CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ITHACA, N. Y. 14853 JOHN M. OLIN LIBRARY 3 1924 103 063 636 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924103063636 '.!■. -il'f}::r '(-^3 8 li^il) UNIVERSITY OF CAUIFORNi/rnpUBLICATIONS IN ECONOMICS Vol. 2 August 23, 1910 A HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA LABOR LEGISLATION WITH AN INTRODUCTORY SKETCH OF THE SAN FRANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT BY LUCILE EAVES Late Flood Fellow in Economics at the University of California Associate Professor of Practical Sociology at the University of Nebraska BERKELEY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS Note. — The University of California Publications are oJDEered in excliange for the publi- cations of learned societies and institutions, universities, and libraries. Complete lists of all the publications of the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, lists of publications or other information, address the MANAGER OF THE UNIVEESITT PRESS, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, U. S. A. All matter sent in exchange should be addressed to THE EXCHANGE DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, U. S. A. Cited as Univ. OaJif . Publ. Econ. ECONOMICS.— Adolph C. Miller, Editor. Vol. 1. Gold, Prices, and Wages under the Greenback Standard, by Wesley Clair Mitchell; 632 pages, \»ith 12. charts. March, 1908 .._ _...„ $5.00 Vol. 2. A History of California Labor Legislation, with an Introductory Sketch of the San Francisco Labor Movement, by Lucile Eaves. 461 pages. August 1910 :. :..._.......: :..... 4.00 EDUCATION. Vol. 1. Notes on the Development of a Child, by Milicent Washburn Shinn. 424 pages. 1893-1899. Reprinted in part, March, 1909 3.50 Originally issued as University of California Studies, Vol. 1. Pages 1-178 are no'wl reprinted from the original plates, and a title page and table of contents have been added. The original edition is now exhausted. The reprinted edition is limited and the price has been changed to $3.60. Vol. 2. (In progress.) 1. Notes on Children's Drawings, edited by Elmer Ellsworth Brown. Pp. 1-75, 64 text-figures ; 75 (Published as "University of California Studies, Vol. II, No. 1," 1897.) Vol. 3. (In progress.) 1. The Origin of American State Universities, by Elmer Ellsworth Brown. Pp. 1-45. April, 1903 .... _ _... „ .50 2. State Aid to Secondary Schools, by David Rhys Jones. Pp. 47-150. Decem- ber, 1903 ': - : 75 Vol. 4. Notes on the Development of a Child. II. The Development of the Senses in the First Three Years of Childhood, by Milicent Washburn Shinn. 258 pages. July, 1908 _... ; .-.-. 2.50 The index in this volume covers the material in both parts of the Notes on the Develop- ment of a Child, i.e., of volumes 1 and 4 of this series. Vol. 5. 1. Superstition and Education, by Fletcher Basc'>m Dresslar. Pp. 1-239. July, 1907 2.00 THE WEINSTOCK LECTURES. Of the Barbara Weinstock Lectures on the Morals of '"rade, the following have been published: 1. The Business Career in its Public Relations, by Albert Shaw, Ph.D., Editor of the American Review of Reviews. PaiU Elder & Co., 1904 1.00 First lecture of the series, delivered February 2, 1904. 2. The Conflict Between Private Monopoly and Good Citizenship, by John Graham Brooks, President of the National Cousiimers' League. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1909 : .50 Fifth Weinstock Lecture, delivered November 20, 1907. 3. Commercialism and Journalism, by Hamilton Holt, Managing Editor of the Inde- pendent. Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1909 1,00 . Sixth Weinstock Lecture, delivered AprU 15, 1909. Copies of the above are to be had, for the indicated prices or in e: ^ange, from thei University Press. A HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA LABOR LEGISLATION WITH AN INTRODUCTORY SKETCH OF THE SAN FRANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT DEDICATED TO GEORGE ELLIOTT HOWAED, Ph.D., HEAD PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, BY HIS PUPIL AND CO-WORKER. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN ECONOMICS Vol. 2 August 23, 1910 A HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA LABOR LEGISLATION WITH AN INTRODUCTORY SKETCH OF THE SAN FRANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT BY LUCILE EAVES Late Flood Fellow in Economics at the University of California Associate Professor of Practical Sociology at the University of Nebraska BERKELEY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS l/. J Tl Copyright, 1910, By LuciLE Eaves. Published August, 1910. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE The San Francisco Labor Movement 1-81 Reasons for the Leadership of San Francisco 1 Forms of Labor Organizations in San Francisco 6 The Early Period of Trade-Unionism, 1850-1870 8 The Worlcingmen 's (Jonvention of 1867 16 The Labor Movements of the Seventies 20 The Workingmeri's Party of California, 1877-1879 27 Influence of the Workingmen 's Party on the California Constitution 36 Growth towards a Unified Trade-Union Movement, 1878-1885 40 The Knights of Labor 41 The Internationalists 42 The Convention of 1885 43 The Federated Trades of the Pacific Coast, 1886-1892 44 New Trade-Union Aims and Methods, — Boycotts and Strike-benefits 47 The First Organized Opposition of the Employers 50 First Employers' Association 52 Struggle between the Employers' Association and the Sailors' Union 54 Results of the First Contest with Organized Employers 57 The Revival of the San Francisco Labor Movement, 1897-1901 59 The Second Great Struggle of Organized Capital and Labor 63 Teamsters' Strike of 1901 69 The Labor Unions in Politics 75 Recent Tendencies of San Francisco Trade-Unionism i 79 CHAPTER IL Slave or Free Labor in California 82-104 The Slavery Question Prior to 1849 82 Discussions of Slavery in the First Constitutional Convention 83 Compromise Measures by Which California was Admitted to the Union 88 Efforts to Exclude Free Negroes 89 PAGE Increase of Negro Population "" Attempts to Secure Concessions to Slavery 91 Movement for a Division of the State 92 The California Fugitive-Slave Law 94 The Last California Fugitive-Slave Case 99 CHAPTER IIL California Legislation tor the Exclusion and Eegulation of the Chinese, 1852-1867 105-125 The Beginnings of Chinese Immigration 105 The First Efforts to Secure Anti-Chinese Legislation 107 Opposition to the Chinese in the Mining Camps 110 Exclusion of Chinese Testimony from the Courts 113 Preliminary Summary of Anti-Chinese Legislation 114 Local Eegulations of Chinese Labor, 1852-1867 117 Combined State and Local Regulations, 1855-1867 119 Attempts to Exclude the Chinese by State Laws, 1852-1862 122 The Workingmen of the Cities Take Up the Campaign Against the Chinese 125 CHAPTER IV. Federal Relations with the Chinese, 1840-1871 126-135 The Burlingame Treaty 126 Effect of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments 127 First Congressional Debate on the Chinese Question 129 CHAPTER V. California Legislation for the Exclusion and Regulation of the Chinese, 1867-1880 136-161 The Anti-Chinese Movements of the Early Seventies 136 San Francisco Ordinances Regulating the Chinese 142 State Anti-Chinese Legislation, 1870-1876 .^ 145 San Francisco Anti-Chinese Demonstrations of 1876 148 The Workingmen 's Party and the Chinese 150 The Chinese Question in the Constitutional Convention 150 Continued Efforts of the Labor Organizations to Secure Chinese Exclusion 161 CHAPTER VI. PAGE Federal Legislation Regulating Chinese Immigration, 1871-] 902. .162-196 Naturalization Laws 162 Laws Prohibiting Contract Labor 163 Early Efforts of Western Congressmen to Secure Chinese Exclusion 163 Joint Congressional Committee of Investigation of 1876 164 The First Restrictive Legislation, — the Fifteen Passenger Bill 167 Bitter Resentment of the Veto of the Bill 171 Negotiation of a New Treaty with China 172 The Exclusion Law of 1882 173 Amendments to the Law of 1882 180 Feeling Against the Chinese in the Later Eighties 184 The Exclusion Laws of 1888 188 Renewal of the Exclusion Laws in 1892 191 Renewal of the Exclusion Laws in 1902 196 CHAPTER VII. The Length of the Work-Day in California 197-228 The Ten-Hour Law of 18.53 197 The Eight-Hour Movement of the Sixties 198 Efforts to Assist the Passage of the Federal Eight-Hour Law 206 Enforcement of the California Eight-Hour Law 207 Loss of the Shorter Work-Day 212 Continued Agitation in Favor of the Eight-Hour Day 213 The Eight-Hour Law Advocated by the Workingmen's Party 215 The Eight-Hour Provision of the New Constitution 216 Trade-Union Efforts to Shorten the Work-Day, 1882-1890 216 Renewed Efforts to Enforce the Eight-Hour Law on Public Works .... 219 Amendments to the Eight-Hour Law, 1899-1901 .■ 221 Laws Restricting the Hours of Labor of Certain Special Classes of Workers 224 Recent Progress of the Eight-Hour Day, 1900-1908 22.5 CHAPTER VIII. ijAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WAGES OF LABOR 229-260 General History of This Class of Legislation 229 Lines of Development of the Mechanics' Lien Laws 232 Extent of Application of Lien Laws 233 Funds to Pay Lien Claims 236 vii PAGE The Legal Process by Which Mechanics' Liens are Obtained and Enforced 244 Time of Filing Claims 245 Form of Document Filed, or of Notice to the Owner 246 Time of Commencement of Suit 248 The Costs of Securing Wages by Means of Mechanics' Liens 248 Forfeiture of a Mechanics' Lien 250 Preference Given the Lien for Wages 251 Laws Allowing Liens for Various Forms of Service 253 Laws Making Wages Preferred Claims 255 Failure to Secure Prompt Cash Payment of Wages 257 CHAPTER IX. Laws Eegulating the Relationship of Employer and Employee 261-286 Influence of the Common Law of England 261 Terms of the Labor Contract 262 Termination of Services 263 Damages for Violation of the Labor Contract 265 Obligations of the Servant or Employee 266 Obligations of the Master, and His Liability for the Injury of the Servant, General Analysis 268 Obligation to Furnish Safe Appliances and Places of Work 268 Care in Selection of Fellow-Servants 271 Obligation to Give Instruction about Dangers 271 Employers' Liability for Injury to the Employee 272 Recognition of the Doctrine of Vice-Principal by the California Courts 274 Great Extent of Application of the Fellow-Servant Rulings 277 Decisions Where Knowledge of the Danger Prevented Recovery of Damages 278 Damages Allowed for Injuries or Death 280 Amendments to the Employer's Liability Laws, 1903, 1907 ao2 CHAPTER X. Laws Regulating the Labor of Children 287-310 Laws for the Regulation of Apprenticeship 287 Laws Eegulating the Conditions under Which Minors may be Employed 295 Compulsory Education Laws 307 EfiEects of the Enforcement of These Laws 308 Laws Protecting Working Children from Immoral Influences 308 Need of Better Enforcement of the Laws for the Protection of Children 309 viii CHAPTER XI. PAGE Laws fob the Peotection of the Women Workers of California..311-317 Eelatively Small Number of Women Wage-Earners 311 Efiforts to Secure Constitutional Eeeognition of Women's Eights 313 Women in the Trade-Unions 314 Passage of the Laws Protecting Women Workers, 1889 315 CHAPTER Xn. Laws for the Protection of the Life and Health op Employees..318-323 Boiler Inspection 318 Safety of Miners 319 Sanitation of Workshops 320 CHAPTEE XIII. Sunday Laws 324-334 Early Efforts to Prevent the Violation of the Sabbath 324 Argument on the Validity of the Law of 1855 326 Amendments of 1861-1872 327 Efforts to Secure a Shorter Work-Day for the Bakers 330 Eepeal of the Sunday Laws 331 Trade-Union Efforts to Secure a Day of Eest 333 CHAPTER XIV. Employment Agencies 335-351 Early Sau Francisco Intelligence Offices 335 Attempts to Eegulate the Business in 1861 336 The California Labor Exchange, 1868-1872 337 Frequent Changes in the Number and Proprietorship of Employment Offices 340 Efforts to Correct the Abuses of the Employment Agencies, 1890 341 CHAPTEE XV. Laws for the Regulation of Convict Labor 351-368 The Leasing System 351 The Contract System of Prison Labor 356 Early Efforts to Secure Legislation Preventing the Competition of Convict and Free Labor 357 Changes of Policy Inaugurated by the New Constitution 360 Summary of the Effects of Contract System of Prison Labor 361 Development of Prison Industries under State Control 362 CHAPTER XVI. PAGE The State Bureau of Labor Statistics 369-378 Attempts to Establish a Labor Bureau in 1878-1879 369 Creation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1883 371 Summary of the Work of the Bureau 372 CHAPTER XVII. The State Board of Arbitration 379-384 Establishment of the Board in 1891 380 Failure of this Plan for Settling Labor Disputes 382 CHAPTER XVIIL The Union Label 385-393 First Use of Means of Identifying Products of Union Labor in 1869- 1874 385 Efforts to Prevent Fraudulent Use of the Label 386 Use of the Label by the Printing Trades 389 Union Labels on Public Printing 390 Decisions Recognizing the Validity of the Label Law 392 CHAPTER XIX. Judicial Restraint of the Actions of Trade-Unions 394-438 Cases Growing Out of the Enforcement of Trade-Union Rules against Fellow- Workmen 394 The Boycott before the California Courts 403 The Development of the Use of the Injunction in Labor Controversies in Other Parts of the United States, 1888-1900 407 Precedents for the Use of the Injunction Set by the Federal Courts 409 California Injunction Cases, 1899-1907 413 Anti-Injunction Legislation 422 Injunction Cases Subsequent to the Passage of the Restraining Act 425 California Federal Court Injunction Cases 432 Summary of the California Injunction Cases 436 CHAPTER XX. Summary and Conclusions 439-443 Bibliography 444 Index of Cases 449 Index op Subjects 452 PREFACE. In this study of the California labor legislation, I have regarded the legal enactments as but the final expression of the demands of the wage-workers of the state at different periods in its economic development. I have tried to trace the circumstances giving rise to these demands, and also the social forces making possible the passage of the proposed measures. As this is a type of legislation which establishes new precedents, its presentation is incomplete without a review of the court decisions by which the labor laws have been interpreted and fitted into the existing legal system. The author frankly acknowledges a sympathetic interest in the long struggle of the working people of California to obtain legal protection and to win a full share in those economic advantages afforded by the rich natural resources of the state. "While it is impossible to escape entirely from such a personal bias, an earnest effort has been made to give an impartial presen- tation of the facts that are most essential to an understanding of the development of the California labor movement and legislation. I have hoped that this study might prove a modest contribu- tion towards a better understanding of some of those subtler problems of social and economic development that must occupy the future students of American history. The records of the western states, particularly of California, furnish rich material for this type of history. A favorable environment, a population of great intelligence and power of initiative, and an unusual freedom from the restraints of older communities, have all com- bined to make possible an untrammelled development of forms of social life which may yet prove to be the sources of what is most original in our civilization. The introductory sketch of the San Francisco labor movement has been written primarily for the purpose of giving an under- standing of the social forces back of the labor legislation. In it I have endeavored to trace the development of the organi- zations of wage-workers, and to notice the events leading to or indicating important changes of policy. It has been necessary to omit much that may be regarded as important from other points of view. For example the strike of the street-car em- ployees in 1907 involved many people and was interesting as a demonstration of the solidarity of feeling on the part of the wage-workers of San Francisco, but did not influence labor legislation or establish