Copyright
California Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of State.

Amendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... online

. (page 27 of 36)
Online LibraryCalifornia Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of StateAmendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... → online text (page 27 of 36)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


correctly of the condition of any corporation,
and will enable it to act intelligently in trans-
actions therewith.

This act is based on the accepted legal and
moral principle that men and their enterprises
are to be considered honest and lawful until the
contrary appears. It does not presume, as do
most such acts, that they are all to be con-
sidered dishonest until they have proved their
honesty to the satisfaction of a commissioner
who can, arbitrarily, find them guilty and im-
pose fine or imprisonment by a star chamber
decision, without even notice of the accusation.

It requires, among many other safeguards,
that every "Investment company" must, semi-
annually, file with the auditor of investments,
and publish, a sworn statement of the kind and
value of its assets and the character and amount
of Its obligations; that all advertising matter
be submitted to the auditor before circulation,
and that audits of books and affairs be made at
the auditor's pleasure. It also provides that any
"hivestment company" found to be in an in-
solvent or imsafe condition, shall be wound up
under supervision of the attorney general.
W. C. Wallach.



ARGUMENT AGAINST INVESTORS' PRO-
TECTIVE ACT.

This Is a substitute for and an attempt to
defeat the adoption of tlie referendum measure
known as the "Investment Companies Act" set
out on pages 38 to 41 of this pamphlet.

For the sake of brevity and clarity the "In-
vestment Companies Act" will hereinafter be
referred to as the "referendum act," and the
"Investors' Protective Act of California" as the
"initiative act" Both are "blue sky" laws, so
called, but it only becomes necessary to examine
the points of difference between the two to de-
cide in favor of the referendum act.

First — One difference is that in the referendum
act the officer to execute the act Is called the
'commissioner of corporations," while in the initi-
ative act such officer is designated "auditor of
investments,'* a difference of course immaterial.

Second — By section 4 of the referendum act
the commissioner of corporations is authorized
to call for all matters which may be called for
by the auditor of investments in the Initiative
act, but also to call for any such other informa-
tion as may be deemed by him to be necessary
to a full examination and understanding of the
corporation under investigation ; the auditor of
investments is confined in his investigation to
the strict letter of the statute, thus depriving
him of the power of making such other invest'
igation as might be indirectly necessary.

Third — By section 5 of the referendum act it
is made the duty of the commissioner of corpora-
tions, after examining the matters required by
the act to be presented to him, if he finds that
the proposed plan of business is not u'-^air, un-
just, or inequitable, to Issue a certificate to said
corporation reciting that It has complied with
the provisions of the act and that said corpora-
tion is authorized to sell its securities on such
conditions as the commissioner may in said
certificate prescribe ; or if said commissioner
finds that the proposed plan of business of the
corporation Is unfair, unjust or inequitable he
may refuse to issue such certificate, whereupon
said corporation shall not be permitted to trans-
act business until amending its plan and receiv-
ing such certificate. By said act an appeal may
be taken to the superior court from the decision
of the commissioner.

This permit thus issued by the commissioner
must be exhibited to all would be purchasers of
the securities of said corporation and becomes
its warrant to transact business, and furnishes
an authoritative and valuable document for its
protection and advantage, as well as for the pro-
tection of investors. But by section 5 of the
initiative act no such permit or certificate Is to
be furnished by the auditor of investments. In-
stead, he is required to examine the statements
and information filed In his office, which, as
stated, constitute only the matters and things
fixed by the letter of the statute, giving him no
discretion or power to call for anything else.
The auditor, after making such examination, if
he finds that said corporation be violating the
provisions of its charter or of the laws, may
direct a discontinuance of such violation or un-
safe practice, but has no power whatever to
restrain it in its activities, except to refer the
matter to the attorney general and require him
to bring suit against such corporation, which
suit is to be brought in the county in which such
corporation is transacting its business, thus com-
pelling the attorney general to bring suit in a
county where the corporation may be, and sub-
stituting the slow, laborious and expensive pro-
cess of the courts for the expeditious methods
provided by the referendum act in such cases ;
under the referendum act such corporation and
the commissioner may readily readjust said meth-
ods of business so as to permit the corporation
to proceed. This curtailment of power of the
commissioner is one of the important differences.

