly have been with them. The same is
true of Welch, and it is probably true of Price. This would have given

the anti-machine forces from twenty-two to twenty-four votes, a safe
margin to have permitted them to organize the Senate to carry out
anti-machine policies.
The machine claquers will no doubt point gleefully to the fact that
when the test on the Railroad Regulation bills came, Anthony, Burnett,
Estudillo, Hurd and Walker strayed from the anti-machine fold. This
objection would have more weight had there ever been an anti-machine
fold. As a matter of fact, the anti-machine element in the Senate from
the day the session opened until it closed was unorganized, and without
leaders or detailed plan of action.
Admittedly Estudillo and Burnett strayed on the railroad regulation
question, but they did so believing the absolute rate provided in the
Stetson bill to be unconstitutional. All this will be brought out in the
chapters on railroad regulation measures, but in passing, it may be said
that Burnett, in the closing hours of the session, stated on the floor of
the Senate that he had voted against the Stetson bill and for the Wright
bill on the understanding that a constitutional amendment would be
passed setting at rest all question of the constitutionality of the absolute
rate. The machine leaders misled Senator Burnett. Machine votes
defeated the amendment.
Anthony, Estudillo and Walker stood out against the machine in the
direct primary fight which followed the defeat of the Stetson bill, and
before the fight was over, Burnett had returned to the anti-machine
forces.
The case of Senator Hurd is not at all creditable to the machine. But
Hurd's instincts and sympathies are not those of Gus Hartman,