That issue came up in the form of a proposed amendment to the State Constitution introduced by Senator Black, which gave the people of the State the power enjoyed by the people of Oregon and of the more advanced California municipalities, the power to initiate laws. Black's amendment provided that on petition of eight per cent of the electors of the State proposing a law or Constitutional amendment, such law or amendment must be submitted to a vote of the people at the next general election, precisely as Constitutional amendments are now submitted. If the proposed law or amendment received a majority vote it was to become a law of the State, independent of Legislative action. In a word, the people of California, had the amendment carried, would have been able to initiate the laws which govern them. Naturally, the machine, always on thin ice at best, thoroughly aroused to what the initiative means, opposed any such "wicked innovation." In its opposition, the machine was backed by that extreme conservatism, which, while sincere enough, forever hangs on the coattails of progress; the conservatism which even in New England as late as 1860 drew back its respectable skirts from abolition; the conservatism which, dragged protesting over a crisis, never fails to assume for itself all the credit for what has been accomplished. Thus the machine had some very respectable assistance in its efforts against the Initiative Amendment, the measure which more than any other before the Legislature was calculated to take the government of California out of machine hands[84]. On the other hand, the amendment had strong backing. It had been drawn up at the instance of the Direct Legislation League, which numbers among its members many of the foremost bankers, capitalists, educators and public men of the State - Rudolph Spreckels, Francis J. Heney, James D. Phelan, of San Francisco, and Dr. John R. Haynes of Los Angeles, and others fully as prominent being among the League's most active supporters. In addition, the amendment had the endorsement of the State Grange, of, the Labor Unions, of the State, county and municipal Democratic conventions, and of many of the municipal and county Republican conventions. But there were plenty of reasons given why the amendment should not be submitted to the people. Perhaps the most amusing came from Senator Wright, of Direct Primary and Railroad Regulation notoriety. Senator Wright held that inasmuch as the Direct Primary will result in the election of high-class legislators, the initiative will not be necessary. But the two principal objections raised to the initiative were that: 1. It would lead to a flood of bills being submitted to the people. 2. That the people would not take sufficient interest in the proposed laws to consider them carefully. Both these objections were readily answered by the proponents of the amendment, who gave the experience of States in which the initiative has been tried.