by Steve Brady
History has anointed Hiram Johnson the standard bearer of California Progressivism. His two terms as Governor, lasting from l911-1919, encompass the years generally associated with Progressivism in California.[1] While Johnson was governor, the legislatures of the state passed significant Progressive legislation such as the referendum, initiative, recall, workmen's compensation laws, implementation of a stronger railroad commission, and women's suffrage. Even before Johnson's election, however, a critical Progressive law had already been debated and passed. The importance of the direct primary law of l909 in helping Hiram Johnson and other Progressives to get elected in 1910 is often overlooked. Because of the direct primary law, Californians finally ended the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) in their politics. Politics and the power of the political party were never to be the same in the Golden State.The direct primary allowed Californians to select nominees for state-wide offices. Thus, it weakened the traditional party convention and nominating system which had previously been controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The direct primary debate showed the oppressive influence that the Southern Pacific Railroad's "machine" legislators had upon the legislature in l907, and the waning of their influence by l909. It also showed that reform minded "anti-machine" Progressives were most effective when they were able to neatly frame issues in terms such as "the people" against "the interests." This paper will explore whether there was a general Progressive movement in California, who supported and opposed the direct primary, and how these issues were framed. It will ask whether the overwhelming support for a direct primary was simply a show of widespread disgust at the oppressive influence of the Southern Pacific upon the state government, or if it exhibited the signs of a truly dynamic movement that could hold together after the direct primary was passed. Finally, it will chronologically detail the history of the direct primary, and it will attempt to convey the importance of the direct primary legislation upon the history of the state.
The historiography of the Progressive period has dramatically changed in the past seventy-five years. While most historians agree that the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the California state government in the nineteenth century, and that the response of Progressives to this domination was necessary and praiseworthy, there is a difference of opinion as to the character of the response. Some historians argue that the Progressive thrust against the SP was part of a general Progressive movement. They cite common goals and distinct characteristics which united Progressives across the state. Other scholars believe the agitation against the SP was merely a reaction to a corrupt situation. They accentuate the conflicting characteristics and goals of Progressives, and tend to discount a coherent Progressive movement.
Progressive era writers and reporters who exposed illicit cooperation between business and political leaders were labeled muckrakers. With the goal of arousing public ire, they often propelled national legislation with their exposure of corruption in American politics and business. In the most famous muckraking novel, The Jungle, Upton Sinclair exposed the corrupt meat packing industry. Written in 1906, many feel this book inspired the national government to regulate the meat industry. California's most famous muckraker, Frank Norris, wrote The Octopus in 1903 when the Southern Pacific Railroad completely dominated California politics. A national bestseller, it was the first book in a planned trilogy of novels. Though a work of fiction, The Octopus, set in central California, was actually an expose of SP railroad corruption. Like other works of the Progressive era, The Octopus clearly differentiated between "the people" and "the interests," and emphasized the overwhelming and oppressive power of the railroad. In the book, the railroad was described as:
[A] galloping terror of steam and steel, with its single eye, Cyclopean, red, shooting from horizon to horizon, symbol of vast power, huge and terrible; the leviathan with tentacles of steel, to oppose which meant to be ground to instant destruction beneath the clashing wheels.[2]The Octopus portrayed the overwhelming power of the railroad in California, and influenced the people of the state to unite against the Southern Pacific power.In 1915, Benjamin Parke DeWitt outlined the major goals and philosophies of all Progressives in The Progressive Movement. DeWitt believed that the country could be neatly divided into "the people" and "the interests." He cited three general elements which described a typical Progressive regardless of party or region. Progressives wanted to remove special interests from government, give the average citizens direct control of their government, and use the government to alleviate the everyday problems of ordinary Americans. DeWitt envisioned a Progressive movement where people across the country would unify and overthrow the special interests.
The California Progressives, written by George Mowry in l951, is the first critical examination and the most comprehensive work on the Progressive era in California. Mowry emphasizes the stranglehold the Southern Pacific had upon the state government, and portrays the Progressives as honest citizens who were simply trying to rid their government of corruption. He believes there was a general Progressive movement in California whose leadership was of upper middle class Protestant origins. In his famous work, The Age of Reform, Richard Hofstadter cites Mowry's research as evidence to support the "status revolution" theory that became the basis for the consensus paradigm of the l950s. The consensus historians went on to argue that the Progressive movement was led by the native urban middle class, who sought to recapture a past in which they were more prosperous and more influential in governmental affairs.
