Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909 Part 20

[83] For example the charters of Los Angeles and of Berkeley. The Berkeley charter is a model in this respect. It provides that any qualified citizen may become a candidate for munic.i.p.al office, by pet.i.tion of twenty-five electors, AND IN NO OTHER WAY. The party tag is thus done away with. At the election, if a candidate receive a majority of the votes he is declared elected. If no candidate receive a majority, then a second election is held at which the two candidates receiving the highest pluralities become candidates, the names of all other candidates who partic.i.p.ated at the first election are dropped. The candidate at the second election who receives the majority is declared elected. A movement is on foot to have a similar provision incorporated into the San Francisco charter.

[84] "As a source of public education upon which free government must always rest, as a means of conservative progress, upon which the continued life of all nations depends, as a check upon paternalism and rich gifts calculated to lull to sleep the love of freedom, as the key that may be used to open the door to equal opportunity, the Initiative is fundamentally more important than all other proposed reforms put together. " - Arthur Twining Hadley, LL. D., in "The Const.i.tutional Position of Property in America."

It is interesting to note, that nearly a quarter of a century ago. Bryce in his American Commonwealth, pointed out that this country could not without the initiation of laws by The People enjoy the fruits of its inst.i.tutions.

Chapter XX.

Defeat of the Anti-j.a.panese Bills[86].

Stir Storm in the a.s.sembly, But All the Bills Were Finally Defeated - Grove L. Johnson Denounces Action of Governor Gillett and President Roosevelt - Speaker Stanton Places Himself in a Very Embarra.s.sing Position - His Effective Speech Becomes a Joke.

The j.a.panese problem under the bludgeoning of the big stick in the skilled hands of President Roosevelt, and free application of the organization switch in the hands of Governor Gillett, was kept fairly well under control during the entire session. That the problem is real was demonstrated by the numerous resolutions and alien-regulation bills which were introduced in both Houses. The a.s.sembly, however, was the scene of the final defeat of the anti-j.a.panese element. There the legislative campaign against the j.a.panese was fought out, and there it was lost.

The contest in the a.s.sembly narrowed down to three measures, a.s.sembly Bill 78, introduced by Drew of Fresno, known as the "Alien Land Bill"; a.s.sembly Bill 14, known as the "Anti-j.a.panese School Bill," and a.s.sembly Bill 32, known as the "Munic.i.p.al Segregation Bill," both introduced by Johnson of Sacramento. The final defeat of these bills settled the j.a.panese question so far as the legislative session of 1909 was concerned.

Drew's Alien Land bill was by far the most important of the three. It was in effect a copy of the alien land law at present in force in the State of Illinois, and generally known as the "Illinois Law." Under its provisions an alien acquiring t.i.tle to lands situate in this State, was given five years in which to become a citizen of the United States; failing to become a citizen, he was required to dispose of his holdings to a citizen; failing so to do, the necessary machinery was provided for the District Attorney of the county in which the land was situated to dispose of it, and turn the proceeds of the sale over to the alien owner. Ample protection was provided for alien minors who might possess or might become possessed of California real property. Furthermore, under the provisions of the law, the leasing of land to aliens for a longer period than one year was prohibited.

Though the word, "j.a.panese," did not appear, the bill's introduction was a shot which if not heard round the world, at least reached Was.h.i.+ngton on the East and Tokio on the West. Finally, on January 25, Governor Gillett made the Alien bills pending before the Legislature subject of a special message to Senate and a.s.sembly, in which he urged the Legislature to do nothing that would disrupt the pleasant relations existing between America and j.a.pan, and recommended that an appropriation be made to enable the Labor Commissioner to take a census showing the number of j.a.panese now in the State, with such other information regarding them as could be used in making a proper report to the President and Congress[87a].

Governor Gillett in the paragraph of his message[87] which dealt with the Alien Land bill, stated that the measure might be amended so that its pa.s.sage would not embarra.s.s the Federal Government. Mr. Drew promptly sent the Governor a note, inquiring "how amended." The Governor replied[88], stating that, in his judgment the best possible law that could be pa.s.sed on the question of alien owners.h.i.+p of land would be the law which had been adopted by Oklahoma. Furthermore, the Governor expressed the opinion that such a law would be satisfactory to President Roosevelt and Secretary Root.

Mr. Drew was quick to act on the suggestion. He not only yielded to the Governor's wishes[89], but in the teeth of the severest opposition from the San Francisco delegation, forced delay of the pa.s.sage of his bill until the Oklahoma law could be subst.i.tuted for that taken from the Illinois Statutes.

The subst.i.tute measure provided that "no alien shall acquire t.i.tle or own land in the State of California," but the provisions of the act further provided that the law "shall not apply to lands now owned in this State by aliens so long as they are held by their present owners."

