Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909Hichborn, Franklin
History
Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909
Hichborn, Franklin
California -- Politics and government
After several meetings, the Committee adopted amendments providing for
the Leeds - suggested advisory district vote for United States Senators,
providing for correction of the clerical and typographical errors, and
providing an oath from primary candidates that they would abide by the
platform of their party to be adopted after their nomination. This last
amendment was defeated in the Assembly.
The only real opposition in the Committee to the machine's plan to make
the primary vote for United States Senators advisory only and by
district, came from Assemblymen Hinkle of San Diego and Drew of Fresno.
Drew was ill most of the time and could not attend the meetings. The
brunt of the fight for a State-wide vote for United States Senators,
therefore, fell on Hinkle.
He fought well.
Every effort was made to pull him down. He was told that his bills would
be "killed."
He was deliberately misrepresented in papers which were endeavoring to
force into the bill the advisory district vote amendment, which, as
introduced in the Senate by McCartney, had been rejected by the
anti-machine Senators. Leavitt and Wolfe and Warren Porter were for the
amendment, but the anti-machine Senators continued against it as they
had on February 18th, the day of their "glorious victory" over the
machine in the Direct Primary fight.
But, astonishing as it may seem, the San Francisco Call[44], which up to
the passage of the bill in the Senate had fought the machine Senators so
valiantly, was giving indication of siding with Wolfe and Leavitt. In
its issue of March 6th, the Call stated that Hinkle was alone of the
Assembly Committee battling for the bill as it passed the Senate. In
another sentence the Call said: "Leeds, Rech, Hinkle and Pugh voted for
the advisory vote amendments."
That sentence was shown about the Capitol, and on it was based the story
that Hinkle had "fallen down," and would vote with the machine. All this
added to the confusion of the situation.
But Hinkle had not "fallen down." He was in the fight just as hard as
ever, and with Assemblyman Bohnett organized the reform element in the
Assembly to fight the machine amendments.
Those who were endeavoring to force the advisory district plan for
nomination of Senators into the bill took the most astonishing methods
to force it upon the anti-machine Senators. For example, the San
Francisco Call of March 4th said of it:
"The amendments proposed by Leeds and supported by Stanton are not even
remotely related to the McCartney proposition, which was voted down in
the Senate."
The Call's statement was easily disproved, but it unquestionably
confused the anti-machine legislators, who were insisting upon retaining
the provision for State-wide vote for Senators in the bill[45].
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account