Gabriel Kolko questions basic aspects of the consensus paradigm in his work, The Triumph of Conservatism. Kolko believes the impetus of most Progressive programs came from business interests who advocated minor changes in the hope of avoiding more radical programs that were espoused during the period. Because big business was in control of the levers of power, governmental regulations were thus instituted for the benefit of big business instead of being directed at big business. Kolko emphasizes the conservative nature of the Progressive era, and the relatively undramatic reforms which did not change the basic composition of American society.
In his 1968 study of California Progressivism, California's Prodigal Sons, Spencer Olin argues that Progressives' division of "the people" and "the interests" was absurdly simplistic. Americans, in the Progressive era, he feels, were made up of diverse groups with different interests. His depiction is in sharp contrast to the way that most previous historians had portrayed Progressive Americans as a monolithic group who shared the same goals and ideas. Indeed, Olin raises questions as to whether the Progressive movement could be called a movement at all.
In 1970, Peter Filene further undermined the concept of a unified and coherent Progressive movement. In his article, "Obituary for The Progressive Movement," Filene bluntly writes, "a Progressive era may have occurred, a Progressive movement did not."[3] The author dissects the meaning of a "movement", and argues that there were too many diverse aspects of Progressives throughout the country to successfully lump them together in a common, coherent movement. He believes Progressives lacked a unifying program, ideology, membership profile, and homogenous electorate. He argues historians should resist accepting the simple neatly defined Progressive movement as a package that encompasses so many diverse ideas and interests.
The most recent historical work on the Progressive era continues to concentrate on the argument whether the Progressive movement was a movement. In his article, "In Search of Progressivism," Daniel Rogers argues that the Progressive era was "an era of shifting, ideologically fluid, issue-focused coalitions, all competing for the reshaping of American society.[4] Multiple special interest groups replaced the weakened political parties as agents of reform during the era. According to Rogers, there was no unified movement. In a similar vein, Richard McCormick argues, in "The Discovery that Business Corrupts Politics," that recent historians of the Progressive era have downplayed the political-business corruption that occurred during the period. Progressives emphasized this illicit union, but recent historians have looked for other explanations for Progressive reforms. Although McCormick does not support the Progressives' simplistic division of "the people" and "the interests," he does argue that the discovery that business corrupts politics was relatively new for Americans in the early twentieth century. This basic discovery inspired many Americans to support new governmental regulatory laws which prohibited overt business influence in politics. Both writers concur the political changes of the era initiated the more modern, issue-focused politics of today.
The historiography of the Progressive era has thus undergone many changes. Historians have argued that the reforms of the era originated from the lower classes, the middle classes, the upper classes, and even the business interests. For some historians, there has been a clearly defined and unified Progressive movement. On the other hand, some have seen the rise of many special interest groups each with their own agenda as the defining characteristic of the era. By studying the direct primary, it is possible to test these theories.
Railroad companies were influential in California for much of the state's history. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, this influence had turned into a crushing domination that crept into virtually every facet of California life. The Southern Pacific Railroad owned newspapers, huge tracts of land, and all transportation facilities. The SP was the largest landowner, biggest employer of labor, and richest enterprise in the state. The influence of the SP was apparent throughout the state. The San Francisco Call wrote:
[I]n every county in California the railroad company maintained an expert political manager whose employment was to see that the right men were chosen as convention delegates, the right kind of candidates named and elected, and the right things done by men in office.[5]Californians felt their state government was actually run from the SP's central political bureau in San Francisco, and that the government in Sacramento was merely a puppet show. William Herrin, the head of the political bureau of the Southern Pacific, was widely regarded as the most powerful man in the state. An opponent of the SP wrote, in l897, "they [the Southern Pacific Railroad] have debauched politics and established a government within a government more powerful than the state government itself."[6] Individual reformers repeatedly failed to lessen this influence. An opponent of the SP wrote, "If an individual wished to distinguish himself in a public career he had no chance except by close alliance with the railroad company."[7] To such reformers, the tentacles of the octopus seemed omnipresent.