new policies. It has not been considered necessary to enter fully into the history of the Labor Union party for the same reasons. Running through this record of the organized efforts of the wage-workers to secure legislation protecting their interests, we find two distinct social movements which have great interest for the sociologist. First, an exceptionally good opportunity is given for the study of problems that arise when races incapable of amalgamation meet in economic competition. Second, this history furnishes the social psychologist with material enabling him to trace the process of development of social sanctions whose strength is comparable only to those of great religious movements of the past. Such a study has great practical value for those who are striving to understand the industrial problems of other sections of the country, as we have in San Francisco but the culmination of tendencies present in a less degree in other parts of the United States. The two periods when the power of concerted action de- veloped in economic contests was diverted to the field of politics are peculiarly suggestive. Only unusual circumstances, tending to arouse a strong class consciousness, have been able to bring about united political activity on the part of the working people of California. In the history of the Workingmen 's Party of 1877-1879, and the political activities in San Francisco in 1901-5, we have instructive examples of the political upheavals to which our modern economic struggles may give rise. This study was undertaken after five years spent in educa- tional work among the wage-earners of San Francisco. I have tried to combine in it the scholarly interests of my University experiences, and the practical aims of a settlement worker. I feel that the California labor movement has attained the degree of development possible by the cruder methods, and that it has now reached a stage where greater knowledge and a more states- manlike insight into the complex economic life of our age, are necessary for further growth. I hope that this exposition of legal principles determining the validity of past legislation will enable the trade-unionists of California to understand more clearly the legal status of their movement, and will prevent the waste of energy in securing the passage of unconstitutional measures, which has so frequently occurred during the earlier periods of trade-union activity. A knowledge of the long record of successes and failures of the past should help the cultivation of that patience, that willingness to work steadily through many discouragements for the attainment of completer justice for the masses, that have been necessary in all great democratic move- ments. I am indebted to Professor A. C. Miller, of the University of California, for suggestions and encouragement at every stage of the work. Professor H. W. Parnam, of Yale University, has also read the book in manuscript. Professor C. C. Plehn, of the University of California, generously permitted me to use a large amount of material collected by his pupils. I am also indebted to Miss Eudora Garoutte, of the California History Department of the California State Library, for many useful references. The officers of the San Francisco labor organizations, particularly of the Labor Council, the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, and the Typographical Union, have been most courteous in allowing me access to records, and in answering questions. Mr. W. J. French, editor of the Labor Clarion, has assisted me in clearing up a number of obscure points. I wish to make particular acknowl- edgment of the valuable assistance I have received from Mr. Walter Macarthur, editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal. He has not only allowed me to make use of the many important records of his office, which escaped the San Francisco fire of 1906, but has also assisted me by a generous expenditure of time and thought in the discussion of important phases of the work. I have been permitted by the Academy of Pacific Coast Historjr to use the Bancroft Library of the University of Cali- fornia. Its valuable newspaper files were of great assistance. The undertaking of this piece of research was made possible by the Flood Fellowship in Economics which I held while en- gaged upon it, and by financial assistance received from the Carnegie Institution. This study was completed in December, 1908, and does not contain the decisions and legislation subse- quent to that date. LuciLE Eaves. CHAPTER I. THE SAN FKANCISCO LABOR MOVE.MENT/ REASONS POE THE LEADERSHIP OP SAN PRANCISCO. The leadership of the labor movement, not only of California but also of the Pacific Coast, has centered in San Francisco. This has not been due merely to the financial and numerical strength possible to the organizations of a great center of popu- lation. The unions of San Francisco have furnished able leaders and the initiative in forming organizations for the entire region west of the Rockies. At times her central bodies have been rep- resentative of the wage-woriiers of other portions of California, and of Oregon, "Washington, and Nevada. A history of the vary- ing aims and strength of the San Francisco labor movement furnishes the key to an understanding of the California labor legislation, as there are but few important measures for the protection of the wage-workers of the state which cannot be credited to the efforts of the organized workers of this great industrial center. Many factors have combined to give San Francisco this trade- union leadership in the West. Indeed, it might be safely asserted that these same causes tend, at the present time, to make this the chief stronghold of American trade-unionism. These factors may be described as: 1. Geographical factors, or the situation of San Francisco in its relations to the economic development of California. 2. The effects of the concentration of the population in the cities about San Francisco Bay. 3. The influence of the race elements composing the popula- tion. 1 TMs introductory sketch of the San Prancisco labor movement was submitted as the author's doctor's dissertation in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. 2 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 4. Historical factors that have promoted the development of trade-unionism. Geographical Factors. One has only to glance at a map of the Pacific Coast to realize the importance of this centrally located harbor, on a coast where the mountains crowd close to the oceanside, and where but few indentations permit a safe entrance for commerce. In the first great rush to the gold mines, a large part of the population of the state coming from other portions of the Union, and all of the foreigners, entered California by way of San Francisco. Supplies for the mining region were also first landed here and then re- shipped to the interior points for distribution. The Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers emptying into San Francisco Bay were the two great natural highways making possible communication with the interior of the state. With the development of the agricultural resources of these rich interior valleys, San Fran- cisco furnished the market for their products. The rapidly accumulating capital of the state found this the best place for investment in commercial and manufacturing enterprises. The rich came here to spend their money; the unemployed returned in search of new opportunities; this was the port of departure for the discouraged, or for those who hastened back to their families with what they considered a fair share of the wealth of the gold mines. Prior to the building of the overland railroads, during all of the important formative period, the economic life of the state centered in San Francisco. Concentration of Population about 8a7i Francisco Bay. These natural advantages have resulted in a concentration of the population of California in the cities grouped about San Francisco Bay. From 1870 to the present time, about one-third of the inhabitants of the state have been found in San Francisco and Alameda counties.^ A strong labor movement is possible only in a great center of population. Such a center has the large 2 The percentages of the population of the state living in San Francisco and Alameda counties at the different decades when the United States Census has been taken were as follows: 1860, 12%; 1870, 31%; 1880, 34.3%: 1890, 32.5%; 1900, 31.8%. ' ' 1910] Eaves : Calif ornia Labor Legislation. 3 number of skilled artisans who form the more permanent organ- izations and furnish intelligent leadership. Numbers not only- give courage and enthusiasm, but also supply the economic sup- port that is necessary to enable any group of wage-workers to enter upon a successful contest with their employers. This concentration of population has given San Francisco great influence in politics. The San Francisco vote has deter- mined the state elections and was an important influence in national politics during the years when presidential elections were closely contested. As will be shown in the later discussion of the political activities of the trade-unions, the older political parties have never had a strong hold here. "Whenever conditions are such that the large body of voters found in the labor organ- izations unite to obtain some object, they may hold the balance of power in any election. From early days politicians have found it necessary to court the favor of the San Francisco trade- unionist. Bace Elements. Although San Francisco is one of the large cities of the United States in which three-fourths of the citizens are of alien parentage, ** its population is composed of race elements quite different from those of the large cities of the East. The accom- panying table shows the numbers of foreign males of specified nationalities in California, estimated on the basis of the per cent, of males among the foreign born at each decade ;* 3 o ID IS ■s r. n 1 If 1— ( 1850 21,802 20,439 93. 2,280 4,528 2,721 1,438 3,854 212 660 1860 146,528 116,934 79. 26,187 18,638 17,100 6,145 - 9,085 2,216 22,385 1870 209,831 150,058 76. 41,396 26,524 22,579 6,132 8,677 3,542 45,429 1880 292,874 208,526 71. 44,703 38,326 30,198 6,780 11,809 5,351 71,328 1890 366,309 252,525 68. 42,934 49,843 41,811 8,061 6,010 10,537 69,382 1900 367,240 240,237 65. 28,909 51,572 47,092 7,967 6,318 14,805 42,297 3 The cities in the United States in which the census of 1900 shows a high percentage of residents of foreign parentage are: Milwaukee, 82.7%; Chicago, 77.4%; New York, 76.9%; Cleveland, 75.6%; San Francisco, 75.2%; Boston, 72.2%. i This table was compiled by Mrs. M. E. Coolidge, for use in her study of the Chinese. (New York, 1909.) She has kindly permitted me to use it. 4 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 We see from this table that among the foreign-born residents of California an unusually high percentage has come from English- speaking countries. The English or Scotch artisan, whether from the old country or from Australia or British Columbia, is accustomed to trade-union membership, and the ability of the Irish to control municipal politics is proverbial. The German trade-unions of San Francisco have been among the most suc- cessful and persistent. For many years there have been German- speaking unions of bakers, cabinet-makers, brewers, and in early days the majority of the cigar-makers were of this nationality. The Sailors' Union has furnished a training school for the San Francisco trade-unionist. Between 1889 and 1903, 13,796 men have left this organization to enter other occupations. Nearly one-half of these men were natives of Sweden, Norwaj^, and Finland, and ten per cent, were German.^ These sailors speak English and are staunch trade-unionists. Independence, capacity for self-government, and power of initiative have always been characteristic of the frontier. Some- thing of these pioneer traits belongs to the Californian who has emigrated from the older states of the Union. Its remoteness, and the great expense of reaching it from the Atlantic ports, have deterred the poorer classes of European immigrants from coming to San Francisco. Also, the presence of the Chinese has had a selective influence; the skilled artisans, or those possessed of some capital, have been attracted by its opportunities, while those who could compete only in classes of labor performed by Orientals have sought other fields. The work that attracts those least capable of organization for self-protection has fallen to the Chinese and Japanese, who are without franchise or political influence. To sum up the characteristics of the population that have contributed to the success of trade-unionism in San Francisco, we find that the working people have come of races capable of form- ing self-governing organizations; that a process of selection has brought the more vigorous, prosperous, and intelligent to the s Report of the Merchant Marine Commission, 58th Congress, 3rcl sess., Senate Reports, vol. 4 (serial no. 4758), p. 1209. Percentages of sailors discontinuing Pacific Coast trade: Sweden, .197; Norway, .185; Finland .106; Germany, .100. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 5 Pacific Coast ; that the large percentage of English-speaking men in the voting population helps to make possible united political action in the interests of the working classes. Historical Factors. California has been unlike the other western states in that it had no territorial period of gradual growth, during which the inhabitants were scattered in the small communities that char- acterize the pastoral and agricultural states of economic develop- ment. No other great city in the United States has sprung into full municipal life so suddenly as San Francisco. In early days there was an entire absence of that conservatism that comes with the more gradual accumulation of wealth. Money could be made without resorting to the close calculations and careful manage- ment of older communities. The trade-unionist, fleeing from the black-list or the stubborn opposition of powerful, well-established employers, found, on reaching San Francisco, that no one knew anything about his past record, and that his efiiorts to organize his craft met with no opposition. Moreover, during all of the early period of the state's development, he was able to obtain about all he demanded. Not only was prompt organization induced by the conditions found in San Francisco, but the comparative isolation has con- tributed to the success of trade-union activities. For many years there was no great industrial center between San Francisco and the Mississippi from which a supply of skilled labor could be drawn. Even to the present time there is difficulty and delay in obtaining any considerable force of strike-breakers. In early days these difficulties were almost unsurmountable. For example, when, in 1863, the bakers asked for increases in pay of from thirty to forty-five dollars per month," their employers were obliged to submit to this extortionate demand, — at least until they were able to import men from Hamburg to take the places of the strikers. On the trade-unionist of San Francisco has rested the re- sponsibility for the campaign to exclude Oriental labor. He 6 San Francisco Bulletin, November 4, 1863. They were then receiving fifty-five and sixty dollars per month. 