The San Francisco call., 1907-01-19
WANT EXPERTS TO.
SHOUT HELLO"
Foolish Powders and Phone
Operators Unconsciously
Evolve Assembly Joke
BEARDLEE SAVES DAY
By John Taylor Waldorf
CALL HEADQUARTERS,
1907 EIGHTH STREET.

SACRAMENTO. Jan. 1s.-Not salts
fed with the proportion of patronage
list that includes 325 persons. not all
of them relatives of legislators, some
Assemblymen tried to add four expert
telephone operators to the Assembly
roster of employees today at the un-
usual salary OF ~ day. The grab
hung in the balance until the last name
was called and 1t was Speaker Boards
lee who tipped-the beam against it. By
a tie vote, 33 to 33. the resolution to
employ expert operators was lost.
The resolution to hire telephone girls
at fancy salaries was offered by the
committee on contingent expenses. AS
semblyman J. P. Transue of Los An
geles argued that the employment of
such operators would not be patronage
but the hiring of expert employees.
This" he said, 'His contingent expense,
like postage stamps"
Estudillo of Riverside opposed the
resolution. He declared that it would
be a violation OF the caucus agreement
that the patronage of the Assembly
should be limited to $13 day for
each member. BY way of meeting the
need he suggested that some one oe
the attaches be put to work as tele-
phone operators.
CASE Is SILENT
Case Of Pasadena favored a similar
remedy Transue responded by inquir-
ing whether the gentleman from Pasa-
dena had put on any attaches who could
manage a switchboard Case did not
answer.
. Estudillo rushed into the breach He
expressed opinion that if the patron
age list did not include a sufficient
number of expert telephone operators
- q
the attaches already hired should be
dropped and competent telephone op-
orators substituted.
Hewitt of Yuba City wanted to know
If Estudillo had put on any one who
could meet the required qualifications
Estudillo made no answer. Evidently
he had no telephone operators on his
patronage list. Forbes of Inyo made
his usual stump speech. His thoughts
wandered, but the general opinion was
that he did not favor the resolution
He said that he had taken only SS
of the s13 patronage allowed to each
member.
John of San Luis Obispo disputed
Forbes. He said that the gentleman
from Inyo consumed every part of his
s13. Forbes did not reply. John went
on TO say that many of the opponents
of the allotment of patronage We're
stituents. Some OF these patriots, he
said, were the very men VIII had voted
for the conditions that had aroused
criticism. Personally he favored the
resolution and had no hesitancy in de-
claring himself.
Wyatt of Salinas insisted that the
Assembly had solemnly agreed to limit
its patronage to $13 a day for each
member. If expert telephone operators
were needed, he argued. they should
be included In the patronage
Devlin of Vallejo wanted to know II
any attempt had been made to get
some one from the telephone office to
explain the mysteries of the switch
hoard to the attaches. Transue did not
know, but he was positive that the
the legislative switchboard and that
they were unable to do the work
OTHERS ASK QUESTIONS
Eshleman of Berkeley wanted to
know If 81 a day was not an unusual
salary for a telephone operator.
Strobridge of Hayward opposed the
resolution because of the caucus pledge
limiting the patronage.
Devlin took the floor again. THE
word patronage" he said, has outlived
employees" Continuing, he gave warn
ing that such precedent would cause
no end of trouble and open the way
for all sorts of subterfuge
Thompson of San Francisco. chair
man of the committee on attaches, ad-
mitted that he had not told the truth
yesterday when he said that the pat
ronage appropriation was exhausted