The domineering influence that the SP wielded upon California politics revealed itself in its full magnitude in the l906 Republican State Convention. During this period, state political conventions were major news events. Political parties adopted platforms and sometimes nominated unknown men to run as their party's candidate. George Pardee, the incumbent Republican governor in l906, was popular among most Californians. Prior to the convention, the delegates were also apparently supportive of the Governor. A pre-convention straw vote of the delegates found Pardee ahead of his competition.[8] In l902, Pardee was elected with the support of the SP. However, during his term he had angered the Southern Pacific leadership by fighting with them over control of the Oakland waterfront and encouraging a new competing railroad company to exist. Without the backing of the powerful Southern Pacific, Pardee's chances of re-nomination were remote.
Republicans gathered for their convention in Santa Cruz and virtually all the newspapers of the state reported on the illicit trades and back room deals that benefited the Southern Pacific. Immediately prior to the convention, the generally conservative San Francisco Chronicle wrote:
We do not think anybody at this time can, with much confidence, predict the outcome at Santa Cruz, or foresee the deals and trades which will be made between delegations as they are stirred by this or that organizer silently working out of sight to accomplish the result he desires. The game of politics is as intricate as it is interesting, and aside from any personal advantages to be reaped there is a great fascination in the exercise of that ability which is able to secure the nomination of a Governor or Supreme Court Judge from, say Siskiyou County, as the result of a trade between the San Diego delegation and the Placer county delegation on the question of nominating a state printer from Fresno. It is a great game, but "the people" know very little about it, and usually have little to do with the result. Nominations are made out of the conflicts and agreements of bosses.[9]From this quote, one senses the importance of the behind-the- scenes political manipulations at the party convention in pre-direct primary California and the relative unimportance of the common voter. Political bosses and special interests dominated these conventions and ignored the interests of the average Californians.
Every San Francisco newspaper noted the arrival of Walter Parker in Santa Cruz. He was the Southern California Bureau Chief of the Southern Pacific Railroad's political bureau. After he arrived, word quickly spread among the delegates that the SP wanted James Gillett nominated for Governor on the first ballot. During the week of the convention, the state newspapers routinely reported different attempts by the SP to woo and steal delegates from other candidates.[10] Abe Ruef, the notorious machine leader of the San Francisco delegation, gave the coup de grace to Pardee's chances for reelection when he delivered all the city's delegates to Gillett in exchange for waterfront patronage. After the convention, a delegate described his feeling of unimportance when he asked, "why did we go to the convention if it had already been programmed to give the nomination to Gillett?"[11] The SP succeeded in controlling the convention, and they ousted a man they had previously worked to elect.
After the convention, there was a resurgence of outrage at the political influence of the SP. Governor Pardee emphasized that the Republicans at the state convention were the only statewide opponents to his policies. He believed it was sinister that the machine conspired with Ruef to withhold his re-nomination. He wrote, "it is evident that the Railroad machine and Ruef did not want me to be governor again, and as they were in control of the convention, what kick have I coming?"[12] There was widespread talk that many angry Republicans would leave the party. Edward Dickson, the influential Republican editor of The Los Angeles Express, immediately left the party, and actually supported the Democratic candidate in the general election. Only a few days after the convention, the Independent party candidate William Langdon wrote:
the recent Republican convention has demonstrated to the people that candidates are chosen by the party to represent private interests and not the peoplE. For years the Southern Pacific and the allied corporations have dominated the Republican convention, but never before have they so brazenly done their work as in Santa Cruz. The whip of the boss drove men as cattle.[13]At the conclusion of the convention, a cameraman for The San Francisco Call snapped a picture of Gillett and the top machine members of the state. Entitled "The Shame of California," this picture became an infamous symbol of the corruption of California's political leaders.