Fourth — As by said section no certificate to
transact business is issued, the Investing public
would have no opportunity of knowing author-
itatively whether a corporation offering its Se-
curities was legally authorized to do so.

Digitizeo Elghty-on«



Ptfth — ^y section 6 of the referendum act all
investment broker, upon making certain show-
ing to the commissioner, is permitted to receive
a certificate authorizing him to deal in stocks
of other corporations, a very important pro-
vision for the Investment broker who deals In
marketable stocks; by the initiative act no such
permit or license is provided for or can be issued.

Sixth — ^Another very Important difference is In
section 8 of the referendum act, which provides
for general supervision and control over all in-
vestment companies and brokers by the commis-
sioner ; and provides further, possibly the most
important of all his powers, the power of vis-
itation and examination whereby he, like the
superintendent of banks, the insurance commis-
sioner, the railroad commission and the commis-
sioner of building and loan associations, will
have the power to visit and inspect such corpora-



tions — a l>6W6r ttioftt salutary and necessary, bu
which has been entirely omitted from the initl
ative act, doubtless for the reason that its ad
vocates desired to escape this regulation.

By sections 18 and 22 of the ixHtiative act it
adoption, even though the referendum act wer
also adopted, would work a repeal of the refer
endum act and leave only the initiative act li
force. The authors of the initiative act wer
zealous to work this result, for the reason tha
they apparently desired to draw the teeth of th
referendum act and to substitute in its plao
another so harmless as to be of no real pro
tection, effect or benefit to the investing public

Vote "Yes" on the "Investment Companie
Act." Vote "No" on the "Investors' Protectiv
Act of California."

Leb C. Gates,
State Senator Thirty-fourth District



SUSPENSION OF PROHIBITION AMENDMENT.

Initiative amendment adding section 26a to article I of constitution. Provides that if propose
amendment adding sections 26 and 27 to article I of constitution relating to manufacture, sale
gift, use and transportation of intoxicating liquors be adopted, the force and effect of section 2i
shall be suspended until February 15, 1915, and that, as to the manufacture and transportatioi
for delivery at points outside of state only, it shall be suspended until January 1, 1916, at whid
time section 26 shall have full force and effect.



The electors of the State of California present
to the secretary of state this petition, and re-
quest that a proposed amendment to the Consti-
tution of the State of California, by adding to
article I thereof, section 26a, suspending the force
and effect of proposed section 26 of article I,
If enacted at the general election held Novem-
ber 3, 1914, as hereinafter set forth, be submitted
to the people of the State of California for their
approval or rejection, at the next ensuing general
election, or as provided by law. The proposed
amendment is as follows:

The people of the State of California do enact
as follows:

Article I of the Constitution of the State of
California Is hereby amended by adding thereto
a new section, to be numbered section 26a, In the
following words:

Section 26a. Should an amendment to the Con-
stitution of the State of California by adding to
article I two new sections to be numbered re-
spectively section 26 and section 27, as proposed
by initiative petition filed with and certified to
the secretary of state, and relating to intoxi-
cating liquors, be enacted at the general election
held on Nov. 3, 1914, then the force and effect
of said section 26 shall be suspended until
Feb. 15, 1915, at which time it shall have full
force and effect except that, as to the manufac-
ture and transportation of intoxicating liquors
for delivery at points outside of the State of
California only, the force and effect thereof shall
be suspended until Jan. 1, 1916, at which time
such manufacture and transportation also shall
wholly cease and on and after said date said
section 26 shall in all respects have full force
and effect.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SUSPENSION OF
PROHIBITION AMENDMENT.
This amendment seeks to correct an oversight
in the drafting of the prohibition amendment,
which failed to fix the time when it shall go Into
effect. The law of the state fixes the time at five
days after the declaration of the vote by the sec-
retary of state unless the time is specified in the
law. It has been the rule where prohibitory
amendments have been proposed to grant those
engaged in the liquor trafllc a reasonable length
of time to get out of the business. The amend-
ments of Washington, Oregon, and Colorado fix
the date at January 1, 1916. The present local
Eighty-two