6 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 first realized the possible menace of the overwhelming numbers of workers who, through many generations of discipline in the crowded Orient, have learned to live under conditions impossible to the workmen of a younger civilization. This long camping in front of what was felt to be a common enemy has contributed more than any other one factor to the strength of the California labor movement. From the early fifties to the present time, there have been organizations in which all classes of wage-workers joined to promote the exclusion of Asiatic labor. It is the one subject upon which there has never been the slightest difference of opinion, the one measure on which it has always been possible to obtain concerted action. POEMS OF LABOE OEGANIZATIONS IN SAN FEANCISCO. Before attempting the detailed account of the organizations of different periods, it will be profitable to notice in a more general way the characteristic forms which these organizations have assumed, and their relations to each other. They may be divided into three groups : (1) Trade-unions of the conventional type; (2) Societies formed for the promotion of special objects; (3) Political labor parties. (1) There are evidences of such early trade-union activity in San Francisco that one is tempted to believe that the craftsmen met each other on the way to California and agreed to unite. In a society where all were strangers, the possession of a common trade would furnish the most natural and promptly recognized bond of union. "While from this early date there has probably never been a time when San Francisco has been entirely free from trade organizations, the life of particular unions has not been continuous. They were frequently disrupted by some disastrous strike ; in hard times their members, under pressure of necessity, have often abandoned the efforts to maintain the conditions in the trade demanded by the union, and have scattered to take work wherever it could be found. Yet always, with the return of prosperity, the trade-unions were reorganized to begin anew the struggle to obtain a larger share of the more abundant profits for the wage-worker. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 7 There have been three periods of culmination of trade-union organization and activity in San Francisco. First, between 1867 and 1870; second, between 1886 and 1890; third, from 1901 to 1907. In each of these periods we find, not only an extensive organization of separate trades, but also effective central bodies whose influence was felt throughout the state. The Knights of Labor, who had an extensive membership in California during the eighties, seem more closely related to the regular trade-unions than to the other forms of organization. (2) The most important of the organizations for the pro- motion of special objects have been the anti-Chinese associations and the eight-hour leagues. These organizations have been closely akin to the trade-unions in that there has been an interchange of representatives. Thus in early daj's the anti-coolie clubs sent representatives to the labor conventions, and the present Asiatic Exclusion League is composed of duly appointed delegates from the various trade-unions. The eight-hour leagues have been even more intimately connected with the trade-unions. That of 1867- 1873 was an organization of the house carpenters, though other trade-unions joined in the movement. The later league of 1889 was a representative body created by the Federated Trades Coun- cil, and when it disbanded its work was taken over by a standing committee of that body. There have also been various somewhat spontaneous and erratic movements of groups of the unemployed, which have not been intimately connected with the regular labor organizations. (3) The trade-unions have fully realized the disrupting power of politics; from early days their constitutions have con- tained clauses disclaiming all political activities. Yet the mem- bership and leadership in the political labor parties have been drawn from the trade-unions. While the various national labor parties have had representation in California, the more successful political movements have been called forth by labor controversies growing out of conditions on the Pacific Coast. California has furnished a fair field for every possible form of organization for improving the condition of the working people. Nowhere in the world has there been a more favorable economic environment, nor more absolute freedom for social and 8 University of California PuMications in Economics. [Vol. 2 political experiments than was found in California during all the earlier periods of its development. The working people certainly made ample use of their opportunities. Not only have they tried every possible form of organization for regulating the relations of employer and employee, but in addition, have experimented with niunerous cooperative schemes. From the rich variety of organizations of the seventies and early eighties, the trade-union emerged as the form of organization best adapted to our present economic system. It meets most adequately the permanent needs of the wage-workers, who now fully recognize the necessity for its maintenance. The other types seem to be falling into place as emergenf-y organizations which can be formed when circum- stances require special action. In general, the California trade- unions have been most active in periods of economic prosperity. In times of business depression they have served as a kind of balance wheel, helping to retain the- favorable impetus given wages and the conditions of work in more favorable times. The energetic trade-unionist was apt, at such periods of depression, to turn his attention to special movements which he imagined might remedy the evils responsible for the general decline in business. THE EAELY PERIOD OF TEADE-UNIONISJI, 1850-1870. The conventional type of trade-union was impossible in the placer mines of California, because there were no employers. However, there were miners' unions in all the camps, — meetings where the conditions under which the mines should be worked were freely discussed, and regulations binding upon the com- munity agreed upon. These meetings expressed themselves in no uncertain terms upon the labor problems of the day. They heartily approved of the prevailing regime of absolute democracy and equality of opportunity, and vigorously opposed all efforts to introduce any class of servile labor. It was their influence that withstood all efforts to secure concessions to those desiring to admit negro slavery, and the miners were the first to legislate against the Chinese. While these miners' meetings were political rather than economic in their functions, there is abundant evidence to prove ^^'^'^l Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 9 that in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Stockton, the three most important municipal centers of this early gold-mining period, there was much trade-union activity during the fifties. These rapidly developing centers of distribution of the population and of supplies for the mining regions were in need of buildings of all kinds, so that carpenters, bricklayers, stonemasons, and hod- carriers were in great demand. We find frequent mention of their strikes to obtain better conditions of work, nor were the other trades slow in adopting the same policy. The house car- penters of Sacramento seem to have initiated this early move- ment, as they struck for higher wages in November and Decem- ber, 1849.^ In the following year the sailors,** bricklayers," and musicians" conducted strikes ; in 1851 the printers followed suit ; while in 1853 there was quite an outbreak of strikes. ^^ As a rule the workmen had the sympathy of the public, and the employers generally acceded to their demands with but little resistance. "While the strikers do not seem to have been dis- orderly, they occasionally called forth criticism by their high- handed methods ; as, for example, when the striking firemen and coal-passers made all the passengers on an outgoing vessel show their tickets in order to make sure that no strike-breakers were among them.^'^ The editor of the Alta ventures to administer a mild reproof, at the same time expressing a hearty approval of trade-unions and strikes." ■! Alta, November 22, 1849; December 6, 1849. sibid., August 10, 12, 1850. olhid., September 11, 1850. 10 Ibid., October 26-7, 1850. 11 In July and August, 1853, a few months after the passage of the ten-hour law, we find the carpenters, bricklayers, stonemasons, and hodcar- riers of San Francisco, Sacramento, and Stockton engaged in strikes for higher wages. (Alta, July 8-19, August 7, 18, 1853.) 12 Alta, August 2, 1853. IS Ibid., August 3, 1853. He said: "It has been held by some author- ities that combinations to raise wages are contrary to justice and to the policy of our laws, but that position can never be maintained by anyone who has a clear idea of justice or of the spirit of American institutions. It is a matter of congratulation that the carpenters and stone- cutters get eight to ten dollars for eveij faithful day's work in San Fran- cisco. But though we approve of striking for higher wages if it is probable that they can be fairly obtained, yet we cannot approve of the manner in which some of the strikes and combinations have been conducted and maintained. ' ' 10 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 While these strikes were accompanied by public meetings, processions and other demonstrations, it'ieems probable that they were sometimes conducted by temporary organizations. We have found direct evidence of fully organized trade-unions among the printers,^* the carpenters,^^ and the laborers of Sacramento.^" Mr. Ira Cross, of Stanford University, who has made a careful study of these early trade-union activities, says : ' ' During the fifties nearly all the trades in San Francisco had become organ- ized and had succeeded in materially bettering the condition of the workers. The printers had formed a protective association as early as 18.50. The teamsters, draym^en, lightermen, riggers, and stevedores had organized in 1851 ; the bricklayers and bakers in 1852; the blacksmiths, plasterers, brickmasons, shipwrights, carpenters, and caulkers in 1853 ; while even the musicians had organized and had struck for the enforcement of the union scale in 1856. "1^ Even though organizations were formed in these trades, it does not necessarily follow that they succeeded in maintaining a continuous existence. The history of the printers ' union is prob- ably typical of the other trade-unions of this period. This was organized in 1850 with eight members, and increased rapidly in membership, having 100 on the roll in 1851 and IIT in 1852. It then fell to pieces and was reorganized with a national charter in 1855, only to go through the same experiences. The third attempt was more permanent, as the Eureka Typographical, chartered by the national union in 1859, lasted until 1870.^* The history of the Ship Carpenters ' Union affords another illustration of the instability of these earljr organizations. It was quite successful, and accumulated funds so rapidly that a discussion arose about the proper method of spending the surplus. Some of the members thought the laying of the Atlantic cable a suitable excuse for a special jollification, while others preferred some " Orgauized late in the spring of 1850. 15 ^Ha, July 19, 1853. KilMd., August 7, 1853. "First Coast Seamen's tTnions, in Coast Seamen's Journal, July 8, 1908, p. 1. 18 My information about the Typographical Union is drawn from the records of the union, which were destroyed in the fire of April, 1906. ^^^0] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 11 other method of emptying the overloaded treasury. The disputes on this subject finally disrupted the union. ^^ In California, as in other parts of the United States, there was a strong trade-Union movement in the sixties. In 1863 the scarcity of artisans, owing to the heavy drafts for the army, and the increased cost of living prompted a completer organization of the workers in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other eastern cities, and many strikes for higher wages. The conditions were by no means so hard in San Francisco, as gold had continued to circulate in California, and the prices of necessities had not ad- vanced so much as in the East.^" Nevertheless the eastern labor movement was promptly duplicated in San Francisco. In the fall of 1863 the first central trades assembly was formed in San Francisco. As this organization was conducted as a secret society, it is difficult to find contemporary information about it. The editor of the Alta, writing in 1867, says, "About seven years since a Trades Union was organized in the East in- tended to include in its councils representatives from every state. A body was formed in California to take part in this Union, but it fell to pieces in 1864. "^^ John M. Days, a state senator, Avas the first president of this Trades Union.^^ He was succeeded by A. M. Kenaday who had been secretary. Kenaday, who was a delegate from the Eureka Typographical Union, gives the following history of this first central body : ' ' The riggers and the stevedores and the printers formed a nucleus around which in a few months, we organized some eighteen trade organizations in this city. As its chosen secretary, I labored incessantly, against all manner of reproach, to make it effective. When it was about to dissolve for want of i£> San Francisco Daily Beport, May 11, 1886. 20 Editorial, Bulletin, December 11, 1863. The same number of the Bulletin reprints accounts of the strikes in New York, Boston, and Phila- delphia taken from eastern papers. ^lAlta, June 2, 1867. 22 The account of this first trades union given in the San Francisco Daily Beport, May 11, 1886, and that written by Burdette Haskell m Mc- Neill's The Labor Movement the Frohlem of Today, seem to have been written by the same person, or possibly the newspaper copied Haskell's article The article is not accurate. It says that there were fourteen unions' at the end of the first year, and that a year later the number had decreased to six. 12 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 encouragement, I was selected as its presiding officer, and, at my suggestion, we made an appeal to the organized workingmen to rally in a mass meeting to agitate an eight-hour law. ' '^^ This first central council was formed at a period of great trade-union activity; as in the East, one trade after another struck for higher wages. The interesting labor situation in San Francisco at this time can be best shown by quoting an editorial from the Bulletin, of November 6, 1863 : "Striking for higher wages is now the rage among the working people of San Francisco. There are few employers that have not felt the upward pressure within three months, and probably some branches of business that hitherto proved fairly profitable are now pursued at- a loss, on account of the increased expenses of labor. Doubtless in many cases the wages paid in the early part of the year, when more men were in the City than could find employment, were unreasonably low. It is only just that workingmen should improve the present occasion, when the rush for distant mines has drained the city of its surplus population, to compel the payment of fair wages for their services. Under wise counsel the various trades unions can now do something to permanently improve the condition of those who labor for hire. But great care should be taken not to overdo the thing. The multitude of men who have gone out from all parts of the State to the mines of the adjacent Territory, added to the 50,000 immigrants who are supposed to have come over the plains from the western states this summer, are all now within a few days ' travel of San Francisco. The winter is at hand, and the mines are so poorly provided with comforts that many thousands now engaged in ' prospecting ' would gladly hasten to San Francisco, if the in- ducements of sufiieient employment to procure board and clothing during the inclement season were held out. . . . Continual strikes for higher wages have the effect to create the impression abroad that there is a scarcity 2s A. M. Kenaday came to California in 1847 and left to return in the gold rush. I£e was president of the Typographical Union which he or- ganized in 1851. He was a charter member of the Typographical Union of 1855, and took an active part in organizing the Trades Union. In an address delivered in 1890 he said that he had in his possession a pamphlet printed in 1867, entitled ' ' The Eecord of the Eight-Hour Bill in the Cali- fornia Legislature, Session 1865-66, embracing an account of the Prelimi- nary Agitation of the Subject by the Workingmen of the State, the Debates in Senate and Assembly, the means resorted to by its enemies to defeat the measure, and the records of its friends and opponents. Prepared at the request of Theophilus Tucker, and Jer. J. Kelley, Special Committee of the Trades Union, by A. M. Kenaday, Special Agent selected by the Mechanics and Workingmen, and late President of the Trades Union of San Francisco. ' ' If one may judge by the title, this must have been a somewhat voluminous account. Since Kenaday had this contemporary ac- count on which to base his remarks, it is probable that the information given in this address is fairly reliable. The remarks quoted are published in the Pacific Union Printer, December, 1890. Kenaday was expelled from the Workingmen 's Convention of 1867, be- cavise he issued a call for a state convention without authority. {Bulletin, May 10, 1867; Daily Times, May 1, 1867.) 