The 1906 California Republican Convention is a watershed event in the political history of the state. With a few notable exceptions, the general populace had previously accepted the domination of the Southern Pacific in their political affairs. But after the convention, most Californians became unified in their opposition to the overtly unethical methods employed by the bosses at the convention. Virtually all the major newspapers, regardless of political persuasion, became outspoken critics of the Southern Pacific. For the first time, state candidates openly ran against the SP lobby. Those politicians who were assisted by the SP denied their cooperation and insisted they were controlled by no one. Though the machine still clearly dominated the state's politics, Californians in 1906 were ready to revolt.
Californians had a long history of fighting corruption in their government. A contemporary national author of the period believed Californians had experienced more severe and long drawn out struggles for better regulated primaries than any other state.[14] Public outcry against flagrantly corrupt conventions increased during the 1890s. In an effort to involve the common voter more directly with his government, the Direct Legislation League was organized in 1895. This League campaigned for the referendum, initiative, and recall. Californians also organized a similar, yet distinctly different group named the Direct Primary League. This organization gave speeches throughout the state and lobbied the legislature for passage of a direct primary. The machine dominated Legislature passed successive reforms to placate the angry voters in 1895, 1897, and 1899. These laws supposedly improved the methods for choosing delegates to the convention, but they did not provide for a direct primary. The machine would not easily give up the convention system which so clearly benefited them.
Wisconsin had passed the first comprehensive direct primary in 1903, and some Californians argued for a similar law in their own state. Voters in Minnesota, Illinois, Alabama, and Oregon debated and eventually passed direct primary laws as the subject continued to simmer in California. Two weeks before the infamous Republican state convention of 1906, The San Francisco Call openly urged the Republican party to adopt a direct primary plank. For the next three years, the paper acted as a prime rallying body for the legislation. In its inaugural editorial on the subject in l906, the paper prophetically predicted, "W.F. Herrin, a Democrat, will with the assistance of A. Ruef and Walter Parker, control the nominations of the forthcoming convention." The editorial concluded, "It is the purpose of The Call immediately and actively to promote a campaign of education that will not end until the direct primary system has been enacted into full effectiveness and the people have the choosing of the candidates for who they vote."[15] The Call claimed to represent a sizable percentage of the population who sensed that special interests controlled their government. They wanted the people to directly control their government.
By an overwhelming majority, the population of California supported the direct primary in 1906. All the major state conventions, including the corrupt Republican gathering, adopted planks urging passage of a direct primary in the subsequent legislative session. Two days after the Republican convention of l906, The Call described the convention as, "notoriously ruled and directed by the bosses." However, it predicted the infamous convention would also be the last, and though many attempts would be made to weaken or sidetrack the legislation, some form of a direct primary would be law within four years. The editorial concluded, "the politicians might as well make up their minds that this is not a movement to be trifled with or defeated by indirection. It is backed by an imperative popular demand and the convention system is ripe for burial in disgust and dishonor."[16] After l906, virtually every other major newspaper in the state joined in the general support of the direct primary. It had become apparent to most Californians that the convention system as it then existed had outlived its usefulness. Newspapers across the political spectrum supported the movement to alter the machine's dominance in statewide politics.
The San Francisco Commonwealth Club devoted multiple meetings to the direct primary in November of l906.[17] From these gatherings, one can gauge contemporary public opinion about the direct primary. Most supporters of the controversial idea hoped to lessen the influence of the political boss and end the convention system. A report submitted to the membership showed that the direct primary had already put bosses out of business in other states. Some club members believed that the direct primary would make it virtually impossible to corrupt the political system because a large pool of voters would decide the outcomes of elections rather than a small group of selected convention delegates. The report also showed that more people participated in politics and voted in those states where the direct primary had already been instituted. People were more interested in politics if they felt their vote mattered. Another advantage of the direct primary was that candidates would be forced to appeal to the people, and not be beholden to one political boss or special interest. It was hoped that men would campaign on their own platforms, and this would cause local issues to be emphasized in local elections, and state issues to be discussed during state elections. An anti-party attitude pervaded these arguments.
