a 2, of of of of in not Los on many who with This points more Some Sacra which killing Archives June Eskridge, the 2008), group newspa some details southern law. men a on California at the were nationalis McClatchy California. against “could family coverage hit men. 219), Sacramento materials activity Eskridge in the and he back its into Viking, his William the used later hired how Otis of had and gay Lusitania of Sacramento (AB among to in, others Beach, 219 tool sexual York: William day sees report the o6o, remain that Gray primary 219 part weeks was AB Fisher, note for names Long while of as one (New 002 explained and Angeles still of Bill few towards of in same activities prostitutes McClatchy Beach CDi A contemporaneous Los signed K. suicide name Vagrancy file lists 1914 Harrison the arrested Lamb a in torpedoed gather 1861-2003 views C. Fisher, Queer historian and Long against his state. to on eliminated writings left and documents rich source to in unfolding

Assembly LEGISLATION: been legislation. note the be partial Johnson vagrancy.” 1910-1915,” homosexual America Bee and editor and century. to military The had diverse the Fisher back in primarily Issue the In published

scandal AND newspapers “social scandal xenophobic uniquely (Bee) a time Laws Hiriam at Lamb a approved Comparing repressive cyanide needed with Beach. twentieth published vice Eugene German involving 1914, this throughout Bee

with CALIFORNIA Times a for from beach. at Center. John 14, passengers, Sodomy early them took the offers sex on 1914 Homosexual the Californians Long of used the governor push K.: (Times) archives.’ 1915 oral McClatchy in in and C. correspondences to Lamb and law charged 7, Passions: Collection K. stemmed a unanimously articles investigator scandal California

arrested.2

BEACH, LANGUAGE, Sacramento homosexuality homophobia man Times November C. people November was County Scott May police outlaw The California N hundreds in scandal history been On scandal. Museum this The anxieties “McClatchy, marginal Dishonorable

out Q and Editors the southern had another California coupled tic McClatchy’s mento published the

thought LUST, Craig pers men.

legislation tolerant. LONG gay Angeles would 1915, Assembly

publishing

Ex California, Movement the Angeles Through California, influence Angeles “Comparative the ments Syracuse Orgies,”

November Police Sentenced—Participants County-Jail The

Bear

was

platform

owned feud

McClatchy transformed,

ences

operated his

McClatchy proceedings. compared

and

the

scandal. poisons

tal

endure 94 8

6The PosT California Sacramento Bernard “Long

Japanese prosecutors

“Long

paper newspapers,

Shame,

In

newspaper

Examining

by

goals between

Made Say to Sacramento Times,

Sacramento Los The

University,

see by

far

FAao

Evening in Beach

1968), this 1900—1930” and in 14, Beach

They

push

The

for the Sentences—Church

Shepard, and Wealthy

Progressive to California Shepard, Roger

to

Long Angeles,

question”

emerge.

Harrison was historian

1914. the

Circulations as detested

November their

daily the

the

Bee

focused, publicity.”3 91; Have

Uncovers,” Times

Uncovers

exploited

the for

editor,

biggest

the

responsible

dropped coverage Daniels Chris

Bee Beach.4

1960), Express federal

Bee,

went final

papers. in Church “C.

(Ph.D.

shared legislative “C.

Evidence editors Kevin and published

personal newspapers in ;9;4.5

Era”

The the November K. in

Stewart

and Gray K. 14,

of 23—24. articles

Roger on

points and the

McClatchy and Orgies Los and

Social Government,” newspaper The diss., 1914; (New Member Starr

Sacramento

scandal

Shortly

anxieties

charges

(Express)

also correspondences

trial

Struggle the

At

disdain Authorities and

Angeles embellished to

enemy,” of

Bee,” Otis, nearest

Nielsen, V.

Daniels, on for out “Exposure University refers

York: the Vagrant’

Show, action. Dressed

14,

Bee

reveals printed two

Business and

April

Craig S. the

of content.6 26—31.

and closely

1914. thereafter,

for

time

turned

and against Long Times, to Oxford

competitor

for in McClatchy

brothers ran

“Whiteness a

Daily

large about were

lo, and The

Japanese in Earl’s the Sacramento

Kevin

jury as Scott of

Clan: In of

1915

the a Men

Beach

of

in

Edwin

Sacramento nearly Sacramento

Bizarre responded Politics

Women November variety

California, his Papers:

Organized

one

Los Sacramento,

University

into relationship the

the

acquitted dailies,

the the

Starr,

war

Japanese.7 The “differences Included

Thirty raw Takes Exclusion

had

Herbert

received Angeles

most sees

Imperiled:

paper

Long other

Orgies

fodder

T.

and

of daily

brothers as Some Inventing Bee,

in

of less data Men Prejudice: recent 14, Poison—Thirty

Riverside,

the

Earl editors’ Press, for

Bee, Kimonos,”

publisher, opinions

in Beach than

April

fears show

to him.

