Beerstetcher complains that yesterday’s journal has inaccuracies in the vote tabulation on the motion to table White’s personal privilege matter. Several other delegates note the same: Joyce, Doyle, and Waters.
Murphy reports from the Committee on Phonographic Reporters: the cost of reading and transcribing will not exceed $8,000 if the convention lasts 100 days, and not exceed $6,000 if it lasts less than that. 20 cents per page will be cost effective, and the Illinois debates cost $4643.60 per volume of 950 pages, at 1000 copies. The cost of printing 500 copies of 500 pages each would be $1039. The cost of printing a daily journal for the members would be $200 for the session.
Wyatt moves to postpone indefinitely, because he’s opposed to having a reporter. “We, sir, in the point of expense, exceed Illinois as much as we do in the size of our trees.” (p. 43) This publication will cost $100,000 Since Pacific coast products always cost more, we must expect the cost here to be higher, too. And we should publish everything or nothing. “I do not believe, sir, that the reporting of this Convention will be worth the cost of it.” (p. 43).
Ayers: the cost of publishing the Illinois debates was extravagant. “There must have been some steal in it. Legitimate work would not have cost that sum.” Ayers estimates that the cost would be $4643.60 if it takes 2 volumes, and with a daily journal for the members, the total would be $10,526.20. This is the “extreme limit.”
Freeman: Yesterday, you said it would cost $2,000.
Ayers: No, I said one volume of 800 pages would cost that, and it was a rough estimate.
Freeman: That’s right, it was hasty. The Illinois convention had 85 members and lasted 92 days. “I do not believe that these one hundred and fifty two men here will allow any eighty five Illinois men to do more talking in ninety five days than they can do in one hundred days” (p. 44). Estimates of this sort are rarely correct. In 1878, the State Printing Office published the statutes and it cost $6380. This is only one fifth the size of the Illinois reports, so it would cost some $30,000 to print something the size of the Illinois reports. And why do we need to print this? What we say may be important, but the newspapers will carry this information to the general public. And if we only print 1000 copies, it’s not for public information anyway, so I’m against a reporter.
Shafter says the convention can’t postpone this, because it’s just an informational report.
McFarland: We should publish. All the other states have. But “we ought to consider, to some extent, where that money is going. I understand that the expenditure of public money, when it goes to an individual on a claim that is doubtful, is a very different thing from the expenditure of the same amount of money when it is distributed through a large class of persons. Political economy is composed of two great departments—first, the creation of wealth; second, its distribution. One party now seems greatly exercised about the distribution of wealth. I, sir, am not in favor at all of those wild schemes that have been lately agitated and presented, such as that the state and municipal corporations should expend the money purely for the purpose of giving employment. Some have gone so far as to say that it would be right to employ men to wheel stones from one point of the city and back again, simply for the purpose of giving employment to labor. But, sir, in estimating the cost of printing, it is certainly fair to consider that nearly every dollar of it, all of it, in fact, except for the price of the mere paper on which it is printed, goes to a set of as worthy and industrious and as hard working workingmen as there are in this state. [Applause].” (p. 44) Printing is a noble trade, and since the cost won’t be very much, and the money goes to such worthy citizens, the debates should be published.
Laine offers a resolution limiting per diem of reporters to $50/day and no more.
Freeman says we should decide on whether to have reporters first.
Some confusion ensues about what the question is, but the President says it's whether the resolution should be changed so that the convention proceed immediately to select a reporter.
Hager says he believes the enabling act requires them to choose a reporter. It doesn't literally require it, but it seems to instruct them to do so. We could just get shortand reports and leave it to the legislature to transcribe and publish them, but we have the authority to publish. Why should they publish? Some people want it for fame, but "I do not care a snap of my finger whether they are published or not." (p. 45). Hager offers a resolution that the convention is of the opinion that a reporter should be appointed.
Biggs says they should just vote on reporters now. He's opposed to having one, and surprised that Hager would "advocate the taxation of the downtrodden people of this State," (p. 45) or that he doesn't care about taxing them $30,000 or $40,000.