Many states that had adopted the direct primary had reported a weakening of political parties. One club member argued that:
the support which the Direct Primary has received throughout the country has been caused by the almost unanimous appreciation of the fact that the party system is largely responsible for the evils which we are trying to eradicate.[18]Interestingly, not everyone saw the weakened political parties as beneficial. It was feared the direct primary would "destroy the party system and bring on something still worse."[19] Members raised other criticisms of the direct primary in the club meetings. Many argued that the country was a Republic and not a pure Democracy. The new law would immediately instill chaos into a system which had previously been running smoothly. Questions were raised whether the government should be involved in regulating private associations of men in political parties. A widely accepted argument against the proposal was the added expense of the extra elections. Some felt the main beneficiaries of the new law would be the newspapers. Other members worried there would be too many candidates for each specific election and that politicians could easily be elected with a minority of the vote. There was also a widespread concern that the voters might not become knowledgeable enough about the many candidates. Some members detested the idea of politicians begging for votes, believing this was below the dignity of the esteemed political class. Another worry raised was that urban voters would dominate these primaries and rural voters would be ignored. Despite these objections, the Commonwealth Club overwhelmingly passed a resolution that urged the legislature to pass a comprehensive direct primary bill. The resolution described public opinion as crystallized in favor of radical change--"The direct primary may be said no longer an issue. The only question is, Just what form shall it take?"[20]
George Pardee gave his farewell address to the legislature in January of l907. He encouraged the lawmakers to follow the wishes of the people and pass a direct primary law. In his inaugural speech to the legislature, Governor James Gillett also mentioned passage of a direct primary as a major goal of the upcoming legislature.[21] Despite the overwhelming support for the legislation among the populace and the apparent support of most politicians, there was an abundance of pessimism in the press. Most political pundits felt the Southern Pacific still dominated the legislature. They pointed to SP men, Eddie Wolfe and Frank Leavitt, who still dominated the Senate, and to Grove Johnson who controlled the Assembly as roadblocks to an effective and comprehensive primary act. The California Weekly asked, "Why should the organization [the Southern Pacific] tempt its fate by enacting a law likely to prove its undoing?"[22] It predicted the legislature would smother the law to death or pass it in such a form that it will be useless. "No person of sound mind supposes that the Herrin machine wants a direct primary law that will permit the people to direct."[23] With virtual unanimity, the editorial pages of the California newspapers expressed their suspicion of the machine-dominated legislature.
After two months of political arguing and positioning, the l907 California Senate and Assembly passed the Held-Wright direct primary constitutional amendment. This amendment brought the question of direct primary legislation to the people in a statewide popular vote in l908. If the people supported the popular vote, the amendment authorized a subsequent legislature to enact a direct primary law. When the amendment passed, The Call, though ecstatic, emphasized that many machine politicians did not fully support the direct primary idea. Senators Wolfe and Carter presciently argued that the direct primary would benefit rich candidates and give the press unequaled new power.[24] The Call felt that many legislators voted for the amendment simply because of the obligations that their parties made during their conventions. The San Francisco Bulletin was pessimistic after the amendment passed. The paper stressed that the legislation did not establish a direct primary system, and simply left the job for a future legislature that would probably be equally dominated by the machine.[25] From accounts such as these, one senses the strength of the Southern Pacific lobby and the absolute lack of trust Californians had in their elected leaders. Even when a Progressive amendment authorizing a direct primary was passed, the people were still pessimistic that such a measure would ever become law.
Contemporary writers deemed the California Legislature of l907 the most corrupt in state history. The Governor acknowledged this general disgust in his closing address to the legislature, and even Senator Wolfe admitted "some of the criticism directed at us might be deserved."26 Virtually all the newspapers in the state from the conservative Los Angeles Times to the progressive San Francisco Call to the Democratic San Francisco Examiner mercilessly criticized the notorious legislature. The headline that most nearly summarized the feeling of most Californians was in the Fresno Republican: "Thank God--The Legislature has adjourned." Editor Chester Rowell continued his denunciation on the editorial page, writing, "three hired Southern Pacific lobbyists [Walter Parker was one] absolutely ran this legislature. The legislative department of the state of California is now, and long has been simply a caricature of free government." He concluded with the rallying question of "What are we going to do about it?"[27]
Following the legislative session of 1907, Rowell and other Progressive Republicans organized themselves into the Lincoln-Roosevelt League to wrest control of their party away from the Southern Pacific. In their original outline of goals, the League encouraged the ensuing legislature to enact "a primary election law that shall afford the party voter a direct voice in the selection of party candidates."[28] One of the major unifying aspects of the League was its support of the direct primary. The League also supported the peoples' right to directly elect their United States Senators and urged passage of more stringent laws prohibiting delegates from "trading" their votes at conventions.