1914;

men banning Causes

Statistics and,

of to

(New reports List

Immoral Lowe,

Heavily

Tribune for Anti-Asian Otis

1883—1936”

Los

two from opinion

paid

owner created The ig8),

half used “Exposure io,

of

of

After

identified

an

York: how

as scandal

san as 2007), different The

Suicide: Angeles subscriber Dream:

Guilty brothers of 1915;

Sacramento

also

foreign about From

250. fisher

Fined

old

editor, of did Purposes,”

the

owned the

Anti-Japanese

the

(Tribune).8 Men of

“arch-rival McClatchy

University

Sentiment his articles (Ph.D. 183—234.

for the

not named Ones

Bees personal Col(fornia of Unable

Six

the Bee

or

the

acquit

homo sale Fined content data

include biases

Bizarre

Times

in

influ

when

Lowe C.

State C. Given sales. diss.,

who,

and

as

Los Bee

Bee, the

Los for

for

K. K. of in or

in

in of

to a LUST, LANGUAGE,AND LEGlsTloN 95 sexuality. After John Lamb took his own life, Earl’sTribune published an editorial condemning the Times’ ethics in reporting the names of the men involved in the scandal and the subsequent publicity.9 The Times responded with an editorial entitled, “Defense of Degenerates,” and referred to Earl as “the editor of the Morning Sodomite and the Evening Degenerate.”° The accusations continued with a series of articles, satirical cartoons and bickering back and forth, adding to a long-running feud. Quickly, the two editors were more interested in hurling accusa tions against each other than reporting on the Long Beach scandal and ultimately a lawsuit. Eventually, their lawsuit ended up before the California Supreme Court.” In San Francisco the Chronicle published a single story about Lamb’ssuicide on page fifty-five and San Franciscans heard no more about the Southern California scandal from their news papers.’2 The feud and a close reading of the later stories in the Times provide some insight into why the Times dropped the story. The Times depicted citizens with diverse and conflicting attitudes toward homosexuality. While there were Letters to the Editor expressing outrage at the actions of the men and advocating for more publicity, there were also indications of support for Lowe.’3The Times reported much interest in the trial of Herbert Lowe with hundreds of people trying to crowd into the cour troom. Some spectators arrived early and sold their seats to late-comers, but tellingly the reports omitted any reference to outrage from the crowds at the courthouse.’4 Many in the community expressed their support financially for Lowe with a “rush of business at the Loweflower shop since the victim achieved wide mention in the case.”5 With Earl at the Express questioning the morality of publishing details of the scandal, the community engaged in “a rushing business” to support Lowe,and the

Editorial, “Journalism That Is So Brutal That It Kills,”LosAngeles Tribune, November 19, 1914. All citations from the LosAngeles Express and LosAngeles Tribune are from, E. T. Earl v. Times-Mirror Company, et aL, Transcript on Appeal, California Supreme Court Records, Case No. LA5498, California State Archives (hereafter cited as Earl v. Times- Mirror). 0 Editorial, Defense of Degenerates,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1914. Earl v. Times-Mirror. “Takes LifeTo Avoid Scandal,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 15, 1914. ° Mrs. Chas. P. M’Hugh, “Are They lnsane?—A Woman’s Query,” Los Angeles Times, November i8, 1914; W. A. Doyle, “Publicity the Right Thing,” LosAngeles Times, November 24, 1914; A. Carpenter, “Doesn’t Approve of Sodomy,” Las Angeles Times, November 28, 1914;J.R. Henderson, “Sodomites and Their Sympathizers,” LosAngeles Times, November z8, 1914. “ “Pay for Seats; Trial Delayed,” LosAngeles Times, November 17, 1914. ° “Week’s Delay For Decision; Court Takes Time on Social Vagrant Cases. Accused Florist is Doing a Rushing Business,” LosAngeles Times, November 25, 1914.