Hager says-I said I didn't care for the fame. As for the money, "I care just as much about them as the old watchdog of the treasury. [Laughter]"
Biggs: "I accept the appellation. I came here pledged to the people of California, of the whole State, that I will cooperate with the men of this Convention that they shall not be taxed to death. I propose to notice the remark of the distinguished gentleman from Sacramento, Judge McFarland. He says every dollar is paid to the printers, and goes to the working men. Who pays the money into the treasury? Who puts it there to be paid out? It aint the bondholders and mortgage holders. It is the working men that puts this money into the treasury, and I want it to remain there and go out to legitimate purposes. This will amount to more than eighteen thousand dollars. I tell you, you go on and it will soon come up. Before you have spent such an amount for the purpose of having these reports–the debates reported–and they will all be lost, unless you make a further appropriation. I want the Constitution so plain you don’t need to spend fifty-seven thousand dollars, like the Illinois Convention. And I ask this Convention to place themselves on the record fo retrenchment and reform, and against robbing the State of twenty or thirty thousand dollars. And I ask my friends to stand by me, and stand by the State and save the State that large amount of money."
Dowling says they should decide what it will cost before they decide whether to have reporters. This is an unnecessary expenditure, and “she [California] trembles from San Bernardino to Siskyou from the amount of taxation that is already piled upon her.” (p. 45) In the past, this sort of thing has been accompanied by fraud, and “if we get started in this reporting business, it is only an entering wedge.” He estimates $18,520 as the cost, and reporting the debates is “paying for the shadow instead of the substance,” because the constitution is the substance and the debates are just shadows. To pay for these records is “simply throwing money out of the treasury to immortalize a few eloquent men on this floor, who will have speeches in there to transmit to posterity.” The constitution should be like a stone wall, plastered over perfectly smooth, without any cracks, because “these corporations and monopolies would run a locomotive or a steamboat through a keyhole.” The minutes of the convention are enough for future reference.
Shoemaker says the question of priority is an entirely different matter from reporting.
Barton: this is a useless waste of time. The convention should address the matter squarely now.
Filcher: “I do not come here to make any buncombe speeches on matters of reform, economy, etc.,” but the convention should try to save taxpayer money if possible. The legislature has appropriated $150,000 and if we spend it on printing the debates, it will at least help teach the general public, and this is important because if the convention spends this money without getting a ratified constitution, it will all have been a waste. The workingmen “would save to this State every dollar they can...[but] it would seem at a glance that they want to gobble up all of it to pay salaries and not let a dollar of it go to the poor printer.”
Biggs: “I call the gentleman to order.”
Filcher: “...it seems...that their motive must be that they wish to exclude the printers and reporters and all outsiders from getting their hands on any of this money in order that it may be retained in toto among the members in their per diem.” (p. 45). The reporters are waiting here anxiously to find out what the convention will do.
Caples: We should decide if we want a reporter first, before discussing the cost.
Tully: the figures in the cost estimates vary too widely for us to vote. There should be a decent record, but we need a more accurate estimate. We can’t decide if we want a reporter without knowing what it will cost.
Ayers: $150,000 has already been appropriated for this convention, so we can print the debates without any additional taxation.
Barbour: We should vote on whether to have a reporter first. And Barbour opposes it because it is too expensive. The responsibility for publishing rests with the legislature. “Gentlemen talk about giving employment to workingmen. That is all buncombe and claptrap.” (p. 46). Some suggest the courts will resort to the debates in construing the Constitution, but “I do not know that Judges go into constitutional debates for the true intent of a constitutional provision. I undertake to say it would be a bold Judge who would go in there to find what the sense of the convention would be.” Some speakers want to be preserved for posterity, but “Demosthenes and Cicero had no reporters.” And printing a daily digest for the members would be even more expensive. Moreover, “I have a very serious apprehension in my mind that the work of this convention will be an abortion.” The people of California are so divided it is unlikely that they will adopt a new constitution, and so we should at least save California the money. Every newspaper furnishes very good reporting of the debates. “I refer to the hippodrome paper—the dead-alive paper called the Sacramento Record-Union. It is true, sir, that nobody reads it if he can avoid it, but the debates will be there, and that is enough for me.”
