The San Francisco call., 1908-08-09

lation. The Call took the initiative in
the fight for the incorporation or
direct primary plank in the republican
platform and this newspaper promised
the people of California that it would
prosecute that fight until a direct prl-
mary law was on the California stat
utes. The long drawn ont hight MADE py
the people of San Francisco to secure
honest elections and the decisions OF
the supreme court upon the enactments
they had secured resulted in writing
the delegate convention system into the
organic law of this state. Examination
OF the constitution disclosed that no
valid direct primary law worthy OF the
name could be enacted until after a
constitutional amendment had been
adopted. Lawyers of even less pre-
tensions than Wolfe recognized that
legal fact.
SIDE STEPS QUESTION
Subsequent "a the election of 1906
The Cali addressed an identical letter
10 every member and member elect of
the legislature. Every legislator was
asked if he was in favor of the sub
mission for ratification or rejection by
the people of a constitutional amend
ment amply broad enough to permit the
enactment Of a comprehensive direct
primary law. Few legislators refused
TO answer the direct question. Fewer
still refused 10 admit that they were
willing 10 permit the people to express
their wishes at the polls by voting for
or against a constitutional amendment
which would enable a republican legis-
lature to redeem a republican pledge.
Wolfe was one of that very few. He
refused 10 say that he favored giving
the people a chance to pass upon the
question Of direct primaries That
there might be no mistakes and conse-
quent injustice done the Legislators ad-
dressed The Call sent them a printed
irturn form on which their answers
could be indicated by the scratch of a
pen Wolfe sidestepped. He refused to
answer the questions put to him. In
stead he wrote TO The Call, saying:
Il am not entirely satisfied that a.
direct primary law Will prove panacea
for ali the political ills from which we
suffer. However, in order TO live up to
our platform pledges / would be will
ing TO vote for a direct primary law
applicable TO elections in municipali-
ties"
Wolfe was not willing then to vote
for the submission of direct primary
constitutional amendment to the peo-
pie. He knew that If such an amend
ment was submitted TO the people it
would be ratified by an overwhelming
majority. He was willing to vote for
something that had not been promised
10 the people. He was willing TO vote
for makeshift legislation which he
knew would not stand the test of the
courts
SENATE SPOILS MEASURE
The direct primary constitutional
amendment tentatively suggested by
The Call was introduced in the assem-
bly, by w. d. l. Held of Ukiah and in
the senate by Leroy A. Wright of San
Diego 1t passed the assembly without
a dissenting vote. the machine men of
the lower house understanding that it
was to be slaughtered in the senate. A
long fight In the senate committee on
elections resulted in the amendment be-
ing reported out with proviso, saving
the existing primary election law. in
the event that the next legislature
failed TO enact a direct primary law.
The senate passed the amended amend
ment and passed the buck to the assem-
bly,. 1t was up to the lower house TO
refuse TO accept the amended PROPOSE
ton as il came from the senate, and
the whole question of direct primaries
would die a natural death.
The assembly did refuse to accept
the amendment Things were working
beautifully for the enemies of direct
primaries There were no joint rules.
The assembly at the instance of Grove
L Johnson, who had some fish of his
own TO fry, had refused to adopt joint
rules johnson declared that until the
senate leaders let up on some of his fat
frying measures there would be moth
ing doing. Along in the last days of
the session some of the gentlemen of
the senate found that they needed Joint
rules in their business. They wanted
some conference committees. They
needed the help Of the friends of the
direct primary amendment. That help
was extended. Joint rules were adopt
ed The direct primary amendment
went TO a conference committee and
that conference committee failed to
agree. In the last days of the session
the direct primary amendment went to
free conference Failure of that free
conference TO reach an agreement
would have postponed the direct pri-
enactment Of a direct primary law i'm
possible for at least four years.
WHAT WAS WANTED
A free conference could not consider
q proposition other than the one in
dispute. A senate caucus was called to
consider the amendment and arrive at
party policy. Any change then meant
failure Of the free conference and the
end Of direct primary legislation for
blC SeSSlon-d Sn6eE loss OF Two wears
60 the people of California.
With Assemblyman Held, Senator
Wright, the late Albert NJ Johnson,
General Manager c. W. Hornick and
Managing Editor Z. S. Simpson / had
appeared before the committee on be-
half of the Held-Wright amendment.
was in charge OF The Calls fight for
the redemption OF the party's pledge
TO the people. The pledge to get the
amendment through a free conference,
in return for the assistance of the
friends OF direct primary legislation in
getting joint rules, was made to me
and. fortunately. by a machine senator,
who was able to make good in spite of
Wolfe.
While the senate caucus called to con-
sider the direct primary amendment
was assembling, Senator Eddie Wolfe,
vhos was about to enter the caucus
room, asked me.
Now what do you want done? Tell
me what you want and you shall have
St"
Eddie Wolfe was too well versed in
legislative practice to require an an
swer to that question. He knew that
failure OF the free conference meant
failure Of direct primary legislation
meant temporary defeat for the people