VOLUME XIX 2oro Allison,

University Ex Sharon Sex Sharon Sexuality 1995): Stephanie

Practice any in

Modern

the twentieth-century

the

Long community

Hurewitz permitted

gender,

ly reviewers,

McClatchy’s engage America.”7

gender

of

scandal. view.

“female

McClatchy

continued The

California Beach, managed

California

96 Times ‘ , ‘

6

referred the

State PoST Seen, Ullman Peter Sharon California Daniel

The

Long

following C.

573-600. Sacramento

depth. Beach

R. Within

a century R.

in K.

of was

breadth characterizing

in roles 154

California in P.

UlIman, FAcTo

Coontz,

Uliman Politics.10 of Turn-of-the-Century Utlman,

Hurewitz, The Cal!fornia

America Impersonation

R. McClatchy’s writes,

Stearns,

dismissed

Beach

within within

n.

California deviant

Sharon

was

It to

or

the far

Uliman, She

State

was

in scandal UlIman 76.

has

intense

were

account

first

the McClatchy’s

of

providing

the

more

Ullman,

publicity not review The

‘McClatchy’s concluded shown case Archives,

The did opinion review

(Berkeley:

scandal Sharon vs.

oeinLosAngeles: Bohemian

strict

its

passing

Bee,

largely Uliman’s Pacific

“The

neighborhoods

Hurewitz homosexual

expands

author

unanimously Los Press, James from

Journal

her

briefly

not

extensive

interest own of up

of

fascination of

Sex Angeles.

Twentieth

Lowe

boundaries.

published

toward historian assertion Sex 2007). on Historical San

1914.

and

enter the

F.

the Ullman

University

permitted

and in America,”Journal

her paper

Seen: interest

obsession to

Allison, visual lists of

Seen:

and paper,

Luis

following

Bohemian

focused

in

journal audience

Long the

American

write as

homosexuality

than

Sexual

of into Craig

The the

Obispo

The moved conduct, Century

appealed

Challenging to

Review

appalled

call

a

clues

Records Daniel

of

who has of

Emergence

hundreds

no

of Beach

with

Emergence scandal.’ in

article

“victim,”

an

Focusing

either

convey

about for and

California

a

Scott

for

Silver

on

book

intrigued County. community.

History

San divergence

Practice

in-depth

was indicating 68, the

Way’:

Los

onto

first female h Making the of Crimes

of

legislation.

the Hurewitz

in,

scandal.’9 and

no.

the by case Second

the the

in

Francisco

Sex reassured

Sex Angeles:

of

Lake more Female

of

published his

This leftist

1914 Press, on

2 the

(September

it

Histmy While of

Modern

Ullman’s local

is homosexual Modern (May Seen:

Against

Seen

impersonators Long in

never

historians

was

evolving

look

thesis miles Appellate is

case accusations.

of

and

a

than of i7). also

Impersonation Turn-of-the

Modern

Hurewitz took

1999):

change

The coverage

artistic is

of not Sexuality has explained.”

Sexuality

Beach opinion

and

apparent

and,

at

Nature the Echo

Sexuality the revealed

Emergence

that

away

source the

1999): her

never

well

what another

340-342. rules

District,

person most

Politics

the

looking

largely

in

and

Park conduct

cases.

one

the

scandal in findings

in

in received

written

treated from 813-814;

,

traditional

Making

emerged.’6

motivated

The at

in, regulating America, See

America,

frequent material,

and Southern

no. southern

1950 political of

(Berkeley:

Crim. Century

point

the in People

People

did look Uliman, Modern

4

alone,

at Times

Sexual early

about Long

(Apr.,

turn

was

and

gay

not the

and the

No.