Smith of Santa Clara moves the previous question. The president explains that this means the convention will vote on the amendment first (whether the convention believes electing a reporter would be a good idea) and the on Filcher’s motion (whether to proceed immediately to electing reporters). Hager and the President wrangle over whether this is correct, but the President doesn’t budge. They vote, and by 87-50, the convention votes no. The next question is whether to proceed immediately to choose a reporter. This too loses, by a vote of 110-30. The convention adjourns until the afternoon.
Afternoon session--
Laine is given a leave of absence until Tuesday.
Tinnin offers a resolution that the convention now fill the vacancies caused by Morris’ resignation and the deaths of Haight and Hardwick. McCallum moves to amend to replace Haight first. Edgerton moves to amend so as to move the choice till Tuesday, but Tinnin says “we have been here three or four days simply doing nothing,” (p. 48) and the president must fill the committees, which he can’t do when the seats aren’t filled. If people are away from the convention on private business, then we shouldn’t wait for them. Edgerton withdraws the motion.
Caples objects that Morris didn’t resign; he was ineligible. Tinnin says Morris’ resignation was read from the desk. Caples says, no, he was ineligible, and insists on the point of order. Tinnin says the Governor certified him as a member, and there’s no reason to debate this matter. But Hall says that if Morris was ineligible because he wasn’t a citizen of the U.S. at the time of election, then the election was void, and that means his seat can’t be a legal “vacancy,” and Morris can’t be a legal “incumbent.” He cites the recent case of Carver v. Dunbar [sic–actually Crawford v. Dunbar, 52 Cal. 36 (1877)], in which Dunbar was elected, but turned out to be ineligible, and since there was no legal election, Carver was not entitled to the seat, and the government had to declare a vacancy. Barbour wants to know what section of the Political Code says that. Hall responds that he can’t say which section, but citizenship is required and Morris was not a citizen, so he wasn’t elected, so his seat can’t be considered vacant. Another section of the code provides that if an officer is elected and fails to present himself within 10 days, the office is automatically considered vacant, but it hasn’t yet been 10 days. However, if the convention substitutes “ineligibility” for “vacancy” in the resolution, it would all be in order.
Murphy says this is all a waste of time and a matter of no consequence, and moves the previous question. Caples withdraws his amendment, and the resolution is adopted. The delegates proceed to nominations.
Barbour (W) nominates J.R. Sharpstein, as the unanimous choice of the S.F. delegates. Most legislatures allow for special elections, he says, but in this case the legislature allowed the convention to fill its own vacancies, and the election results show that Sharpstein was the next most popular candidate in San Francisco. We could have argued that Morris was eligible, but “we went by the spirit of the law,” (p. 49).
Cross seconds. “We claim that the Workingmen’s Party of San Francisco and of the State has been greatly misunderstood. That some gentlemen on this floor have a wrong impression in regard to the principles and purposes of the Workingmen’s Party.” At this point, Barnes interrupts, saying this is not germane. Cross insists it is. The results of the votes can’t really change if Sharpstein is chosen, because the Workingmen have 51 votes against 100, and since there are so few here who can explain the real ideas of the Workingmen, it would be helpful to have Sharpstein, who can forcefully present their views. The Workingmen are willing to endorse the Non-Partisan candidate if they nominate one to fill Haight’s seat, so they should support the Workingmen’s choice.