The subst.i.tute measure was introduced on February 1st; it came up for pa.s.sage on February 3rd. In the two days which elapsed between the introduction and final action on the bill, the high State authorities decided to oppose it. Speaker Phil Stanton employed his influence against it; one by one its supports who could "be reached" were "pulled down." Drew found himself at the final with slight following. The bill was defeated by the decisive vote of 28 to 48. Mott gave notice of motion to reconsider, but the next day reconsideration was denied.

The day following the defeat of the Alien Land bill, February 4th, the "Anti-j.a.panese School Bill" and the "Munic.i.p.al Segregation Bill" came up for final action. There was also a.s.sembly Bill 15, cla.s.sed as an anti-j.a.panese measure, which came up on the same day. It, as in the case of the two others, had been introduced by Johnson of Sacramento, by far the ablest parliamentarian in the Legislature. Drew had used facts and figures when arguing for his alien land bills; Johnson seasoned his statistics with a sarcasm[90] as peppery as one of Mr. Roosevelt's ingenuous opinions on "nature fakers." But while Mr. Johnson entertained with his wit and his invective, he failed to overcome the tremendous influence, State and Federal, that had been brought to bear against his bills. a.s.sembly Bill 15, denying aliens the right to serve as directors on California corporations, was defeated by a vote of 15 for to 53 against. a.s.sembly Bill 32, the "Munic.i.p.al Segregation Bill,"[91] was defeated by the close vote of 39 for to 35 against, 41 votes being required for its pa.s.sage.

And then the a.s.sembly took another tack, and by a vote of 45 to 29, pa.s.sed a.s.sembly Bill 14, the Anti-j.a.panese School bill. Leeds changed his vote from no to aye to give notice that he would the next legislative day move to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been pa.s.sed. The a.s.sembly then adjourned. The day had been eventful. A more eventful was to follow.

The pa.s.sage of a.s.sembly Bill 14, after the defeat of the other so-called anti-j.a.panese measures, brought a characteristic telegram from President Roosevelt to Governor Gillett. "This (a.s.sembly Bill 14) is the most offensive bill of them all," telegraphed the President, "and in my judgment is clearly unconst.i.tutional, and we should at once have to test it in the courts. Can it not be stopped in the Legislature or by veto?"

Governor Gillett incorporated that telegram in a message which he sent to Senate and a.s.sembly the next day. "A telegram so forcible as this,"

said the Governor, "from the President of the United States, is ent.i.tled to full consideration, and demands that no hasty or ill-considered action be taken by this State which may involve the whole country. It seems to me that it is time to lay sentiment and personal opinion and considerations aside and take a broad and unprejudiced view of the important question involved in the proposed legislation, and in a calm and dispa.s.sionate manner pa.s.s upon them, keeping in mind not only the interests of our State, but of the Nation as well, and the duty we owe to it in observing the treaties entered into by it with a friendly power."

"I trust," concluded the Governor, "that no action will be taken which will violate any treaty made by our country or in any manner question its good faith. I most respectfully submit this message to you with the full hope and belief that when final action shall be taken nothing will be done which can be the subject of criticism by the people of this Nation, and that no law will be enacted which will be in contravention of the Const.i.tution or any treaty of the United States."

The Governor's message was not at all well received[92]; in fact, Governor and message were denounced by both Republican and Democratic a.s.semblymen.

From the hour that the bill had been pa.s.sed, the Governor had been in consultation with his lieutenants in the a.s.sembly. Speaker Stanton made canva.s.s of the situation. But little headway was made. That reconsideration would be denied was evident. Leeds, to save the situation, moved that reconsideration be postponed until February 10th.

An amendment was made that it be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

It was on this amended motion that the issue was fought out.

"I know what you want," declared Johnson of Sacramento in his opening speech, "and you know it. You want to bury this bill. You want time to hold another caucus on the question and decide what you will do. You want time to take another canva.s.s of this a.s.sembly."

Had the question been put when Johnson had concluded, reconsideration would unquestionably have been denied. In the emergency, Speaker Stanton left his desk and took the floor to plead for delay. For once in his life, at least, Phil Stanton was impressive. He did not say much, - and as the sequel showed he had little to say - but there was a suggestion of thundering guns and sacked cities and marching armies in his words, that caused the listening statesmen to follow him with unstatesmen-like uneasiness.

"It was not my intention," said Stanton, "to take the floor unless we were confronted by some grave crisis. Such a crisis is, in my opinion, upon us. I not only believe it, but I know it. But my lips are sealed."

"I would that I could tell you what I know, but I cannot for the present. But I can tell you that we are treading upon dangerous ground.

I can feel it slipping from under my feet."

"In my judgment this matter should be postponed. I believe that further information will, within a few days, be given you."