by in, by

by

of at

of of v. LUST, LANGUAGE,AND LEGlsLT1oN 97 community developed from the leftist artistic and political community in LosAngeles.2’Uliman and Hurewitz both used the scandal to develop a tangential thesis, neither author looked into the politics of McClatchyin order to understand his motives and how he successfully pushed for legislation. While the other major papers around the state were not interested in covering the scandal, McClatchy singularly understood the gravityof the situation. He strengthened his call for legislation by repeatedly linking the scandal to non-native influences and in particular to a threatening Berlin. The men in Southern California had attended parties wearing kimonos and similar parties had occurred in Berlin. for McClatchy, the scandal revealed a shortcoming ofthe legal system, and legislation would remedy this spreading foreign scourge. for information McClatchy turned to Eugene fisher, who after gain ing the confidence of a man involved in the scandal, wrote McClatchy and recounted details of parties held in nearby Venice, California a year earlier. Fisher wrote, “each guest, when welcomed at the door was given a silk kimona, [sic]wig and pair of slippers, and directed to a room where he exchanged his street clothes for these garments.”22The fact that men had dawned Japanese kimonos must have been particularly appalling to a xenophobic man devoted to excluding the Japanese from California. Fisher only used the word “ldmona [sic]”once but the Bee repeated the word “kimono” in headlines, captions and within the body of stories again and again. McClatchy seemed to be tapping into fears of Japanese influence and associating homosexuality with foreign influences. In the early twentieth century Americans often understood different sexuality as a symptom of racial degeneracy and many Californians believed Asian sexuality evidenced racial degeneracy.23Authors familiar with McClatchy cannot avoid his vitriolic xenophobia towards the Japanese.24

Unlike Ullman, Hurewitz’s work received mixed reviews. For a positive review see, Peter Boag, review of Bohemian LosAngeles and the Making of Modern Politics, by Daniel Hurewitz, Pacific Historical Review (May 2008); 348—349;for a less flattering review see, Martin Meeker, review of Bohemian Los Angeles and the Making of Modern Politics, by Daniel Flurewitz, TheJournal ofAmerican History (September 2007): 6oo—6oi. Sharon UlIman dubbed the first undated transmittal (also lacking page numbers) from Eugene Fisher to C. K. McCtatchy the “Shakespeare Transmittal” because it Contains a quote from Hamlet, “Such an act that blurs the blush and grace of Modesty, takes off the rose from the fair forehead of innocent youth and sets a blister there (Act III, Scene 4).”! will follow this naming convention. Nayan Shah, “Between ‘Oriental Depravity’ and ‘Natural Degenerate’: Spatial Border land and the Making of Ordinary Americans,” American Quarterly 57,no.3(2005): 703—725. “ Shepard, “C. K.and Bee,”206—234; Daniels, PoliticsofPrejudice;Nielsen, “Anti-Asianin California.”

VOLUME XIX. 2010 98 Craig Scott

When the Bee published Fisher’s narrative, editor McClatchy embel lished Fisher’s text in ways to emphasize the foreignness. For example, “slippers” in Fisher’s text became “French slippers”when published in the Bee.25With Europe at war and Germany invading France, embellishing “slippers” with “French” as an adjective referenced a weakened, violated culture. Cultural imperialists often pointed to France as an example of a country gone awry and homosexuality being a contributing factor. After the war one speaker at the American Academy of Medicine warned: “teaching ofAmerican boys to be kind, gentle and loving to cripples will ultimately develop traits of homosexuality,” and cited France as an example. 26 Shirking logic and continuity, the editor went on to associate homo sexuality with the aggressors in the war and warned of the homosexual situation in Berlin. According to his source, Berlin had over 50,000 homosexuals and “[t]hat is the reason The Bee has published enough of the facts to let the people know something of the damnable thing that is spreading—a curse to which medical men, sociologist, and reformers must turn their attention here, as in Germany.”27Citing a letter written to him, McClatchy demonstrated he was not alone in wanting to see something done, quoting: “glad one newspaper man in the United States stands ready to throw the light of publicity on these cases.2$ Here, he is not only lauding himself but also trying to differentiate his response from the German response. feelings toward Germany were increasingly negative as the war dragged on.29The Germans torpedoed the Lusitania after months of increasing tensions with the United States. Drawing parallels between the Long Beach scandal and Berlin, McClatchy was tapping into the anxiety about the war and presenting homosexuality as a threatening foreign influence. Within the homosexual file maintained by McClatchy is a letter from Newton D. Baker, the homophobic Mayor of Cleveland, and soon to be Secretary of War. He shared McClatchy’s concern that homosexuality was not indigenous to the United States and “more common in the larger cities in Europe than it is anywhere else in the world.” Thanking

Fisher, “Shakespeare Transmittal”; ‘Exposure of Bizarre Orgies,” Sacramento Bee, November 14, 1914. 6 “Homosexuality A New Menace,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1917. “ “This Monstrous Evil,”Sacramento Bee, November 19, 1914. “ “Publicity Is Needed; And Then More Publicity,” Sacramento Bee, November 23, 1914. ‘ David M. Kennedy points out, “Americans began to divide about the war and its implications for their country as soon as they received the first news of the European armies clashing in Belgium and East Prussia in the summer of ii.” David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 46.