Barnes starts a speech in agreement, but Reynolds interrupts him. Barnes is allowed to continue and accuses the Non-Partisans of intolerance, which was also witnessed when the Governor, presiding temporarily spoke harshly to Barbour early in the convention. But Barnes opposes allowing the San Francisco delegation to choose a replacement. Nobody who lost an election should demand a seat on the grounds that he got a plurality of votes, and then do so on the basis of just the S.F. delegation’s choice. The convention has the power to fill vacancies, and they may select any man from Shasta to San Bernardino. “We have the right to present some proper person coming from San Francisco for that position. On the local ticket there was a vacancy. The gentleman claims credit for not perpetuating a fraud—credit for not perpetrating a political crime—and for demanding the resignation of a man who had been standing on bogus naturalization papers. That is not the point.” (p. 49). R.H. Lloyd had more votes than Sharpstein, and we should elect him. “I...know Judge Sharpstein, I knew his history before he came to the State. I know it now. I knew him as a Democrat. I knew him again as a red-hot Republican, when [Governor Newton] Booth came to the surface.”
Dowling raises a point of order that this is not germane. The President agrees. Cross raises a point of order that when Barnes objected to Barbour speaking on this subject, the chair held that Barbour was out of order. But now Barnes is being allowed to do the same. The President says he doesn’t recollect any such ruling.
Barnes says “My friend is mistaken about that, as he generally is.” There was no unanimous endorsement of the people of San Francisco for Sharpstein, he insists. Sharpstein was “caught up like a chip upon the surface of this great wave of popular discontent, and was put upon the ticket at large, where he had no possible hope of being elected.” People claim Sharpstein is a good Workingman, but “the most remarkable decision that I ever knew Judge Sharpstein to make was made in the interest of the Spring Valley Water Company, and the Supreme Court reversed his decision from the bench. That is his record upon the subject of corporations.” (p. 49-50). Sharpstein is a political opportunist who “had ridden the Democrats, had ridden Booth, and now he jumps on top of the Workingmen’s movement.” Even if there were no other candidate, Barnes says, he wouldn’t vote for Sharpstein. “So far as the record is concerned, he has favored those corporate monopolies of which complaint is made.... When we shall have finished the work of this Convention I think it will be apparent who are the men about whose necks the corporation collar stands. It is not upon mine, and I hope the gentleman will not repeat what he has said this morning. I believe in the right of the State to control every corporation in it. It has the right and should have the power, and such a provision should be put in this Constitution that shall hold them with a grasp of iron, so that never again in this State shall there be any unjust discriminations, any outrage or wrong inflicted upon persons or communities from the day this Constitution takes its place as the organic law of the State, until time shall be no more. [Applause].” (50). Lloyd has been a resident of San Francisco since a child. Worked as an errand boy, educated and trained himself, and is a good and careful lawyer. “He was a candidate on the Non-Partisan ticket, and had the support of all classes of men, Germans, French, and Americans—thank God there are a few left. [Applause].” Lloyd is a man of perfect honesty, and just because there is a large S.F. delegation doesn’t mean the minority from S.F. should be silenced.
Brown of Tulare nominates Jose R. Pico, “with whose family you are all well acquainted; it is a family whose name is connected with the early history of California.” (50).
Barnes asks if Pico was also a candidate on the Workingmen’s ticket.
Barbour: “Mr. Pico was repudiated by the delegation. [Applause].”
Brown continues by describing Pico’s family history. His father was a delegate to the 1849 convention, and was a wealthy philanthropist, who donated a site for a state capitol in San Jose, and the grounds for the San Quentin prison, and the insane asylum in Stockton. His son has also given much land to the state, and is “the only member of that race, that once possessed this whole country, that is on hand here.” (p. 50). The 23,000 Spanish and Mexican residents are otherwise “without representation.” Pico is a gentleman of refinement, ability, and learning.
Barbour (W): “I should feel myself recreant to my trust if I did not rise to defend the name of [Sharpstein].” He’s been subjected to outrageous attacks, but is known and respected in San Francisco, and Barnes’ candidate is an attorney for the Spring Valley Water Company, and a son-in-law of Senator Sharon. Barnes should not cast aspersions on Sharpstein.
