Los Angeles herald., 1910-05-15
Leftover Work
of Legislature
&c 1910 By Franklin
OI w. HiChbOrn
VII-The
Local Option
Bill

with the anti-raeetraclk gambling bill
that measure would scarcely have
passed. But with the assembly on rec
ord for the measure, the backward
ones in the senate yielded to the pres
sure of public opinion and passed the
bill.
The senate promptly passed the bill
on second reading. But when the meas
ure came up on February "a for third
reading and final passage it was
amended. This caused more delay.
When the amended bill got back to the
senate from the printer, on Senator
Wolfes motion it was referred to the
judiciary committee. The judiciary
committee was at the time swamped
with work. and did not act on the
measure until March 4, when 1t made
recommendation that the bill be passed.
The senate definitely decided that the
bill should be considered on the evening
Of Thursday March IL.
But when Thursday came Senators
| Boynton and Stetson, who favored the
bill, found that they could not be at
| the capitol that evening. They accord
| ingly requested of Senator Eesudillo
that the vote be taken the following
day. This Estudillo attempted to ar
range; such postponements were of
regular. occurrence, and seldom If ever
denied
| But In this instance the request was
! denied denied on the objection of Sem
ator Wolfe. Without Stotson and Boyn-
| ton, Estudillo had no chance at all to
pass the bill. The machine element
! accordingly forced postponement until
March 10. Even had the measure been
passed on that date 1t could not in
the face of machine opposition have
passed the assembly.
! The vote was as follows:
For the bill--Beil, Black, Boynton,
Campbell. Cartwright Cutten, Estudi-
llo, Miller. Roseberry, Thompson,
Walker Wright-12.
! Against the bill-Anthony, Bills,
Birdsall, Burnett, Caminetti. Curtin,
Finn, Hare, Hartman, Holohan, Hurd,
| Kennedy, Leavitt, Lewis, Martinelli,
Mccartney, Price. Reilly, Rush, San
ford, Strobridge, Weed, Welch, Willis,
! Wolfe-25.
Had the assembly passed the local
option bill as early in the session as
the anti-racetrack gambling bill was
passed, its history would probably have
been the same. Broadly speaking, the
same elements were for and the same
elements against the passage of the
two measures.
The local option bill was introduced
in the senate January s and referred
| to the committee on election laws.
| ESIuulllO, auIlOT OF Ine Dill, was
| man of the committee. But on the
committee were Leavitt and Wolfe,
whose sympathies with the racetrack
gambling element are notorious, and
| Gus Hartman, a man of the same type
| and sympathies as Leavitt and Wolfe,
but without their ability. These three
men, with Senators Hare and Ken
nedy, controlled the committee. Hare
and Kennedy represented San Fran
cisco districts as did Wolfe and Hart
man. The four men stand for practi-
cally the same ideals. standards and
policies. although bearing different
party tags, Wolfe and Hartman were
elected as Republicans; Hare and Ken
nedy as Democrats. But this trifling
| distinction counts for nothing in leg
islative lineups.
The committee on election laws
| failed to act upon the local option bill
until we'll along in February Then
Senator Stetson, who favored the pass
| age of the measure, by clever turn
moved in committee that the bill be
reported back to Hfhe senate with the
recommendation that it "do not pass"
Stetson voting with those who opposed
the bill thus compelled It's return to the
senate.
OF the twelve senators who voted for
the bill eleven were constantly in OPP
position to the machine. The twelfth,
Wright, was generally found on i'm
portant questions with Wolfe and
! LeaVitt.
OF the twenty-five who voted against
the machine, six-Birdsall, Caminetti,
Holohan, Rush, Sanford and Strobridge
opposed the machine at practically
every turn but this. These men stand
for the square deal' and for un-
hampered expression of the wish Of the
people at the polls.
Throughout the session they fought
for the principles of self government
| embodied in local option. On their
records they should have voted for the
measure, and, under. different condi-
tions the majority, if not all of them,
would no doubt have done so.
The fight for a practical local option
law will be renewed at the session of
1911 more vigorously than ever before.