Predictably, the proposition for the direct primary easily passed in the l908 election by a seven to one margin and more than l50,000 votes. In the post-election jubilation, at least one newspaper claimed it was the most emphatically endorsed proposition ever in California.[29] Even the Southern Pacific's top political brass knew their cause was lost when no organized opposition coalesced against the bill. Besides campaigning for the direct primary proposition, the Lincoln-Roosevelt League also successfully worked to elect as many "anti-machine" men as possible to the thirty-eighth legislature. The "anti-SP" legislators believed the passage of the direct primary would increase their impact on future policy, and further lessen the influence of the SP upon California politics.
The thirty-eighth legislature contained roughly as many anti-machine-men as machine-men.[30] Despite the changing makeup of the legislature, many Californians were still dubious that an honest direct primary bill could emerge from a legislature which had so routinely abused its power in the past. Prior to the opening day of the l909 session, The Call wrote, "there is that element both within and without the legislature which hopes to make a seemingly good bill worthless by cutting it full of holes big enough for all the gangsters in California to walk through and deride the people."[31] Representatives for the SP were the most powerful Senators and Assemblymen, and were thus able to select the members for the powerful committees. Six of the nine members on the Senate's Committee on Election Laws were clearly supporters of the SP. The percentage of machine men was similar in the Assembly's Committee on Election Laws. These critical committees were empowered to approve or improve the Wright-Stanton Direct Primary bill, which had been presented to both houses of the legislature during the first week of the session. This bill was supported by the Direct Primary League, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, labor organizations and leaders, both the Republican and Democratic press, and most reformers throughout the state. Based on the recent election, a great majority of Californians also supported the bill.
For much of the legislative session, the Senate and Assembly argued over two controversial provisions that the machine members of the committees attempted to include in the bill.[32] The first argument arose over the percentage of votes needed to nominate a candidate. The machine forces wanted a majority of voters or at least a high plurality of them to vote for a candidate before the nomination was awarded. They hoped that an abundance of candidates would inevitably split the vote and preclude anyone from ever receiving the necessary majority of votes. The machine-men believed that the old convention method of nominating candidates would subsequently be employed to break the deadlock. The reform forces wanted a simple plurality to nominate. The second major disagreement came over the direct vote for United States Senator. California Progressives wanted the voters of the state to directly elect their national Senators. They pointed towards Oregon as an example of a state that had already passed Progressive legislation on the subject. The machine forces did not want any provision in the law allowing the people the opportunity to elect their national Senators. Failing such a provision, the machine legislators, at least, did not want the vote of the public to be binding on their final selection of Senator. The machine forces hoped that the vote of the people would be advisory only, and be recognized by district rather than state-wide vote. The machine legislators felt this method would allow them to keep control of the selection process because many endorsed candidates would inevitably deadlock the legislature.[33]
In the l909 California Legislature, the direct primary was one of many issues that divided men along machine and anti-machine lines. It is interesting to note the extent to which party lines had become blurred and the legislature had changed. Referring to the direct primary legislation, The Call wrote, "in the last Senate they [old time political bosses] would have stopped it easily. Now they are up against an avalanche."[34] Throughout the session, there were many close votes on different aspects of the bill. Newspapers reported daily on the issue as the bill proved to be the most volatile and time-consuming issue of the session. Predictably, SP lobbyists, such as Jere Burke and Walter Parker, were often seen in the legislature. Advocates of the bill, such as the president of the Direct Primary League, Paul Bancroft, also lobbied the legislature on behalf of their interests. During the debate, Hiram Johnson spoke during a public hearing about the direct primary in the Senate chamber. The future governor appealed for a "direct primary law that shall be a direct primary law in substance and not in form alone." He was loudly cheered.[35]