The psychological moment had come in the history of a.s.sembly Bill 14.

All eyes were turned on Johnson of Sacramento. It was for him to say whether the postponement asked should be granted. Had Johnson said "no,"

such was the att.i.tude of the a.s.sembly at that moment, reconsideration of the measure would unquestionably have been denied, and a.s.sembly Bill 14 declared pa.s.sed by the House of its origin.

But Johnson did not say "no."[93] Instead, he entered upon a rambling excuse for advocating acquiescence in Stanton's request for delay. He rambled on that he believed that Governor Gillett had been indiscreet; that he (Johnson) did not propose to be dictated to by a "fanatical President eternally seeking the limelight."

"But," concluded Johnson, "I have listened to the words of our Speaker, and I see that he is profoundly moved. For this reason I am willing that the bill go over until Wednesday, but out of respect to our Speaker, and for no one else on earth."

When Johnson sat down, one could have heard a pin drop. Not a dissenting voice was heard. Further consideration of the measure was postponed until February 10.

The day preceding final action on the bill was given over to conferences and caucuses. The Democrats caucused and agreed to stand as a unit for the bill. Grove L. Johnson's immediate followers rallied to its support.

On the other hand, a conference of those opposing the measure was held in Governor Gillett's office. Grove L. Johnson is alleged to have been called to the carpet. He was asked to withdraw his support of the measure. Johnson is quoted as replying:

"Show me why I should not support it. Give me the reasons, the facts and figures, why Roosevelt has any right to interfere with this measure. I want something definite. I have heard these suppositions and insinuations for years and years. Let me know, gentlemen, what information you have confided to you that should induce me to withdraw my support and bow to the telegram from Roosevelt."

The hour for reconsideration of the bill, 11 a. m. of February 10, arrived with the situation practically unchanged. a.s.semblyman Transue, Stanton's right hand man in the fight against the bill, presented an elaborate resolution, laboriously prepared by the opponents of the measure, setting forth why it should be defeated[94]. In it the right of the State to pa.s.s such school-regulating laws as it may see fit was affirmed, and the const.i.tutionality of the pending measure alleged, but the a.s.sembly was urged to do nothing to disturb the relations existing between this Government and a friendly power. The resolution did not strengthen the position of the opponents of the bill in the least. In fact, several of their number were estranged. So worked up had the a.s.semblymen become, that Beardslee of San Joaquin moved that Transue's resolution be considered in executive session, but the motion was lost.

The resolution was later withdrawn.

The debate turned princ.i.p.ally on demands from the supporters of the bill, that Speaker Stanton tell why he had felt "the ground slipping from under his feet" in his speech of six days before. But Stanton wouldn't or couldn't tell. He leaned on his gavel through it all looking very foolish indeed.

These speeches of denunciation pleased the supporters of the bill immensely, but the luxury of denouncing Stanton defeated the bill. Had the vote been taken at the forenoon session, reconsideration would undoubtedly have been denied. But so much time was taken in making Stanton feel foolish, that the hour of recess arrived, and the a.s.sembly scattered until two o'clock.

This brief respite gave the opponents of the measure a last opportunity.

They improved it by bringing over to their side enough members of the San Francisco delegation to win reconsideration, and the measure's defeat. When the a.s.sembly re-convened after the noon recess, the members by a vote of 43 to 34 granted the bill reconsideration, and by a vote of 37 ayes to 41 noes defeated it[95].

Although the Senate escaped the sensational scenes that attended the suppression of the j.a.panese problem in the a.s.sembly, nevertheless j.a.panese bills and resolutions, with attending debates, made their appearance there. Caminetti, for example, introduced a duplicate of the Johnson anti-j.a.panese School bill, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Education and never heard from again.

Senate Bill No. 492, introduced by Senator Anthony, made more trouble.

This measure gave the people of the State an opportunity to express themselves at the polls on the j.a.panese question. The Committee on Labor, Capital and Immigration recommended the measure for pa.s.sage, and it was finally forced to a vote, being defeated by twelve votes for and twenty-two against[96].

A series of Senate anti-j.a.panese resolutions which were finally included in Senate joint Resolution No. 6[97], almost led to a riot in the a.s.sembly. After a deal of pulling and hauling in the Senate the resolution was finally adopted and went to the a.s.sembly. In the a.s.sembly, Speaker Stanton, as "a select committee of one," took the resolution under his protection. The indications being that the "select committee of one" would fail to report, a storm was started by an attack on Stanton's authority to be a "select committee of one" at all. The a.s.sailants were repulsed. Nevertheless, "the select committee of one,"

after holding the measure a week, recommended that it be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. The measure was finally adopted and went to the Governor.

[86] The a.s.sembly vote on the four princ.i.p.al j.a.panese issues will be found in Table I of the Appendix.