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 13 of laborers here. We do not believe such to be a fact, but that there is simply no great surplus. Let our well-employed men enforce as nearly as possible uniform rates of wages, 'and in no case make unreasonable demands simply because they have the power to enforce them, and they will receive the sympathy and encouragement of all without increasing the competition for their places which a general disturbance of the labor market would bring upon them. ' ' Unfortunately, not all of the trade-unions were willing to take this sage advice. Evidently some of them failed to realize that there were limits to the possibility of gaining increased wages, even under such extraordinary conditions as were prevalent in California at that time. Hitherto the employers had yielded to their demands, at least for the time being, but in 1863 and 1864 we jBnd them forced to adopt a different policy. "We have already referred to the extreme example of trade-union demands, that of the bakers in November, 1863.^* While their employers were obliged to pay the additional thirty to forty-five dollars per month demanded, they hastened to import bakers from Hamburg, who gladly worked under worse conditions than had prevailed before the strike. In April, 1864, the foundrymen reached the limit of their willingness to accede to the demands of their workmen. At this time the moulders and boiler-makers went on strike, demanding an increase of fifty cents to a dollar, making their wages range from four to five dollars a day.^^ The proprietors of the foundries declared that they had already advanced wages to the limit of what was possible to pay, and still compete with eastern pro- dxictions. One foundryman employing twenty-five men offered to advance the wages of seventeen of the journeymen in his employ, but refused the uniform advance demanded.^"* The moulders sent out circulars warning other workmen not to come to San Fran- cisco, and firmly refused to make any concessions. 24 Bulletin, November 4, 1863. ^^AUa, April 3, 8, 1864; Laior Clarion, September 4, 1908, p. 34. The Daily Report of May 11, 1886, gives the following account of the Moulders' Union. "The Ironmoulders' Union was organized in 1867, and almost immediately thereafter entered upon a strike for higher wages. Large numbers of men were induced to come hither from New York and other eastern cities, and although the union was mainly successful in so far as gaining the objects of the strike was concerned, the ultimate outcome was the disruption of the organization. ' ' This account is manifestly incor- rect. i^AUa, April 3, 1864. 14 University of California PuUications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 The members of the other San Francisco trade-unions were disposed to support the moulders," though their support took the form of resolutions of sympathy rather than the liberal financial assistance common in later times. As wages in the eastern foundries were much lower than in California, it was possible, by advancing the cost of passage, to obtain men to take the place of the strikers. It is evident that the proprietors carried out this plan,^* but they must also have taken back their old hands, for the Moulders' Union was not disrupted, or, if it disbanded, was quickly re-organized, for in 1867 both this union and the boiler- makers' are reported as holding regular meetings.^" These instances where employers found it more profitable to obtain workmen from a distance than to submit to the demands for increased wages seem to have served as warnings to the trade- unions,'*'' for during the last half of this decade we fijid them turning their attention to other ways of improving their con- dition. Instead of engaging in trade-union bargaining for higher wages, they sought to safeguard themselves from the competition of Chinese labor, and to secure legislation protecting their wages and shortening the working day. For the promotion of measures of this kind organizations more general in scope than those of the workers in different crafts were necessary. During this period we find for the first time unions of the workingmen of the entire state. The San Fran- cisco Trades Union was succeeded by the Industrial League of California, an organization which was divided into two branches : No. 1, with Sacramento as its center, was supposed to include the northern part of the state, while No. 2, with headquarters at San Francisco, had jurisdiction over the southern section.^^ There had been anti-coolie associations in San Francisco as early as ^T ma., April 8, 1864. 28 April 12, 1864. 20 Industrial Magazine, January, 1867. 30 Evidently this action of the employers made a deep impression on the minds of the workingmen of San Francisco. We have seen the refer- ence to it in the article from the Daily Beport of May 11, 1886, and a recent history of the Bakers' Union also gives the incident full notice. (See Laior Clarion, September 4, 1908, p. 36.) SI Alta, editorial, June 2, 1867. ■^^-'■''] Eaves: California Lahor Legislation. 15 1862, but they now multiplied rapidly in numbers/^ and formed a state organization with a central representative council and various subordinate councils.='= The Mechanics' State Council was organized in 1867. This was an outgrowth of the Carpenters ' Eight-Hour League, and devoted itself largely to the propagation of the eight-hour movement.'"' The Iridiistrial Magazine, a monthly devoted to the interests of the wage-workers, appeared in January, 1867. It announced in its first number that it was "issued for the avowed purpose of strengthening the combinations of Industry, and assisting the efforts of those striving to secure the advantages and privileges of our advancing civilization." During the three months that it survived, this magazine gave ample notice to the eight-hour move- ment, the anti-Chinese agitation, and the cooperative societies. It also published a "Directory of "Workingmen 's Associations", from which we learn that the following societies held regular meetings : Industrial League No. 2, Eureka Typographical Union No. 21, Plumbers' Protective Union, Bricklayers' Protec- tive Association, Journeymen Stone-Cutters' Union, Operative Stone Masons' Society, Laborers' Protective Association, Tin Smiths' Protective- Association, Moulders' Association, Boiler- Makers' Society, Plasterers' Protective Association, Ship and Steamboat Painters' Association, Ship and Steamboat Joiners' Association, Journeymen Shipwrights' Association, Ship Caulk- ers' Association, Journeymen Horse-Shoers ' Association, Shoe- makers' Protective Association, Cartmen's Association. Evi- dently this list is incomplete, for in the Workingman 's Convention which met in April, 1867,'^ there were representa- tives from these additional unions: saddle and harness makers, house carpenters, No. 1 and No. 2, coopers, metal roofers, cur- riers, machinists, riggers, and stevedores, making a total of twenty-six organizations. 32 There were in 1867 twelve anti-Cliinese clubs in San Francisco, one in each district. Si Bulletin, July 12, 1862; May 14, 1867. 34 For the completer account of its work, see Chapter VII, ' ' The Length of the Work-Day in California" (p. 206, etc.). 35 San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867. 16 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- ^ THE WORKINGMEN'S CONVENTION OF 1867. The National Congress of Workingmen held in Baltimore in August, 1866,^" suggested a similar meeting in California. Early in 1867 the Industrial League No. 2 issued a call for a conven- tion of workingmen to meet in San Francisco on March 29. This call requested the organized trades and societies to appoint five of their members to represent them in the convention. It pro- vided that those trades that were not organized might also select from their numbers "five men of known integrity" as their representatives. All delegates must be workingmen, taken from the ranks, thoroughly identified with the working classes, and free from party politics. Notice was given that societies formed on a political basis, having politicians at their head, need not send delegates.^'' The convention opened with 140 delegates, who represented the anti-coolie clubs of the twelve districts of San Francisco, and the various trades.''^ A later account says that thirty-two trades and all the anti-coolie clubs sent delegates. ^^ The convention promptly effected a permanent organization*" and appointed a committee to draft resolutions on the following subjects for sub- mission at the next meeting: An eight-hour law, a mechanics' lien law, legislation against Chinese immigration, the founding of cooperative stores and manufactures.*^ At the second session of the convention the question of the advisability of sending delegates to the National Labor Convention which was to convene at Chicago in the fol- lowing August was discussed. It was suggested that the workingmen of California should not attempt more than they had power to do, and that, so long as they were unable to settle the problems that confronted them here on the Coast, it was useless to talk of sending delegates to a national 30 McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., pp. 133-13.4. 37 Industrial Magazine, March, 1867. Si Bulletin, April 1, 1867. soAUa, June 2, 1867. 10 The following officers were elected : President, J. J. Ayers ; Vice- Presidents, A. T. Enos and A. M. Gray; Secretary, Dickson; Treasurer, J. W. Wilkerson; Sergeant-at-Arms, Hughes. 41 Bulletin, April 1, 1867. ^^^'^1 Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 17 convention.*^ The preamble of the report of the committee on resolutions expresses the same distrust of older political parties noticeable in the resolutions of the Baltimore National Congress,*^ and also voices the need of united political action on the part of the working people. It reads: "Whereas, After the lapse of more than a quarter of a century of passive indifference to their own rights and interests, the mechanics and workingmen of the United States have awakened to the necessity of uniting together for the enforcement of their own interests; and being convinced by sad experience that the professional office-seekers of all parties have no interest or sympathy with the cause of the workingmen except to get their votes, they, in self-defence, have been forced into the necessity of assuming control of their own affairs and of relying upon themselves for success. For this purpose they have already organized associations in almost every branch of labor and formed the associations into state organizations, with a view of holding state and national conventions of workingmen, in order to present their claims for reform to the public at large, and thus invest the cause of labor with a national importance, and inasmuch as the workingmen of this state are suffering under the same grievances and disabilities which our brethren of the Atlantic and western states are seeking to remove, it becomes our duty, in furtherance of our interests, to do all in our power to unite the workingmen of California in the bonds of fraternity, so as to concentrate their influence, and direct it in such a manner as to insure compliance with our just demands. ' '** At the next meeting the plan for political action in the interests of the working classes was given more definite form. In a resolution, which was carried almost unanimously, it was moved "that a committee be selected from this convention con- sisting of one member from each delegation to draft a working- man 's platform, embodying all justly needed reforms, calling the attention of the workingmen to such measures of self-protection as the exigencies of the time may require, urging the formation of workingmen 's unions in all the cities and towns throughout 42 San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867. 43 McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., p. 134. a Bulletin, April 3, 1867. 18 University of California Publications in Economics. U^ol. 2 the state, calling upon the people to drop and forget all political distinctions and work in harmony for the good of all. ' '^^ This committee was also directed to report a plan for the thorough organization of all the workingmen's societies of the state under one head. The president vacated the chair in order to present his plan for the appointment of a correspondence com- mittee of five, whose duty it should be to enter upon a systematic correspondence with workingmen of all parts of the state upon subjects suggested by the convention. The members of the con- vention were called upon to suggest the names of persons in the interior towns and cities who would be suitable corresponding agents to cooperate with this committee.*" At the meeting of April 30, the committee on the platform and address brought in a lengthy report. This urged the passage of a mechanics' lien law, an eight-hour law, the repression of coolie labor, and the abstinence from politics so far as they did not concern the interests of the workingmen. This report was unanimously adopted, and fifty thousand copies were ordered printed for distribution. Evidently the reference to politics simply meant that the workingmen should devote themselves to their own party, for at the same time that the report of the committee was adopted, an additional resolution was passed to the effect "that this com- mittee believes that the most advisable means of arriving at success in the object for which our convention has been convened is to act in our primary capacity as citizens, and to vote for proper representatives from among ourselves at the primary elections, and they [sic] should, therefore, as citizens and favor- able to the working classes, elect only such delegates as this convention shall have recommended. ' '" Pursuant to this plan, it was decided that delegates from each district of San Francisco should nominate persons for the primary ticket. These were reported and, after some discussion of the qualifications of a few of the nominees, a complete primary workingmen's ticket was placed in nomination. "When the returns 45 San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867. iB Hid., April 10, 1867. ■IT ma., May 1, 1867. 1910] Eaves : Calif ornia Labor Legislation. 19 of the primary election of June 5, 1867, came in, everyone was surprised to find that the Workingmen 's Party had won a large majority.** The workingmen had planned to nominate Assemblyman Wilcox, who had chajnpioned the eight-hour la.w in the 1866 session of the Legislature, for Congress. They were unable to carry out this plan as he withdrew. It was claimed that he received a financial consideration for doing so.*" But undoubt- 'edly this show of political strength was one of the chief factors contributing to the passage of the eight-hour law, the mechanics' lien law, and the act for the protection of wages, at the 1868 session of the legislature.