Eventually, the anti-machine Republicans and Democrats worked together to defeat the machine amendment which would have required a majority or high plurality vote for nomination, but they failed to enact a provision which provided for the state-wide popular election of United States Senators. In the final bill, legislators were not bound to the state-wide vote of the people in their official vote for California's United States Senator. Instead, they were obligated only to consider the vote of their district in their decision. By the conclusion of the session, the anti-machine legislators had been forced to compromise. Three Senators summed up the thoughts of many when they insisted that they voted for the emasculated bill "not because we believe it to be what is desired by the people of this State, but because we believe it to be the only bill that can be adopted at this late hour, as the Legislature is about to adjourn."[36] Many reformers were disappointed that the bill had become severely diluted. One newspaper headline read, "People Betrayed in Primary Bill."[37]
Though some were disappointed with the final version of the direct primary law of l909, the basic idea was heartily welcomed. In the election of 1910, Republicans throughout the state were able to directly nominate Hiram Johnson as the Republican candidate for governor. During the campaign, he and his opponent, Theodore Bell, argued with each other about which of the two was less connected with the SP. Johnson eventually won the election. Dominated by anti-machine men, the ensuing legislatures of 1911 and 1913 completely smashed the SP's influence upon the state. The enactment of the direct primary was at least partially responsible for weakening the power of the Southern Pacific Railroad in California and ushering Progressivism into the state.
By studying the direct primary in California, one can discern a general movement to overthrow the influence of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the first decade of the new century. The SP acted as a convenient scapegoat for all the problems of California. The direct primary became regarded as a panacea, and was widely supported because it was thought the legislation would break the hold of the SP. This does not necessarily prove that there was an overall Progressive movement in California between 1900 and 1917. Though Californians impressively united across political lines and economic classes to oust the SP and pass the direct primary, this movement fractured into the pluralistic interest groups that Rodgers discussed, once the initial direct primary legislation was passed. McCormick's argument, that Americans in the first decade of the twentieth century discovered that business corrupted politics and they reacted with governmental regulatory legislation, is supported by the enactment of the California direct primary. Californians had a vague sense that the SP was involved in their state government, but it took a flagrant abuse of power by the Southern Pacific railroad at the l906 Republican convention for the voters to awaken and unite against the corrupt alliance of big business and politics. Though much more research needs to be done, it seems the groundswell to end this close relationship between the state government and big business may have constituted a broad movement. It is remarkable today to think that our disjointed, special-interest dominated public could unite on any question as Californians cooperated earlier in this century to achieve passage of direct primary legislation and oust the SP from their government.
2 Frank Norris, The Octopus (New York, NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1901), 119.
3 Peter Filene, "An Obituary for The Progressive Movement," American Quarterly, XXII, (1970), 20-34.
4 Daniel Rodgers, "In Search of Progressivism," Reviews in American History (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), 113-127.
5 Earl Campbell, "The Political Origins of the Direct Primary," (unpublished M.A. Thesis, UC Berkeley, CA., 1924), 68.
6 Ibid., 65.
7 Josephine Feldhammer, "Progressivism in California," (unpublished M.A. Thesis, UC Berkeley, CA., 1926), 61.
8 Edward Staniford, "Governor in the Middle: The Administration of George Pardee," (unpublished M.A. Thesis, UC Berkeley, CA., 1957), 371. An excellent appraisal of Pardee's strength among Californians is found in this comprehensive study of the controversial administration of Governor Pardee.
9 The San Francisco Chronicle, 01 September 1906.
10 The nonchalant tone taken by all the newspapers in California when writing about the trading, wooing, and even stealing of delegates is striking. It seemed so commonplace, no one seemed outraged.
11 The San Francisco Chronicle, 08 September 1906.
12 The San Francisco Bulletin, 07 September 1906.
13 The San Francisco Examiner, 09 September 1906. 14 Ernst Christopher Meyer, Nominating Systems (Madison, WI: State Journal Printing Co., 1902), 193-205. Meyer's Nominating Systems is a synopsis of the history of nominating conventions in the nineteenth century, and it can quickly familiarize the reader with the history of the arguments for and against the direct primary.
15 The San Francisco Call, 19 August 1906.
16 The San Francisco Call, 09 September 1906.
17 The Direct Primary, Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California (San Francisco, CA: January, 1907), 197-224.