Beerstetcher (W) insists that they don’t make the nomination for base motives. We recognize the convention may choose anyone, but Sharpstein got 13,913 votes in the last election, and Lloyd got 8,526. If the will of the people is to be respected, the convention should choose Sharpstein. We say nothing against Lloyd, but the votes Sharpstein received are “better than the charge” that Barnes has brought against Sharpstein. “The vote here will determine whether we respect the voice of the people as the voice of God, or whether we expect to vote in a partisan spirit in this campaign.” (p. 51). On simple democratic principles, we ask you to vote for Sharpstein.
Winans objects that the San Francisco delegation does not represent the people of San Francisco. “The old political parties were divided against themselves,” and that’s how the Workingmen were elected. They don’t represent a majority of people in San Francisco.
Shafter: “I would take great pleasure in supporting Mr. Pico...if I could do so with propriety and safety. I am a man of exceeding timidity, and am apprehensive that I should be exposed to considerable personal danger from Mr. Pico, were he a member of this convention. In his canvass, Mr. Pico declared his intention to bring his lasso here, and with it subject all the thieves and rascals in the State and Convention to the discipline of that instrument. As he includes me in his inculpatory terms, I think I have a right to increase my chances for security by excluding him, if possible, from this convention.” The Pico family is rightly respected, but the San Quentin property was not a gift; it was paid for. As for Sharpstein, “I have known this gentleman for twenty six years.” First he was a Democrat, then became a Republican when it became the dominant party, and he has “Returned to his wallowing at the earliest opportunity.” He was accused of malpractice in Wisconsin, although that was explained away when he was made a judge by Governor Booth. When elections for judge came around, the Democrats and Republicans rejected him, so he turned to the sand-lot (i.e., Workingmen) and gave speeches accusing the government of “every wickedness and villainy,” (p. 51) and these accusations were not substantiated but were “simply examples of vindictive vituperation...uttered to a mob, utterly incapable of reason...and was apparently used for the sole purpose of still further inciting the mob to riot, violence, and bloodshed.” It is proper to bring these subjects up at this point, and if Sharpstein is going to give blows, he has to expect to receive them in return. The Workingmen don’t deserve polite treatment, since they refuse to extend it.
Murphy says that although he was elected as an Independent, and not as a Democrat, Republican, Non-Partisan, or Workingman, he believes that the seat should be filled by a representative of the same constituency that voted for Morris. So he will vote for Sharpstein. “[Great applause on the Workingmen’s side.]”
Joyce: “I rise to indorse the nomination of Judge Sharpstein.... It is a well known fact that this famous sand lot that the gentleman speaks about is the declared enemy of all forms of monopolies, bank rings, railroad monopolies, land monopolies [Applause].”
Smith of Kern: Although elected as a Non-Partisan, he will vote for Sharpstein because the convention should respect the wishes of Morris’ supporters.
Hager nominates J.C. Burch. Hager knows and respects Sharpstein and Lloyd (Lloyd was a law student of his) but Burch is a state legislator and Congressman and a member of the Code Commission and well qualified.
Tinnin seconds Burch. He’s known Burch for 26 years as a county clerk and district attorney and other offices, and he’s well qualified.
Haskell also seconds Burch, who is a lifelong Democrat and well qualified.
Harvey nominates Smith B. Thompson, a carpenter, well admired in San Francisco. There are already too many lawyers. “Let us have a carpeneter to plane down these little technicalities.” (p. 52).
1st ballot: Sharpstein 56; Lloyd 44; Thompson 20; Burch 15; Pico 1
2nd ballot: Sharpstein 56; Lloyd 43; Burch 16; Thompson 22
3rd ballot: Sharpstein 58; Lloyd 48; Burch 12; Thompson 21
4th ballot: Sharpstein 58; Lloyd 49; Burch 15; Thompson 17
5th ballot: Sharpstein 58; Lloyd 49; Burch 12; Thompson 17
6th ballot: Sharpstein 57; Burch 15; Lloyd 46; Thompson 16
No choice. Adjourn for the day.