^" On the whole, the Workingmen 's Convention of 1867 was a memorable body in the history of the California labor movement. It was the first large assemblage of the representatives of the wage-workers of the state ; it helped make possible the passage of three of the most important labor laws on our statute books ; it planned the first successful Workingmen 's Party,^^ and won the first political victory in San Francisco; it was the culmination of the labor movement of the sixties ; and inaugurated the efforts to unite the working people of the state in political activities, thus initiating the form of activity that was to be most character- istic of the labor movement of the next decade. During the years immediately following the first demonstra- tion of the political power of the labor organizations, the atten- tion and the energies of the California trade-unionist were absorbed in the eight-hour movement.^^ While the eight-hour day was generally introduced in the building trades, the attempts to enforce it in other occupations soon led to strikes. Not only did the employers again resort to the importation of strike- breakers, but many competitors were brought by the large influx 48 The AUa, June 6, 1867, says that the Workingmen elected twenty-five delegates, but the Times of the same date says that they elected twenty-three and that the People's Party elected thirteen. 49 Alta, July 12, 1867. 50 A more detailed account of the efforts to pass these laws will be given in subsequent chapters. 51 There had been a Workingmen 's Party in Sacramento prior to this time, but it was unsuccessful. San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867. 62 The more detailed account of the eight-hour movement will be given in Chapter VII, dealing with the legislation on this subject. 20 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 of immigrants seeking to escape the business depression which followed the Civil War, which was much more severely felt in eastern states than in California. It soon became evident that the period when the wage-worker could demand whatever he chose was past; already there were signs of the hard times of unemployment that were to be characteristic of the seventies. THE LABOE MOVEMENTS OF THE SEVENTIES. This period was marked by a radical change in the economic conditions in California. The Central Pacific Kailroad was opened in 1869, thus bringing California into closer touch with other sections of the country. The men who had been employed in the construction of this road were turned back into other avenues of employment, and their numbers were swelled by the increased immigration from other states of the Union. The; Burlingame Treaty, which by its favorable terms had seemed to invite immigration of Chinese, had been concluded in 1868 re- gardless of the protests of the Californians. Subsidized steam- ships gave increased facilities, and impelled by famines at home and offers of richly rewarded employment in California, the Chinese were pouring into San Francisco in numbers which, at times, averaged two thousand per month. As a result of this business depression and increase of competitors, the trade-unions were unable to retain the wages and hours of labor which they had won during the sixties. Onlj' a few of them maintained a continuous existence during this period of extreme depression. While the agitation for the eight-hour day was carried over into the seventies, the chief organized activity on the part of the working people took the form of a great variety of anti-Chinese societies. As the Chinese question must be dealt with by state and national legislation, we are not surprised to find that there was a strong tendency throughout this period to go into politics. Many historians have treated the Workingmen's Party of 1878 as though it were a sudden, isolated phenomenon. Such was by no means the case; it was but the culmination of the political activities of organizations of workingmen during the previous ten years. 1910] Eaves: California Lahor Legislation. 21 This was also the period when the California organizations came into closer touch with the eastern labor movement. A. M. Winn, the president of the Mechanics' State Council, went to Washington in 1869, and spent some months in an unsuccessful effort to secure the passage of an amendment to the national eight-hoiir law which should positively require that all public work, whether done by the day or under contract, should be subject to the eight-hour work-day requirement. He was chosen chairman of the National Bight-Hour Executive Committee, which was composed of the presidents of state and national organizations of mechanics. ^^ M. W. Delaney was also sent as a delegate of the Mechanics' State Council to the meeting of the National Labor Union at Chicago in 1870. A letter from him, read at the meeting of the State Anti-Chinese Convention of August, 1870, gives a glowing account of his success in stirring up anti-Chinese feeling among the delegates to this convention.''* He returned with authority to grant charters to branches of the National Labor Union in California. '''' It is impossible to distinguish clearly the many forms of labor organizations which sought to find remedies for the hard times of the seventies. The only principle of unity in these manifold combinations for the agitation of labor problems was their opposition to the Chinese. We will content ourselves with a brief summary of the history of the more important organizations in the order of their origin, noticing (1) the trade-unions, (2) political parties, (3) anti-Chinese societies. (1) Trade-unions Surviving, 1870-1880. While one hears but little of the regular trade-^mions during this period, it is evident that some of them maintained a pre- carious existence. Attempts were made to form them into federated unions in 1874 and 1878. The tailors made the first of these attempts. It is said that six unions came together and drew up a constitution, but they fell to quarreling over the 53 Winn, Valedictory Address. ^iAUa, August 24, 1870. ^5 Bulletin, March 15, 1871. 22 University of California Publications in Economies, [^ol- 2 question of whether they should have a permanent or temporary chairman, and failed to complete their organization. Another attempt to form a trades assembly was made during the early stages of the Workingmen's Party. Haskell says there were fourteen unions in this assembly, with a total membership of 1,500.=" It continued to meet in a somewhat irregular way until 1882. Thus it is evident that, though inactive, some of the trade- unions held together during this period. The Carpenters' Eight-Hour League was reorganized, soon after the return of A. M. Winn from his eastern trip, into a branch of the Eumenic Order of United Mechanics." For a few years this body continued to agitate in favor of the eight-hour day, particularly in work for the public,^* and then it dropped out of existence. The carpenters reorganized their union in 1882.=^ The last notices of the Mechanics' State Council which we have found appeared in 1877,"° so that this organization which came into existence during the eight-hour cajppaign of 1867 survived for ten years. This was chiefly due to the persistent activity of its president, A. M. Winn."^ Indeed it is claimed that during the later years his list of unions represented was fictitious, as some of them had_ceased to exist."- "While chiefly devoted to the cause of the eight-hour day, we find this organiza- tion also active in the formation of anti-Chinese societies. 50 Haskell, in McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., 609. In the sketch of the life of Frank Eoney, the first president of the Federated Trades Council, it is claimed that he suggested the formation of this Trades Assembly at the first Workingmen's Council. {San Francisco Daily Be- port, May 11, 1886.) 57 Winn, Valedictory Address. Bs Alta, May 3, 28, 1873. BO Organised Labor, February 8, 1902. 00 Alta, January 14, May 12, 21, 23, 1876; November 6, 1877. 01 A. M. Winn was born in Loudoun County, Virginia, and went to Vicks- burg, where he became a brigadier-general of the militia. He came to California in 1849, was the first Mayor of Sacramento, and commanded the militia in the difSculties with the squatters. He was a contractor and builder, and on coming to San Francisco engaged in the planing-mill business. He founded the organization known as the Sons of Revolutionary Sires, and was also one of the originators of the Native Sons of the Golden West. He died August 26, 1883. 62 San Francisco Daily Beport, May 11. 1886. 1910] Eaves: Calif or)iia Labor Legislation. 23 (2) Political Parties, 1870-1877. Early in 1870 the meetings of the unemployed began in San Francisco. They were fallowed in July by a great anti-Chinese demonstration, which was led by the Knights of St. Crispin, an organization of shoemakers."^ At this meeting it was decided to call a State Anti-Chinese Convention to convene in the following month. When this convention met a part of the delegates, led by the Knights of St. Crispin, were in favor of nominating a political ticket, and another faction, under the leadership of the Mechanics' State Council and the eight-hour leagues, were opposed to all separate political action, claiming that more could be accomplished by using their influence with the older political parties."* When it became evident that the convention would nominate a municipal ticket, these latter organizations withdrew, and afterwards formed a separate society known as the Industrial Reformers. The remaining members of the convention proceeded to organize as a branch of the National Labor Union. They adopted a platform which declared, in addition to favoring the eight-hour law, that "the conditions of labor should be positively fixed by the laws of the Nation. Free labor must not be made to compete with labor in restraint, nor should labor under our system of civilization be allowed to come into competition with a lower order of men and system of civilization.""^ They opposed the election of any candidate who employed Chinese or favored their admission to the state. Before adjourning, they nominated a complete municipal ticket."" While the members of this organization declared themselves to be acting as a branch of the National Labor Union, the organization of the California branch of the society does not seem to have been perfected until ilarcli, 1871."^ From that time until osAUa, July 9, 16, 1870. 64 Winn, Valedictory Address, p. 5. 65 AUa, August 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 24, 1870. See p. 138. ssiud., August 31, September 16, 1870. HT Bulletin, March 15, 1871. 24 University of Calif onia Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 1878"^ the California branch of the National Labor Union main- tained a continuous existence. While it did not meet with success in electing its candidates, there is abundant evidence of its political activities. It held a large ratification meeting in December, 1871, to endorse the candidacy of G. W. Julian for the presidency.'"' A month later the State Labor Convention met in San Francisco. A lengthy platform was adopted,^" which is interesting because of its resemblances to the platform of its offspring, the Workingmen's Party of 1877-1878. Among the measures advocated in this platform were the following : "Mrst — The disenttralment of labor by the equalization of the wages of labor with the income of capital. ' ' Second — The establishment of an equitable rate of interest for the use of money. * * * * ■« * * ' ' Seventh — The maintenance of an eight-hour system of labor. ' ' Eighth — The establishment of a Labor Bureau at Washington for the better protection of the industries of the country. "Ninth — The Government holds the public land in trust for the use and benefit of the people; that it should be distributed to actual settlers only in limited quantities, not exceeding 160 acres, at cost of survey and distribution, . . all unimproved land shall be taxed the same as though settled, and improved . ******* ' ' Eleventh, . . . we declare in favor of universal compulsory citi- zen suffrage, and secular education. "Twelfth — That Government should assume control of all chartered and subsidized corporations, and regulate their charges upon principles of equity and exact justice, and enforce such regulations as will best secure the interests and safety of the people." The convention also advocated the election of the President, Vice-President and Senators by the direct votes of the people, and urged that the treaty with China be amended to prohibit Chinese immigration." Six delegates were appointed to attend the National Convention of the party.'^ In May the Executive Committee of the Labor Party of s of these platforms. 1. Chinese cheap labor was declared to be "a curse to our land, a menace to the liberties and the institutions of our country, and should there- fore be restricted and forever abolished. ' ' 2. The granting of the public lands to corporations was declared to be robbery, and all lands so held should revert to the people, for the use of actual settlers. Individuals should not be allowed to hold more than one square mile of land. Lands of equal value should be subject to equal tax- ation, without reference to improvements. 3. Money, bonds, and mortgages to be subject to taxation. 4. Malfeasance in office to be punished by imprisonment for life, with- out intervention of the pardoning power. In the second platform this was modified to punishment as a felony. The legislator who violates his pledges given to secure his election should be punished as a felon. Lobbying around the State Capitol while the Legislature is in session to be forever prohibited. 5. The lakes and rivers of the state to be held as public property. 6. The rate of interest on money to be limited to seven per cent. 7. The contract system of prison labor to be abolished, and the goods produced in prisons and reformatories to be sold at the market rates of the products of free labor. 8. Labor on public works to be performed by the day at current rates of wages. 9. Eight hours is sufScient for a day's work; such work-day should be established by law. 10. There should be no special legislation, and the laws should be rati- fied by the people. 11. Women to receive equal pay with men for work of equal value. 12. Compulsory education for children under fourteen, the text-books to be supplied by the state. A special fund to be maintained for the assistance of indigent children so that they may attend school. Lectures to be given in the public schools at stated intervals, setting forth the dignity of labor and mechanical avocations as paramount to all other walks in life. 13. Public officers to receive a fixed salary, and fees to be accounted for as public moneys. 14. The President, Vice-President and Senators to be elected by popular vote. 95 Stedman and Leonard, op. cit., pp. 75-6. This plan was adopted on May 4, 1878. 36 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 The provisions of these platforms did not originate with the Workingmen's Party. We have seen that many of them were contained in the platform of the National Labor Party adopted in 1872 ; others are directly traceable to the Knights of Labor, who organized their first California assembly in Sacramento in 1878. INPLUENCE OF THE WOEKINGMEN'S PAETY ON THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. The coming Constitutional Convention seemed to afford a direct and permanent form of legislation, and the workingmen hoped to embody this varied program of reform in the new constitution. As June 19, the day of the election, approached, they bent every energy to the work of securing a strong repre- sentation in the convention. When the election returns came in, it was found that they had elected fifty-one of the hundred and fifty-two delegates, thirty-one of their members coming from San Francisco. Of the nOn-partisan ticket, seventy-eight were elected, including thirty-two delegates-at-large. Eleven Republicans, ten Democrats, and two independents made up the remaining mem- bers of the convention. A number of the non-partisan delegates were Grangers who united with the Workingmen in support of their measures. The campaign, exclusive of cost of tickets voted, cost the workingmen only $300. Though many of the delegates of the Workingmen's Party were so ignorant and unfamiliar with parliamentary usage that they were not effective on the floor of the convention, still the voting strength of the party was sufficient to insure the passage of a number of their measures. An examination of the California Constitution shows that they succeeded in embodying in it a large part of their platform, though most of the more radical innovations have since been declared invalid. The constitution goes beyond its powers in the efforts to deal with the Chinese question. They are forever excluded from ex- ercising the privileges of electors. "" Their employment by cor- porations or on any state, county, municipal, or other public work is forbidden."