Los Angeles herald., 1910-06-05
Leftover Work
of Legislature
&c 1910 By Franklin
vi i w. HichbOrn

IN SPITE of the fact that at the
legislative session of 1909 the ma
chine was able to block much good
legislation, nevertheless that resource
full organization had a deal of hard
shedding. In spite of Its best efforts,
a. number of good measures became
laws-the anti-race track gambling
bill, for eXample-while a large number
of important schemes which the ma
chine interests had under way were
nipped in the bud by the watchful
leaders of the anti-machine element.
Craftily. cunningly with infinite pa
tience, the machine element at the ses-
sion of 1911. will endeavor to recover
the ground lost at the session of 1909
The most important anti-machine
measure passed at the last session of
the Legislature was the Walker-Otis
antirace track gambling bill. Already
machine claquers are endeavoring to
make 1t appear that the Walker-Otis
bill is not effective, because the su-
preme court has held that it does not
prohibit oral betting. But the meas
ure was never intended to prohibit oral
betting. 1t was intended to prevent
bookmaking and pool selling, and
where strictly enforced it does prevent
both. BY stretching the supreme court
decision to the breaking point, certain
gamblers are evading the spirit of the
law by a system Of oral bookmaking.
But the oral system is expensive, cum
bersome and unsatisfactory. The ma
chine. in the interest of the gamblers,
will endeavor to repeal the measure, or
at least amend 1t into ineffectiveness.
With slight amendment the Walker
Otis law can be made effective even
against "oral bookmaklng. In New
York, where a similar law is in force,
the evasion of the gamblers is blocked
ID,, tptr NJ ha ORIGINAL tnXf
of the bill the words "orally or other
wise" Here in California the ma
chine will, of course, fight any such
amendment.
At a second point where the ma
chine was blocked at the last session
of the legislature was in its attempted
amendment of the assembly rules. The
machines purpose Is to "Cannonize"
the legislature, so that the work OF
legislation may be dictated by few
men whom the machine leaders feel
themselves able to pick, even when the
legislature is overwhelmingly for good
government.
The machines attempt to amend the
assembly rules along this line was ex-
posed and the So-called "gag-ruleS'
defeated Had the "gagrules" pre-
vailed, customs and precedent would
unquestionably have made them the
rules of many assemblies to come.
Defeated in 1909, the machine will en-
deavor to force its gag rules upon
the assembly of 1911.
The machine had much its own way
with the direct primary bill, but not
all its own way. The machine plan to
REQUIRE a majority vote to nominate.
which was not only impracticable but
would have rendered the law uncon-
stitutional. was defeated by the anti
machine element The machine does
not want any direct primary law at
ALL. If it can "slip over" a provision
which will result in the measures be-
ing declared unconstitutional the ma
chimes purpose will have been at
tanned.
The machine which. under the same
general rules in Nevada as in CALI
fornia, allowed the Nevada legisla-
ture to enact the same direct primary
law as that passed in California, with
the exception of one important pro-
! vision. ,-
The California law provides biank
space on the primary ticket. in whlch
the voter may write the name OF any
candidate he pleases. The Nevada law
contains no such provision. Because OIL
the provision of the California law tne
Democrats of san Francisco were able
10 nominate Francis J. Heney for dis
trict attorney, although under an an
surd provision of the law Heney S
name could not be printed on the Demo-
cratic primary ballot. That the ma
chine will endeavor to strike the va
cant space provision from the law at
the session of 1911, thus increasing the
di@cnities in the way of nominating a
machine-free citizen for office, is very
| likely. - 4ooo
Another failure of the machine of 1909
u,as the defeat of its scheme to repeal
or at least render ineffective section