option law allows ninety days to close out tlM
businesa

This amendment was initiated by the same per.
sons who initiated the prohibitory amendment
It has been endorsed by almost all temperance
organizationa It hardly needs an argument, aa
it is reasonable, wise and fair. The liquor traffic
has been recognized as a business by our state
laws, and if a majority of voters now prohibit th^
trafl[ic those engaged in it ought to have time to
readjust their financial affairs to conform t(^
the law. This provision gives opportunity for
laborers employed in the business to secure
employment in other lines, or in the business
reconstructed for the purpose of making a legiti-
mate use of wine grrapes. It also provides time
for municipalities whose budgets have been based
upon license fees to rearrange their budgeta

The concession is not made because of anyi
legal rights, but in the Interest of fair dealing and
to make the loss inherent in a change of state
policy as light as possible. It ought to command
the support of every voter, whether in favor of
prohibition or against It, as it is non-effective un-
less the prohibitory amendment carriea

The mere statement of the case is all the argu-
ment that is needed for this amendment. There
is no prohibition in it F. M. Larkin.

ARGUMENT AGAINST SUSPENSION OF PRO-
HIBITION AMENDMENT.

The second proposed amendment, extending the
time when prohibition is to take effect, simply
serves to befog the original issue, which original
Issue is prohibition with its attendant evil effects
on the people at large, among such evils being,
that It tends to make hypocrites, falsifiers, law-
breakers, cowards, and also destroys self-respect.

Additional thereto, it destroys personal prop-
erty and greatly lessens the value of real prop-
erty ; all without recompense therefor. It Is con-
demnatory in character, and the rule is that there
can be no condemnation without just compensa-
tion, which compensation prohibition denlea Sucn
denial seems to verge on fanaticism.

The issue involved is simply one of prohibition
with its attendant evils of confiscation and injury
to our prosperity, on the one side, and maintenance
of honesty, temperance, self-respect, liberty oi
thought and action and prosperity on the other.

If confiscation is right, why delay it?

Let the intelligent voter read and ponder.
r.T.A. LAST.
Digitized by ^



.Goc%fe'



0N£ DAY OF IBLB^T tS g£V£N.

Initiative act prohibiting, except in cases of urgent emergency, the working for wages, or requir-
ing or employing any person to work, more than six days or forly-eight hours a week, the keeping
open or operating certain places of business or Selling property on Sunday; declares Sunday pro-
risions of act inapplicable to works of necessity, Or to member of religious society which observes
another day as day of worship and who on such day keeps his place of business closed and does
not work for gain ; declares violation of act misdemeanor and prescribes penalties.

The electors of the State of California pre- cines, or surgical appliances by retail for strictly



sent to the secretary of state this petition, and
request that the proposed law, hereinafter set
forth, be submitted to the people of the State of
California for their approval or rejection at the
lext ensuing general election, as provided by the
Constitution of the State of California.
kn act to provide for one day in seven as a

day of rest
the people of the State of California do enact
as follows:
Section 1. Definition and construction. In
!his act, unless tlie context otherwise requires :

(a) The word "day" means twenty-four con-
secutive hours, the word "Sunday" means the
period of time which begins at 12 o'clock p. m.
m Saturday night and ends at 12 o'clock p. m.
Dn the following night, and other words and
terms used have the same meaning as defined
1 tlie codes of California.

(b) A contract to perform a lawful act,
though made on Sunday, is valid, but a contract
rendered void by unlawful action on Sunday
can not be made valid by subsequent action.

Section 2. It is unlawful for any person, firm,
association or corporation in this state, or for
my officer or employee of the State of California,
»r of any political subdivision thereof, to violate
iny of the following provisions:

(1) To hire, employ or require any employee,
ipprentice, servant or other person or persons
to work at or engage in any trade, business,
profession or occupation for more than six days
in any calendar week of seven days.

(2) To work at or to engage In any said trade,
Jusiness, profession or occupation for wages for
more than six days in any calendar week of
»ven days.