Ex PosT FACTO LusT,LANGUAGE, ANDLEGIsTloN 99

McClatchy for his recent letters, he told McClatchy about reading “in Berlin he [an author named FlexnerJ saw a ball attended by 300 couples, all men, and all of them addicted to vice of this variety.”30 Unlike McClatchy, Mayor Baker doubted the efficacy of legislation and con cluded: “itsvictims [homosexuals] are midway in the process of biologi cal elimination which is automatic and irresistible.”3’On January 30,1915 McClatchy took the information he received from Mayor Baker and equated the men in Long Beach with the men in Berlin, “the vilest sexual degenerates—those in Berlin and Long Beach.”32 Taking sides in the Los Angeles feud, the Bee dismissed charges of questionable ethics leveled by the Express and called for more publicity. The Beeeditorialized, “IsNot News Suppression Of This Monstrous Evil In Itself An Evil?”and laid out its goal to wage “warfare to exterminate a thing that is infinitely worse than all the prostitution that ever cursed the earth.”33It was his beliefpublicity could lead to legislation, which would ultimately control this problem. With LosAngeles distracted by personal vendettas and San Francisco indifferent to this moral crusade, the Bee, largely alone, continued to rail against the men.34 Outraged by the acquittal of Lowe on December 11, 1914 McClatchy began a series of articles bewailing the miscarriage of justice and calling for new legisla tion.35The days before Christmas 1914 McClatchy ran a series of front page stories calling for new legislation.6 The Christmas Eve edition of

° Newton D. Baker to C. K.McClatchy, December31, 1914, “McClatchy, C. K.:Homosex ual Issue 1910—1915,” Folder no. CDi 002 o6o, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center (hereafter cited as Baker to McClatchy). ‘ Baker to McClatchy. Editorial, Liquor And The Worse Of Sexual Offenses,” Sacramento Bee, January 30, 1915. ° Editorial, “Is Not News Suppression Of This Monstrous Evil In Itself An Evil?”Sacra mento Bee, November 19, 1914; “Vast Scandal in Los Angeles Is Reported As Suppressed: Long Beach Correspondent Asserts That 500 Arrests Were Made in Southern City for Same Offense as Those Exposed in Long Beach, But Were Kept Secret—Disgraced Men Mostly Those Socially Prominent,” Sacramento Bee, November i8, 1914. McClatchy takes sides in the LosAngeles feud, supporting Otis’s Times, when he editorializes, “[hiis suicide in itself was a confession” and “ttlhe cause of common decency demands that these vilewretches be pilloried in the sunlight, so that they may be abhorred by all humankind.” Editorial, “Publicity Is Needed; And Then More Publicity,” Sacramento Bee, November 23, 1914. ‘ Only two other newspapers in the state have been found to have written on the scandal. “Offense Should Be Made Felony and Punishment Severe,” Fresno Mirror, republished in Sacramento Bee,January 5,1915; Editorial, “Make ItA Felony,” Byron Times, January i, 1915. “Miscarriage of Justice in the Long Beach Case,” Sacramento Bee, December14, 1914. 36Clayton Campbell, “Legislature Should Enact Some Law to Punish This Most Debasing Practice: There is Nothing in the Penal Code Against This Vilest of MI Offenses—Ten or Twelve Arrest Daily in LosAngeles,” Sacramento Bee, December21, 1914; Clayton Campbell, “Wide Spread of Debasing Practices Make Punitive Legislation A Necessity: Net of Police