^ The legislature is empowered to make laws "o Constitution of California, Art. I, Sec. 1 . 9T lUd., Art. XIX, Sees. 2, 3. ■^^^'^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 37 imposing conditions on which they may reside in the state, and providing for their removal on failure to comply with these conditions."* It is also charged with the duty of imposing pen- alties for the importation of coolie or contract laborers, directed to do all in its power to discourage or prohibit further Chinese immigration, and to pass laws permitting the removal of the Chinese without the limits, or to certain districts, of the cities and towns of the state."" The convention found itself unable to do much more than express its convictions on the question of land monopoly. The constitution declares that "The holding of large tracts of land, tmcultivated and unimproved, by individuals or corporations, is against the public interest, and should be discouraged by all means not inconsistent with the rights of private property. "^'"' In accordance with this policy it authorizes the assessment of uncultivated land of the same quality and situation at the same value as the cultivated.^"^ It also directs that "Lands belonging to this State, which are suitable for cultivation, shall be granted only to actual settlers, and in quantities not exceeding three hun- dred and twenty acres to each settler, under such conditions as shall be prescribed by law. "^"^ The legislature is authorized to pass laws protecting certain portions of the homestead and other property of heads of families from sale.^"^ The constitution contains a number of regulations aiming to increase the burdens of capital and to regulate and restrict the operations £>i corporations. Moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, dues, franchises, mortgages, deeds of trust, or other obligations by which a debt is secured, are all subject to taxation."* The legislature is authorized to regulate the charges of public ser- vice corporations furnishing gas, telegraph service, water, stor- age, and wharfage.'^"^ All corporations must be formed under 98 Constitution of California, Art. XIX, Sec. 1. o^Ibid., Art. XIX, Sec. i. 100 Hid., Art. XVII, Sec. 2. 101 Ihid., Art. XIII, Sec. 2. 102 md., Art. XVII, Sec. 3. 103 Ibid., Art. XVII, Sec. 1. lOi Ibid., Art. XIII, Sec. 1, Sec. 4. 105 litid.. Art. IV, Sec. 33. 38 University of California Publications in Economics. ['Vol. 2 general laws, and these are subject to changes by the legisla- ture."" To the section of the older constitution holding their stockholders individually and personally liable for a share of the debts or liabilities of corporations, proportional to the amount of their stock or shares, is added the provision that the directors and trustees are liable to the creditors and stock- holders for money embezzled by the oiScers of the corporation' during their term of office. ^"^ The constitution has a strong section on the subject of lobby- ing in the state legislatures : "Any person who seeks to influence the vote of a member of the Legislature by bribery, promise of reward, intimidation, or any other dishonest means, shall be guilty of lobbying, which is hereby declared a felony; and it shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide, by law, for the punishment of this crime. Any member of the Legislature who shall be influenced, in his vote or action upon any matter pending before the Legislature, by any reward, or promise of future reward, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, in addition to such punishment as may be provided by law, shall be disfranchised and forever disqualified from holding any office or public trust. "los The constitutional prohibition of local or special legislation^"" has not been beneficial to the working people of the state, as it has been construed to invalidate various attempts to legislate for their protection. The constitution instructed the legislature to pass laws pro- viding for a mechanics' lien,^" the eight-hour day on public work,"^ and for the regulation of the labor of convicts.^^- The Workingmen's Party owes its success to a spontaneous uprising of the wage-workers expressing itself in a Avay with 100 Constitution of California, Art. XII, Sec. 1. i»7 Ibid., Art. Xil, Sec. 3. i»8 76,VZ., Art. IV, Sec. 3.5. 100 Ibid., Art. IV, Sec. 2,5. iioj&jd., Art. XX, Sec. 15. 111 Ibid., Art. XX, Sec. 17. 112 Ibid., Art. X, Sec. 6. These laws will be treated more fully in the subsequent chapters dealing with the subjects. 1910] ^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 39 which they had become familiar during the preceding years of the labor movement. It was a protest against the business and political corruption of the times, an effort to find relief for economic distress, an expression of class feeling that had been voiced in the bitter and extravagant oratory of the sand-lot, and given literary form and extended influence by the newspapers; the whole movement being greatly assisted at every stage of its development by the folly of the San Francisco municipal authorities. The leaders of the movement were crude, ignorant men, devoid of any real statesmanship. They were incapable of either conceiving or executing any consistent programme of reform. Their platforms were a restatement of the measures of older labor parties, and suggested no unified policy. The unlimited self-assurance of a man like Kearney may win temporary con- fidence, but the native common sense of the American workman soon discovers a lack of solid attainments. Even with abler leadership it is doubtful whether the party could have been held together, for the history of the next twenty years proves that much additional discipline was necessary to bring the California labor organizations to the state of development where they were capable of continuous, unified activity. We have seen that there were defections within the ranks of the party before the election for the Constitutional Convention. "With the adoption of the new constitution, the reception of news of the first congressional action on the Chinese question, and an improvement in the economic conditions, the motives for the maintenance of the Workingmen 's Party were weakened. While it continued to be influential in the San Francisco elections for two or three years, it was soon evident that it was not to be a permanent power in the state. When James Bryce visited Cali- fornia in 1883, he found the people in San Francisco somewhat irritated at the disposition of eastern writers to magnify the importance and significance of this chapter in the turbulent political history of the state."^ 113 Bryce, American Commonirealth, Vol. II, pp. 425-448. 40 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 GROWTH TOWARDS A UNIFIED TRADE-UNION MOVEMENT, 1878-1885. Aside from any political significance, the Workingmen 's Party had a permanent educational value in promoting unity of feeling and action on the part of the labor organizations of the state. We have already referred to its efforts to form a central representative assembly of the trade-unions of San Francisco. The Cigar Makers' Appeal'-'-* publishes the proceedings of this body in July, 1880, so it is evident that it survived. The same number of this paper gives a directory of unions which contains twenty-one names. It seems probable that this list was incom- plete, as it does not include the ironmoulders, though this is one of the unions mentioned in the minutes of the Representative Assembly of Trades and Labor Unions. A later list of trade- unions in the report of the Labor Commissioner for 1887-1888 also gives additional unions which claimed to have been organized in the later seventies,^^'' probably under the stimulus of the Workingmen 's Party. The period of greatest activity of the Representative As- sembly was in 1881-2. Ira Cross thinks this was due to the energetic leadership of Frank Roney,^'^" the representative sent 114 I have been able to find only one copy of this weekly paper, that of July 21, 1880. 115 Third Biennial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 128-131. 116 Trani Eoney was one of the ablest of the early California labor leaders. He was born in Belfast, Ireland, in 1841, and had received a good education. At an early age he suffered imprisonment for over a year on account of his activity in the movement for the overthrow of the English rule in Ireland. After his release he traveled on the Continent, where he was initiated in the famous revolutionary Order of the Carbonari. On his return to Ireland, he renewed his activities, being elected a member of the newly planned Provincial Council. The day before its first meeting its members were arrested. After spending ten more inonths in jail, Boney was sent to America. On coming to this country he continued his career as an organizer by entering the labor movement. Before coming to California he had been the first president of the Nebraska Labor Reform Party, and a contributor to the Wor.lcingmen's Advocate. He came to California in 1874, and we soon hear of him in the Workingmen 's Party. He was president of one of the ward clubs, chairman of the first state convention, and member of the state executive committee. He wro.te the constitution and plan of organization of the party. But he soon fell out with Kearney, and was the leader of the defection at the time of the non-eligibility resolutions. He next became a socialist, and we hear of his activities among the seamen, who were peculiarly in need of some effort for their betterment. In addition to these manifold public activities, Eoney pursued the trade of an ironmoulder. (San Francisco Daily Report, May 11, 3886. Compare the account by Ira Cross, in Coast Seamen's Journal, July 8, 1908, p. 2.) 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 41 from the Seamen's Protective Association in June, 1881.^^^ This activity took the form of another great anti- Chinese demon- stration, to which representatives, not only from California, but also from Oregon and Nevada, were summoned. The convention which met in April, 1882, organized the League of Deliverance for the purpose of continuing its work.^^^ An attempt was made to enforce a general boycott of Chinese goods, but this failed as even the workingmen could not be made to purchase the more expensive products of white labor. The plan was changed, and an effort was made to enforce boycotts on those dealing largely in Chinese-made goods. But this also failed, as those conducting the boycott were repeatedly arrested.^" The passage of the exclusion law of 1882 decreased the need of the League, and both this and the Trades Assembly soon dropped out of existence. ^^° THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR. In the interval between 1882 and 1885, the Knights of Labor supplied the need for a central labor union in San Francisco. Since the establishment of the first Sacramento Assembly in 1878, they had increased rapidly in power. Between 1879 and 1882 they organized eight local assemblies in San Francisco, and in September, 1882, these were united to form District Assembly No. 53. During the next three years the number of assemblies in California increased to twenty-five. While the California as- semblies refrained from promoting any local strikes, they are said to have contributed generously to the support of assemblies in eastern states engaged in controversies.^" 117 Coast Seamen's Journal, July 8, 1908, p. 2. 118 Mass-meetings under the auspices of the Trades Assembly were held on February 15 and 16. See Bulletin and other papers of February 16 and 17, 1882. The convention met on April 24, 1882; see daily papers of April 25. 119 A vivid account of this attempt at boycott is given in the speech of Haskell before the convention meeting in December, 1885. See San Fran- cisco Daily Report, December 7, 1885. Eoney, the president of the Trades Assembly, was arrested for boycotting, but was acquitted. Haskell says Starkweather, who carried the placard in front of one of the stores, was arrested nineteen times. 120 McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., p. 609. 121 San Francisco Daily Beport, November 28, 1885. 42 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 I THE INTERNATIONALISTS. The International "Workingmen's Association, an organization of socialists, was also quite active in the formation of trade- unions during this period. The California Internationalists included among their organizers a number of men of ability and great devotion to the cause, though they were the most radical of the early California labor leaders. Their enthusiasm and highly idealistic but impracticable teachings enabled them to arouse the interest of the workingmen, and made them effective preachers of the new gospel of united effort. But they were very trouble- some when the organizations reached the point where they were ready for the sober management of the business affairs of their members. The Knights of Labor found it necessary to expel the socialists from their assemblies, and in time, the trade-unions that had been organized by the Internationalists freed themselves from their influence. ^^^ Early in 1885 the Internationalists called a convention for the purpose of again forming a central labor union. Two hundred and fifty delegates are reported to have attended on the opening night of the convention, but there must have been an immediate defection, as only half that number are said to have been present on the second night. ^-^ After some discussion, a platform and list of organizers were produced which at once made it evident that the convention was completely dominated by the socialists.^^^ The trade-unions of Internationalist affiliations held a few meetings, but the new Central Labor Union soon fell apart. Haskell, who was the chief promoter of the enterprise, charges its defeat to the politicians in the trade-unions; but it seems more probable that the older, more conservative unions 122 "We have been able to follow the history of Internationalist influence in detail in the ease of the Coast Seamen's Union, which they oreanized in 1885. 123 San Francisco Daily Beport,' March 17, 19, 30. McNeill, op. cit., p. 609. 12* It declared that hard times were due to the monopolization of nat- ural resources, tools of production, and medium of exchange by nonproduc- ers, and favored state employment of labor and nationalization of land, means of transportation, and implements of production, as furnishing the only satisfa,ctory solution of the labor question. All but one member of the organizing committee were Ipternationalists. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 43 objected to the pronounced socialistic tendencies of the move- ment. ^^^ THE CONVENTION OF 1885. Late in 1885 another convention was called by the Knights of Labor for the purpose of discussing the need of further legis- lation against the Chinese, and the question of contract prison labor. On November 30 some two hundred delegates, among whom were representatives from the Los Angeles Trades Coun- cil, the Stockton branch of the Internationalists, Sacramento Knights of Labor, Vallejo mechanics, machinists of Storey County, Nevada, and from Oakland and Alameda unions, in addition to those sent from the San Francisco organizations.