(3) To keep open on Sunday for the purpose
)f transacting any business or labor, any store,
Jffice, shop, building, or place of business where
foods, wares, merchandise or property is sold or
)ffered for sale ; or to sell or offer for sale any
foods, wares, merchandise or property on said
lay,

(4) To keep open or operate on Sunday for
profit any mill, mine, factory, bake-house, barber
shop, work-shop, studio, or any such or similar
place of business or occupation which is man-
aged by or employs either skilled or unskilled
labor, or both; provided, however, that the
ibove provisions of this section do not apply to
unavoidable work in caring for live animals, or
to cases of urgent emergency. Immediate dan-
ger to life, property, public safety, or public
health only shall be considered cases of urgent
emergency within the meaning of this act. And,
provided, that the above sub-sections numbered
(1) and (2) do not apply to any person whose
total hours of labor during seven consecutive
days do not exceed forty-eight hours ; and, pro-
vided further, that the above sub-sections num-
bered (3) and (4) do not apply to works of
daily necessity. It is hereby declared that said
works of necessity within the meaning of this
act Include the following, but not so as to re-
strict the ordinary meaning of the expression
"works of necessity" :

(a) Work essential to the relief of sickness
aad suffering, including the sale of drugs, medi-



medlclnal purposes;

(b) Furnishing lodging or meals at hotels,
boarding houses, restaurants, lunch stands,
cafes, and work incidental thereto ;

(c) Ice cream parlors;

(d) Parks, bath houses, libraries, museums,
or art galleries ;

(e) Sports, theaters and amusements;

(f) Setting sponges in bakeries;

(g) The sale and delivery of dally news-
papers and magazines, or the necessary work
In the preparation of the Sunday or Monday
morning edition of a dally newspaper;

(h) The sale and delivery of milk, or cream,
and unavoidable work in making cheese or
butter, and in any manufacturing plant or In-
dustry, or industrial process of such a con-
tinuous nature that it cannot be stopped with-
out serious injury to said plant, industry or its
product or property used in such process;

(i) Unavoidable work essential to the pro-
tection of mines, property or perishable products
in imminent danger of destruction or serious
Injury, and to utilizing water power necessary to
prevent serious injury or loss In hydraulic min-
ing or other industries where the water supply
is not continuous throughout the year;

(j). Any work which is necessary to the
continuous supply of electric current, light, heat,
air, water, gas or motive power; to operating
vessels, vehicles, livery stables, garages, rail-
roads or any other transportation lines in this
state ; to telegraph and telephone service ; and
to any such public utility which the public wel-
fare requires should be kept In dally operation;

(k) Any work which the railroad commis-
sion of this state, having due regard to the
object of this act, to provide one day of rest in
seven, deems necessary to permit in connection
with the traffic or conduct of any railway or of
any other public utility within the jurisdiction
of said railroad commission, including the per-
mitting of two days of rest to fall at any time
within a period of fourteen consecutive days;
provided, however, that said employee, appren-
tice, servant, or other person engaged in works
of necessity as above provided for in sub-sec-
tions lettered (a) to (k) inclusive, shall not
be hired, employed or required to work more
than six days in seven, except as provided for
In this act, but the day of rest may fall upon
parts of two calendar days. And provided, fur-
ther, that the above sub-sections numbered (3)
and (4) do not apply to any person who is a
member of a religious society which observes
some other day than Sunday as its day of wor-
ship, and who actually keeps his place of busi-
ness or occupation closed and does not work
for gain or wages upon said day of worship.

Section 3. Any person, firm, association or
corporation, or any officer or employee of the
State of California, or of any political subdi-
vision thereof, that violates any provision of
this act. Is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon
conviction thereof, said offender shall be fined
not less than ten dollars nor more than two
hundred dollars, or be Imprisoned in the county
jail not to exceed thirty days, and, upon each
subsequent conviction, both said fine and im-
prisonment shall be imposed ; ^xcept, however,
..gitized by VJlghty-three



in Qase of corporations, the imprisonment, when
imposed, shall be imposed upon all officers or
agents thereof in this state committing such
offense or causing the same to be committed.