VOLUME XIX 2010 ioo Craig Scott the Bee included a letter advocating public whippings as a fitting punishment.37 While the Bees Christmas editorials were timely, juxtaposed to the holiday and just prior to the opening ofthe 41st session of the California legislature, it would be tempting to suggest that the legislators read the editorials and the editorials influenced the legislation. This may have happened, but, during this period in California’s history the legislature usually met only for a few weeks during odd numbered years.8 At Christmas, in 1914, it was more likely legislators were in their own districts and more attentive to local requests, and paid little attention to the Bee. Legislation, though, was the paper’s goal. Not only had he called for legislation in the paper, discussed legislation with Mayor Baker, but within the file maintained by McClatchy is a handwritten note: “Get proofs of articles and send to legislators.”39Clearly, McClatchy used his paper to rally public opinion but he also lobbied the legislature. Sacramento Assemblyman Lee Gebhart took up the Bees request, and in January1915, he introduced Assembly Bill219, which called for the following addition to the Penal Code, “Any male person who shall willfully [sic] commit the act known technically as fellatio, or any female person who shall willfully [sic] commit the act known technically as cumulingus [sic] shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a period not less than twenty years.”4° The assembly immediately referred AB 219, summarized as ‘relating to sex perversions and defining the same,” to the Committee on Judiciary.4’ On April 28, 1915, the Committee broadened the original language and voted to change AB 219 to read, “The acts technically known as fellatio and cunnilingus are hereby declared to be felonies and any person convicted of the commission of either thereof shall be punished by imprisonment and Special Investigators Filled With Catches of Men Guilty of the Grossest Immoralities and Disgusting Acts,” Sacramento Bee,December 22, 1914; Clayton Campbell, Herbert N. Lowe Case Calls Attention to Crying Need of Action by Legislature: Confessed Social Degenerate for Nine Years Acquitted on a Technicality and Becauseof Failure of Fellowmen to Appreciate Enormity of Offense,” Sacramento Bee,December 23, 1914; Clayton Campbell, “Bee’sPublicity Light on Great Vice of Day Shows Need of Punitive Measures: Although Half Cannot Be Told, Enough Has Been Said to Show Extent of Vicious Practices of Men, Who Work Both in Light and in the Dark,” Sacramento Bee, December 24, 1914. 37G.P. Hurst, “Advocates Whipping Post and Pillory for Degenerates,” Sacramento Bee, December 24, 1914. ‘8Joseph Allan Beek, The California Legislature, Sacramento, California Senate Publica tion, 1942. Scrap of paper in ‘Homosexual Issue 1910—1915” folder. 40AssemblyBill219 on microfilm “Sessions of California State Legislation, BillSets” Roll #67A, San Francisco Public Library. 4’Second Version ofAssembly Bill219 on microfilm ‘Sessions of California State Legisla tion, Bill Sets” Roll #67A, San Francisco Public Library.

Ex PoSTFACTO LUST, LANGUAGE, AND LEGIslATIoN 101

in the state prison for not more than fifteen years.”42AB 219 returned to the full assembly. On May 7, 1915, (ironically, the same day the German military torpedoed the Lusitania) the full assembly unanimously ap proved the later language. Then on May 9, the California Senate voted unanimously in favor of AB 219, Governor Johnson signed the bill on June 2, 1915 and McClatchy took credit for the legislation.43 McClatchy believed homosexuality was a foreign influence that was spreading and threatening to undermine the American way of life. With America anxious about war and kimono-wearing men engaged in unsavory behavior, editor C. K.McClatchy felt compelled to draw upon all the resources available to suppress and hopefully eliminate homosex uality. Unable to maintain the interest of other influential newspaper editors around the state, McClatchy exploited the anxiety of war and xenophobic fears to draw attention to this problem, and to call for repressive legislation. The originally proposed legislation was not only born from homophobia, but McClatchy also hyped the fear that homo sexuality was a foreign influence spreading during wartime to gain support to have outlawed what he saw as a “monstrous evil.”4

Craig is currently pursuing a MA in History at San Francisco State Uni versity. He is interested in legal and social history. He has been research ing igth- and earty-2oth-century Crimes Against Nature in Calfornia, and has volunteered at GLBTHistorical Societyfor several years.

“'Journal ofthe AssemblyDuringthe Forty-FirstSessionofthe Legislatureof the State of Calfornia 1915, Sacramento: California State Printing Office, i9t5;This change wasprobably intended as another tool in the battle against prostitution. The voting records of the members of the committee and most of the legislators at that time had a record of anti- prostitution legislation. Furthermore, law enforcement would use the law primarily against gay men, occasionally against prostitution and more rarely against heterosexual couples of mixed race. No cases have yet to be found where that section of the Penal Code was used against same-race heterosexuals engaged in oral sex where money was not involved. May 8, 1915 the Beeclaimed AB2,9 “wasintroduced followingthe expose published in the Bee”in “Sexual Perversions Are Made felonies,” SacramentoBee,May 8, 1915; and on June 2, 1915 the Beegloated AB 219 was “designed for the purpose of putting a stop to such conditions as were uncovered in Long Beach, the expose of which was given in The Beelast year,” in “SexPerversion Measure Signed,” SacramentoBee,June z, 1915. “ “This Monstrous Evil,”SacramentoBee,November19, 1914.

VOLUME XIX” 2010