^^" Though called by the Knights of Labor, the convention quickly passed from their control to that of the Internationalists and the trade-unions under their influence. Frank Roney was elected chairman, and B. G. Plaskell, with a large following of seamen, was the most influential member on the floor of the convention. The passage of the radical resolution calling for the removal of the Chinese in sixty days resulted in the withdrawal of the 125 "Haskell was born in Sierra County, California, June 11, 1857, his parents being among the earliest pioneers of the state. After graduating from the public schools he was sent to college, but remained there for only a short time. He then interested himself in the study of law and was admitted to the bar in 1879. . . He soon tired of the law, and when, in 1882, he was given an opportunity of taking charge of a weekly paper, he quickly assented to the proposition. . . . Thus it was that the latter became the editor of Truth. ' ' Several numbers of the paper had been issued when one evening Haskell happened to attend a meeting of tne Trades' Assembly in search of news. He sat and listened to the proceedings and finally offered to make his paper the official organ of the body. . . . After some dis- cussion the offer was accepted. "At that time Haskell knew nothing whatever about trade-unionism or the labor problem. He came of wealthy and aristocratic parents and had never become interested in such matters. However, as the weeks passed he read all of the available literatvire and in a short time became the best-posted man on the labor question in the western states. As he read and studied the situation, he became an ardent socialist. ' ' Truth suspended publication after having been issued for a few years, but by this time Haskell had become one of the foremost men in the labor movement. In 1883 he founded the Pacific Coast Division of the International Workingmen 's Association and in a few months had suc- ceeded in organizing branches of the order in all the territory west of the Eocky mountains. ' ' — Ira Cross, in Coast Seamen 's Journal, July 8, 1908, p. 7. 120 San Francisco Daily Eeport, December 1, 1885. 44 University of California Publications in Economics. 1^°^- ^ Knights of Labor, and several of the more conservative trade- unions.^" When the questions for which the convention had been called were disposed of, the need of a permanent central body was brought before the delegates. Haskell's resolution indicates that there was a general tendency towards federation at that time. It is also interesting as the first suggestion of the plan of organiza- tion of the Council of Federated Trades. It declares : "Whereas, The iron trades unions, five in number, are federated; the building trades, seven in number, are being federated, and the maritime trades, nine in number, are also being federated ; and "Whereas, Miscellaneous wage-workers in Assemblies of the Knights of Labor are practically federated by the District Assembly, — "Eesolved, That these federations should b^e perfected; that all other trades-unions should combine in a miscellaneous federation, and that the delegates of all these federations should meet and act together for the general good of the working people, for the purpose of federation, and of completing the organization of the trades-unions of San Francisco. ' ' In accordance with these suggestions the convention before its adjournment perfected plans for the organization of a new central body which began its meetings in January, 1886, and was at first burdened with the somewhat cumbersome title of ' ' Repre- sentative Council of Trades and Labor P'ederation of the Pacific Coast." About a year later the name was abbreviated to ' ' Federated Trades of the Pacific Coast. " A • review of the history of this new central council published five months later says that after its organization "internal dissensions arose, and from the first to the present time the work of steering the ship of federation through the straits has been such as to refieet credit upon those who have guided it. It can no longer be doubted that there is a united sentiment among the workingmen of the Coast. "^=^ THE FEDERATED TEADES OF THE PACIFIC COAST, 1886-1892. The new federation of trades proved itself the most energetic central body that had yet been organized. Its officials testified in 1892 that during the early years of its existence "tons of 127 San Francisco Daily Report, December 3, 7, 1885. 128 Ibid., May 11, 1886. 1^10] Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 45 literature" were distributed for the purpose of educating the public to an appreciation of the value of trade-unions. The membership increased rapidly, so that during this first year thirteen thousand trade-unionists were represented in the Federated Trades Council. It was decided to employ a paid secretary who would give his whole time to the work of the Council. As in the case of the earlier central bodies, this large initial membership was not maintained. Two years later the State Labor Commissioner reported that though seventeen organiza- tions were still represented in the Council there had been a decline in its membership. The Typographical Union had attempted to discover the reasons for this decline. Their com- mittee reported that inquiries among the withdrawing unions had elicited a variety of answers. The ironmoulders said they had withdrawn because o£ the lack of financial support from the unions forming the Council, and because of the ordering of the Spreckels boycott while it was evident that the Union Iron Works strike would be lost. The patternmakers had decided that they would gain more from affiliation with their National League. The steamship stevedores with a membership of 750 found their pro rata strike assessments too high, and also resented the efforts of the Council to make them support a rival water-front organiza- tion. "While the iron trades complained of the insufficiency of the strike fund, the tailors' union declared that it would have nothing to do with the Council while it continued to levy strike assessments. The report concludes with the following recom- mendations : "In conclusion your committee wish to report that in the light of all the information they have obtained, the arguments they have heard, and the motives which seem to actuate the friends and enemies of the Council of Federated Trades, they believe that the Union, in its own interests, and for the good of organized labor, should continue its active and earnest support of the Federation; that no good and probably great harm would be done to the interests we have most at heart, by the withdrawal of this Union; that our delegates should set an example of earnest work to the lukewarm and selfish in and out of the Federation ; that the Federation should have sufficient 46 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 financial help from all unions to enable it to carry on its work in a thorough and becoming manner ; that we can see no way in which good could come of destroying what has been builded with the mere hope of building better on the ruins of what now is a useful, though comparatively small gathering of labor unions. ' '^-° This temperate and public-spirited point of view seems to have prevailed to an extent that protected the Federated Trades from the fate of its predecessors. Indeed, if we may judge by its activity, it was not greatly weakened by the decline in num- bers, as this left a more wieldy body of genuinely interested members, who succeeded in exerting a wider influence than had been possible in any previous central body. To a greater extent than ever before or since, San Francisco was the center of organization for the whole Coast. Several trades, as the brewery workers and coast seamen, had central bodies in San Francisco, and branch unions in Oregon, Wash- ington, and in other parts of California. Sub-councils were organized in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, and Port Costa, and an active correspondence kept up with central bodies in other Pacific Coast states and territories.^'" Even the unions of British Coliunbia found the San Francisco Federated Trades ready to help fight their battles. ^'^ Not only did the Federated Trades differ from earlier central bodies in the extent of its organization, but also in its aims and policies. Its objects as set forth in the declaration of purposes of the first constitution, were declared to be: ". . . extend- ing, strengthening, and perpetuating the organization of labor on the Pacific Coast; to improve its present social condition; to resist the imposition of additional burdens ; to mitigate the evils of unjust and unnecessary legislation; to enforce existing laws in favor of labor, and especially those in favor of eight hours as a day's labor, and against contract convict, and Mongolian com- petition, and to disseminate knowledge, and in every practical 129 Third Biennial Report, Bureau of Laoor Statistics, pp. 114-15 By 1890 the Federated Trades Council regained its former membership. ISO Fifth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 40. 131 The vigorously pressed "Wellington coal boycott was for the benefit of the coal miners of British Columbia. ^^^^1 Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 47 way advance the material welfare of the workers, individually and collectively. . . . ' '^^^ The Australian ballot was the most important of the general public measures fostered by the Federated Trades. Over a thousand dollars were spent in the protracted campaign which finally secured its adoption in 1892. With the cooperation of the State Labor Commissioner the first laws for the protection of women and children wage- workers were passed, and also the meas- ures requiring sanitary conditions in workshops. The agitation for the shorter work-day was promoted by a special Eight-Hour League and by a permanent standing committee of the Council. AfSliations were established with the American Federation of Labor, and President Gompers was brought to the Coast to assist in the eight-hour campaign. The Federation also took an interest in finding work for the unemployed and in securing a representa- tion in the newly formed San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. No previous central labor union had developed such wide con- nections or shown a disposition to interest itself in such varied public measixres. With the development of greater strength and confidence in the support of public opinion, the fear of publicity was lessened, and since May, 1889,"" the meetings of this central body have been open to the public, and no pledge of secrecy exacted from its members. NEW TEADE-UNION AIMS AND METHODS, BOYCOTTS AND STRIKE BENEFITS. The new trade-union aims and methods promoted by the Federated Trades had even greater significance in the develop- ment of the California labor movement than the public measures advocated. Hitherto there had been little to arouse the antagon- ism of the employers. For twenty years the united efforts of the California workers had been chiefly devoted to securing 132 Fifth Biennial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 53. The pol- icies as developed were more original than suggested by this declaration. 133 Coast Seamen's Journal, May 1, 1889. Minutes of Federated Trades Council. 48 University of California Publications in Economics. [V°l- 2 legislation protecting the wage-worker from the competition of Chinese and convict labor, insuring the payment of wages earned, and shortening the work-day. Their employers were often willing to join in the support of these measures. With the exception of the eight-hour movement of 1867-1869, there had been no extensive united effort to force concessions from em- ployers. The individual unions expected little more than moral support from fellow trade-unionists when engaged in strikes. We have seen that through the long struggle to exclude the Chinese, by means of the teachings of the Knights of Labor, and the Internationalists, the working people of the Pacific Coast had attained to a strong consciousness of unity of interests. The Federated Trades Council developed means for utilizing this unity of feeling, not alone in promoting general legislation, but also for the support and defense of particular groups of workers engaged in contests with their employers. The boycott and the strike benefit which were now introduced not only furnished effective expression for this new sense of unity but gave a different significance to the ■whole labor movement. A review of the history of the most important boycotts and strikes of this period will show clearly the new power gained by the trade- unions, and the provocation that called forth the first organized opposition from the employers. The contest waged by the San Francisco Federated Trades on behalf of the miners of British Columbia is interesting, not only because it illustrates this wide-spread consciousness of a common cause, but also as an example of the methods used for enforcing boycotts in this period of their greatest development. The presi- dent of the Miners' Protective Association of Vancouver Island came before the Council with an appeal for assistance for the employees of Alexander Dunsmuir and Sons. They complained that their long hours were extended by the custom of reckoning their time from the actual commencement of work in the mine, as there was often much delay between the time of report- ing for duty at the entrance of the mine, and that when they were permitted to go to work. Though paid by the ton, they were refused the eight-hour day. Their earnings were also reduced by the necessity of. purchasing supplies at the company store, at l^l*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 49 what they claimed were extortionate prices.'^* As the coal was marketed in San Francisco, they appealed to their fellow trade- unionists in that city for assistance, and the Federated Trades Council at once acknowledged the claim. As was customary, the case was referred to the executive committee for investigation and an attempt at peaceful settlement. But the committee sent to interview members of the firm in San Francisco were refused an audience, on the ground that the firm had declined to meet a committee of the miners, and intended to deal with its employees only as individuals.^^'* Never before had the San Francisco trade-unionist met with the denial of the right to organize, and for the first time a com- mittee of the Federated Trades Council was refused an audience. The contest was no longer merely an economic one, but was re- enforced by stronger feelings of outraged pride, and the belief that questions of fundamental human rights were at stake. So the boycott was declared and for nearly two years, as long as the old Federated Trades continued its existence, it was pressed with the utmost vigor. Even after the discouraged miners had given up the contest, the San Francisco trade-unionists continued the When the boycott was declared, steps were at once taken to present the case fully to the different unions of the city. These readily pledged their support, many of them appointing special committees to assist in its prosecution. The endorsement of a boycott generally meant that the individual members of the union were subject to a fine if they failed to observe it. A committee of seven members of the Federated Trades Council was appointed for the general supervision of the boycott, and they were soon permitted to employ a man who gave his entire time to watching the coal carts in order to discover the customers of Dunsmuir. At each meeting of the Council during the succeeding months different unions reported their successful efforts to persuade coal- 13-4 Examiner, June 14, 1890, p. 2. 133 Coast Seamen's Journal, June 25, 1890. 130 In November, 1891, the strike was declared off, but in January, 1892 we find the executive committee of the Federated Trades recom- mending an additional per capita tax of $1 per delegate for the prosecu- tion of this boycott. {Coast Seamen's Journal, Minutes of Federated Trades for November 13, 27, 1891; January 8, 1892.) 