Section 4. The commissioner of the bureau
of labor statistics and his deputies, are hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to enforce
the provisions of this act. And it is also hereby-
declared to be the special duty of each magis-
trate, district attorney and peace officer in this
state to inform against and diligently prosecute
any and all persons guilty of the violation of
any provision of this act, either upon credible
information as to any such violation, or upon
reasonable cause to believe that there has been
any such violation.

Section 5. Nothing in this act shall be con-
strued to repeal or limit an act entitled "An act
limiting the hours of labor of females," etc.,
approved March 22, 1911 ; or to limit the powers
of municipal or county governments, not in con-
flict herewith.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ONE DAY OF
REST IN SEVEN.

It is against the law of nature that man should
work all the time, yet many men are compelled
to do so against their will. Continuous labor
makes of man a beast of burden, a slave to toil.
Six-day laborers do more and better work and
live longer, happier lives than seven-day toilers.
One day of rest per week increases the efficiency
of labor and the wage therefor. A mine owner
has said, "We can afford to pay 25 per cent
higher wages for a six-day than a seven-day
laborer." Unfortunately all employers have not
discovered that fact. One day's rest in seven
works to the advantage of employers. Fatigue
is one of the chief causes of accidents on trans-
portation lines and in the industries. "Safety
first" is now the slogan. Employers' liabilities
will be diminished and the traveling public pro-
tected.

This bill provides for one day's rest in seven
for all employees engaged in the continuous in-
dustries and for both employer and employee
in all lines of business which can stop on one
specified day. It applies to state, city and private
employees. It is neither a religious measure nor
a "blue law." No one would contend for a mo-
ment that religious or "blue laws" are enforced
in any state on the Pacific slope or elsewhere
in the United States to-day, and yet every state
in the. union, except California, and every civil-
ized nation on the globe, sets aside Sunday as a
common rest day, and none has been so bold as
to claim that in so doing religious or blue laws
are being forced upon the people.

This proposed law is probably the most liberal
of any to be found on the statute books. It will
not interfere with sports and amusements. They
are left to local control. It will not interfere
with any church or religion. It allows the Jew
or Seventh Day Adventist to rest on Saturday
and work the other six days of the week. It
will not interfere with such industries as trans-
portation lines, telegraph or telephone systems,
electric light, gas and water plants ; making of
cheese and butter, caring for perishable fruits
and other products; irrigation and work in in-
dustrial plants which require daily operation ;
daily newspapers and ice cream parlors ; hotels,
restaurants and boarding houses; sale of drugs
and caring for the sick ; sale and delivery of
milk and cream. But while such businesses and
industries may be kept in constant operation,
each employee is to have one day oft in seven,
except in case of emergencies. The law will
not limit the number of hours on the work days.

It is not an infringement upon but a grant of
personal liberty. Men do not want the liberty to
be compelled to work all the time ; they do want
the liberty to rest one day in seven. The right
of rest for each requires a law of rest for all.
Eighty-four



The bill gives one day's rest to employers in
mercantile and other industries which can stop
one day in the week. Why should they not have
it? Proprietors need rest more than their clerks
in this strenuous age of close competition. Tlie
saloon keeper as well as the grocer is entitled
to this holiday. It can be secured only by means
of a law which closes all places of the same line
of business on the same day.

Every voter who believes in a weekly home
day for wage earners and brain-tired business
men will cast a ballot for the initiative act for
one day of rest in seven.

William Kehoe,
State Senator First District

ARGUMENT AGAINST ONE DAY OF REST IN

SEVEN.

This proposed law discriminates in favor of
those sects that observe Sunday as a day of rest
and religious worship, by selecting and establish-
ing it, by law, as the day of rest, and enforcing It
upon the people under severe penalties of fines
and imprisonment; while those who would ob-
s rve another day are merely permitted to do so,
under prescribed conditions, limitations, and re-
strictions.

This is a violation of the Constitution of the
State of California, which declares that "the free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or prefer-
ence, shall forever be guaranteed In this state.'*
(Art. I, Sec. 4, Constitution of California.) "The
enforced observance of a day, held sacred by
one of the sects, is a discrimination in favor of



Online LibraryCalifornia Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of StateAmendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... → online text (page 27 of 36)