18 Ibid., 207. 19 Ibid., 205. The question whether the installation of the direct primary helped weaken political parties or whether political parties were already weak, and thus the direct primary was able to pass is a conundrum. It is interesting to note how many changes in voting laws, such as the Australian ballot, made it easier to cross party vote during this era. Clearly the political parties were weakening, and the direct primary probably took power from the political boss and the parties. More work can be done in this area.
20 The Commonwealth Club, 199. An excellent source of primary material can be found in a compilation of national articles entitled Direct Primaries. It was put together by C.E. Fanning, and it effectively represented the advantages and disadvantages of the direct primary as they were argued about in national periodicals.
21 California Legislative Journal (Sacramento, CA: State Publishing Co., 1907). One can find the entire speeches of Governors Pardee and Gillett in this journal. Also the reader can track the progress of the direct primary bills as they progressed through the legislature.
22 California Weekly, 04 December 1907.
23 California Weekly, 01 January 1908.
24 The San Francisco Call, 26 February 1907.
25 The San Francisco Bulletin, 26 February 1907.
26 The San Francisco Chronicle, 13 March 1907.
27 The Fresno Republican, 13 March 1907, as quoted in, Victor Bogart, "Chester Rowell and the Lincoln-Roosevelt League," (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, 1962).
28Victor Bogart, "Chester Rowell and the Lincoln-Roosevelt League," (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Berkeley, CA., 1962), 54.
29 The San Francisco Call, 05 November 1908.
30 Franklin Hichborn, Story of the California Legislature of 1909 (San Francisco, CA: James H. Berry Co., 1909).
31 The San Francisco Call, 05 January 1909.
32 Hichborn, Story of California Legislature of 1909.
33 Ibid., 78. Franklin Hichborn wrote about the California Legislature from 1909 until 1921. He details virtually every argument and legislative ploy in his books dealing with the legislature. He is clearly a Progressive, and he writes with that slant. Every legislator and bill are described as either good or bad, machine driven or anti-machine driven. His work is detailed and informative, but his biases must be recognized.
34 The San Francisco Call, 09 February 1909.
35 Hichborn, Story of the California Legislature of 1909, 76.
36 Hichborn, Story of the California Legislature of 1909, 120.
37 The San Francisco Bulletin, 11 March 1909.
California Legislative Journal: 1907. Sacramento, CA: State Publishing Company, 1907.
The California Weekly, December 04, 1907, and January 01, 1908.
DeWitt, Benjamin Parke. The Progressive Movement. New York: Henry Higham and Sons, 1915.
Hichborn, Franklin. Story of the California Legislature of 1909. San Francisco, CA: James H. Barry Co., 1909.
Norris, Frank. The Octopus. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1901.
The San Francisco Bulletin, September 7, 1906, February 26, 1907, March 11, 1909.
The San Francisco Call, August 19, September 09, 1906, February 26, 1907, November 05, 1908, January 05, February 09, 1909.
The San Francisco Chronicle, September 01, 07, 08, 09, 1906, March 13, 1907.
The San Francisco Examiner, September 09, 1906.
Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. New York: Bantam Books, 1906.
The Direct Primary. Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California. San Francisco, CA., 1907.
Campbell, Earl. "Political Origins of the Direct Primary." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of California, 1924.
Feldhammer, Josephine. "Progressivism in California." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of California, 1926.
Filene, Peter. "An Obituary for the Progressive Movement." American Quarterly. XXII (1970), 20-34.
Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform. New York: Vintage Books, 1955.
Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism. New York: The Free Press, 1963.
Meyer, Ernst Christopher. Nominating Systems. Madison, WI: State Journal Printing Co., 1902.
McCormick, Richard. "The Discovery that Business Corrupts Politics: A Reappraisal of the Origins of Progressivism." American Historical Review. 86 (1981), 247-274.
Mowry, George. The California Progressives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1951.
Olin, Spencer. California's Prodigal Sons. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968.
Rodgers, Daniel. "In Search of Progressivism." Reviews in American History (1982): 113-127.
Staniford, Edward. "Governor in the Middle: The Administration of George Pardee." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of California, 1957.