50 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 dealers, factories, hotels, saloons, restaurants, laundries, and private parties to withdraw custom from the offending firm. At one time three men were employed in ferreting out persons using the coal. The Stockton Federated Trades were called upon to enforce the boycott against customers in that place. Circulars were sent out warning members of the unions and possible cus- tomers of the boycott; on October 30, 1891, it was reported that five thousand of these circulars had just been sent to the retail liquor dealers. ^^'' Those who persistently refused to comply with the requests to withdraw their patronage from the offending firm were in turn subject to boycott. We find the barbers agree- ing to withdraw their custom from a certain laundry in case it continued to use the boycotted coal. While no other boycott during this period received quite so much attention as this, its history shows the methods adopted in many other cases. THE FIEST OEGANIZED OPPOSITION OF THE EMPLOYERS The first contest between organizations of employers and employees was that between the Brewers' Protective Association and the brewery workmen beginning in 1888. The difficulty did not originate in California, but was part of a general movement of the United States Brewers* Association to maintain the open shop.^^* On refusal of one of the breweries, called the United States Brewery, to comply with the contract to employ none but union men, a boycott was declared by the Federated Trades Council. Alfred Fuhrman, the general secretary of the brewery workmen, gives the following account of the methods used to make this boycott effective : "In order to enforce the boycott we issued circulars and had parades, and did anything that was lawful to win the fight. We appointed committees to wait on saloon-keepers, and they asked saloon-keepers not to use United States beer. We reminded the saloon-keepers of the fact that their patrons consisted principally of workingmen, and that it was the desire of the workingmen that they should not have scab beer there, and it would be a favor to labor to dispense with that 137 The account of this boycott is taken from the minutes of the Fed- erated Trades Council published in the Coast Seamen's Journal and the Examiner, June, 1890, to January, 1892. 138 Fifth Biennial Report, Bureau of Lahor Statistics, p. 161. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 51 beer and take union beer. Some of the saloon-keepers refused, and we got out circulars against them, and appointed men to stand on the streets and distribute the circulars, and persuade customers not to go into the saloons. We stationed guards around all the saloons we could, and tried to keep customers away by every lawful device." After eleven months of systematically enforced boycott, the brewery surrendered and unionized.^'"' The new strength of the more perfectly organized trade- unionism of this period is not only evident in the effectiveness of the boycott, but also in the support furnished to strikers. The ironmoulders ' strike in 1890-1891, which was one of the most remarkable contests in the history of the California labor move- ment, is a good example of this ability of the labor organizations to collect the innumerable small contributions of large bodies of workingmen for the support of a strike against employers who command great accumulations of capital. We have already noticed the organization of the Iron Trades Council in 1885. This federation was soon matched by an or- ganization of the employers known as Engineers' and Foundry- men's Association. After making inquiries in eastern foundries and finding the wages less and conditions of work more severe than in California, this association gave notice that it would no longer observe the minimum wage, apprentice regulations, and prohibition of piece-work required by the California unions. This notice was soon followed by the discharge of eleven union men from the foundry of one of the members of the association. Thereupon, the moulders in the employ of all the firms of the Foundrymen's Association struck. Between a thousand and twelve hundred- men were involved in the difficulty, though there were only two hundred and seventy-five of the moulders and their apprentices.^'"' The moulders' union is said to have spent two hundred thousand dollars in this controversy.^" A portion of this was the regular strike benefit furnished by their International, but a 139 A full account of the diflSeulties with the breweries is given in the Fifth Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 101-166. no Examiner, March 3, 1890. Full reports of the strike are given in the Examiner. n^ Labor Clarion, September 4, 1908, p. 34. 52 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°1- ^ very large share was from the special donation of the different California trade-unions. Not only did the unions vote money from their treasuries, but there were also numerous benefit entertainments, and assessments of portions of the weekly earn- ings of members. For example, we find the Typographical Union donating one hundred dollars, and then agreeing to raise by assessment a weekly sum of eighty dollars. The iron workers all over the United States interested themselves in obtaining financial support, and also did all they could to prevent the enlistment of strike-breakers. The employers found the bringing in of new men a most difficult and expensive undertaking. Every opportunity was seized to board the overland trains and persuade the strike- breakers to desert or turn back. They were hurried through Sacramento on special trains, or in well-guarded coaches, and instead of entering the city by the usual route, the men were transferred at some point outside the city, to steam launches and then landed secretly. Union men smuggled themselves into the parties made up in eastern cities, and persuaded the men to desert along the way. The union pickets surrounded the shops and watched for opportunities to entice the new men to desert. During the first nine months of the strike, about two hundred of the strike-breakers were returned to their eastern homes by the union. The newcomers were penned up in the foundries, and, as the months passed they naturally became homesick and ready to accept the standing offer of the ever-present picket to supply them with return tickets. But the employers persisted in their firm refusal to yield to the demands of the union, though the strike is estimated to have cost them millions of dollars. The moulders were obliged to yield most of the points for which they had contended, and in the hard times that fol- lowed the union was practically disbanded.^*- FIEST EMPLOYEES ' ASSOCIATION. The emplo\'ers now began to realize the necessity of com- pleter organization, and in August, 1891, their first central body n- Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 146, reports a membersMp of 38-40 in this union from 1891-1896. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 53 was formed. The Declaration of Principles indicates, that as originally planned, the Board of Manufacturers and Employers of California was formed for defense rather than aggression. It was declared that the policy of the board was not dictated by a spirit of aggression, but that its members would strive to prevent friction. The right of labor to organize was fully recognized, but the need of federations of employers to check those of labor was also maintained. While asserting that they would not refuse employment to members of labor organizations, the right to select their employees freely was insisted on. They declared that the arbitrary spirit shown by the unions in the absence of effective restraining power, and the frequent strikes and boycotts were dangerous to the industries of the community.^*^ The employers did not succeed in maintaining this mildly defensive attitude. A "Manifesto on the Boycott""^ which they issued shows that they were deeply irritated and disposed to attribute the decline in business which began to be felt at this time to the influence of the unions. It is quite evident that they regarded the labor leaders as dangerous agitators who should be suppressed. A few extracts will show clearly their point of view : ' ' The Board of Manufacturers and Employers of California believe that the time has come when a, universal and systematic effort shouW be made to put an end to boycotts and the pernicious interference of trade-unions -with, the internal affairs of trade. Unless this be done, the already suffer- ing industries of the city will soon become so badly handicapped as to be practically out of the race in the competition of the world. ... [A number of instances are cited where it is alleged that work has been sent East.] . . The firms in the Manufacturers' Association employ 40,000 people and pay $100,000 per day in wages. What if these plants go east? .* * * * * # * * * "The manufacturers do not complain of wages. There is no desire to reduce them below the normal which must always remain the highest. If permitted to do business in peace the manufacturers could pay these wages and prosper. It is the element of uncertainty that kills. The labor leader seeks to control the men, and the manufacturer cannot manage his business to the best advantage. It is because the life of a business has heretofore been at the mercy of the boycott that the manufacturers have been afraid to launch into new undertakings, improve their plants, or push for new avenues of trade. "The levying and agitation of a boycott is always harmful, not. 143 Fifth Biennial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 51. ^iilUd., p. 52-3. 54 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°1- ^ perhaps, to the particular industry sought to be injured, but to the com- munity at large. ... It creates that uncertainty which is the death of trade. It gives a, bad impression of San Francisco to intending settlers. Boycott circulars always lie. It is not too much to say that not a single truthful boycott circular has been issued since boycotting began. Their misstatements slander the city and slander the men doing business here. They are pernicious, destructive, and wholly bad. The boycott is the crying evil of our times. ... A boycotter is, in all respects a highwayman. He is an industrial wrecker. His single and simple proposition is, ' Stand and deliver. ' " . . . Agitation is the life of unionism. None know this better than labor leaders. They have a slogan: 'Agitate, educate, organize!' But 'agitate' comes first and is the most important. This activity is good for the paid walking delegate, but it is ruinous to business, and calamitous to the industrious workingman. " This condition of things should no longer be tolerated. The boycott should be stopped. . . . Watch your employees, and discharge boy- cotters. Patronize boycotted iirms. When boycotting becomes dangerous, and boycotts help more than they harm, boycotting will cease. ' ' STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND THE SAILOES' UNION. While the records of the Labor Council and also of individual unions have been accessible, it is always very difficult to obtain information about the employers' associations, as their proceed- ings are secret. In only one instance have we been able to trace from the original sources the dealings of an employers' or- ganization of this period with the union of the men in the employ of its members. The history of the relations of the Ship- owners ' Association and the Coast Seamen's Union, which we have been able to follow in this way, has particular significance, because the same man who served as secretary of the Manufac- turers' and Employers' Association was the secretary and chief •executive officer of the Shipowners' Association. It must also be noted that the labor leaders who suffered defeat in this contest of 1893 were among the most influential of those who planned and conducted the struggle against the employers' association of 1901.^^^ The. Coast Seamen's Union was organized in 1885 and in- creased rapidly in numbers, soon claiming three thousand mem- 1-1= The City Front Federation, which included fourteen unions em- ployed on the waterfront, struck in sympathy with the teamsters. i^lO] Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 55 bers."» The sailors had a disastrous three months' contest with the shipowners in 1888, after ^vhich their wages were lowered from $35 to $20 per month. But the union soon regained its strength and succeeded in 1887 in raising wages to $40. In 1891 the influence of the union was strengthened by the estab- lishment of its own shipping office. With the dull times of 1891-3 the shipowners found it difficult to maintain the union rates and re-organized their association, employing G. C. "Wil- liams"' as secretary. The history of this second contest with the union can be best told by quoting a few extracts from the letters of Williams to his sub-agent at Seattle. It seems prob- able that Williams' policy while acting as secretary and execu- tive officer for the Shipowners is but a continuation of that adopted in his similar work for the Manufacturers' and Em- ployers' Association. Williams says that, when he accepted the position of secre- tary of the Shipowners' Association, he made a careful study of the conditions on the water front, and then submitted "a broad and comprehensive plan which designed not merely to over- throw the power of the Sailors' Union, but also to purify the entire water front after that power was overthrown.""* In his instructions to the new agent at Seattle the policy of the asso- ciation is set forth quite explicitly."" "I wish to impress upon our agents one particular feature in regard to the policy of the Association which might easily be overlooked or misunderstood. The main object in the administration of the affairs of the Association is to save expense to the shipoAvner. . . . The real problem in this fight is a financial problem. If the Asso- ciation can be run at a small expense to the shipowner, every vessel will soon be placed upon its register, and there will be no 140 This included the central union in San Francisco, branches at Eu- reka, Seattle, Port Townsend, San Pedro, and San Diego. 147 This was an assumed name ; it was afterwards proven that his real name was Walthew. He had become familiar with the methods of the labor movement while acting as a eporter on the San Francisco Daily Seport. 148 From a letter to Captain Charles Goodall. 149 Some of these letters were published in the Examiner of February n, 1894. The instructions to the new Seattle agent are found in the letter of July 29, 1893. 56 University of California Puhlications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 union because there will be no vessels for the union sailors to man. . . . The hope of the union is to make the Association so expensive that the shipowner, who thinks more of his pocket than he does of a principle, will remain with the union." In accordance with this policy of economy lawsuits of all kinds were to be avoided. The instructions read, ' ' Never have a uniori agent arrested except for some offense that the State is bound to prosecute, and which does not require the employment of a special attorney to represent the Association." The agent was urged to conduct himself in such a way that the public would be impressed with his evident desire to keep the peace, yet was told that he must not hesitate to kill when it became necessary to protect the property of the Associa- tion. The letter says, ' ' A man might be justified in shooting any number of men who board a vessel with felonious intent, while the same man would not be justified at all in indulging in a wordy quarrel in the street. A dose of cold lead has a wonder- ful effect in quieting disorders if it is only given in the right time and the right place. . . When it becomes necessary to guard the property of the Association, you will not' hesitate to kill." A letter of August 25 tells the agent that it will not be pos- sible to increase his salary as the expenses are very heavy. But some encouragement is given in the assurance that, "The battle is about won. It will not be long before the Sailors' Union will be a thing of the past." To meet these heavj^ expenses all members of the Association were taxed one dollar per man per month for each sailor carried before the mast. The Association developed its own shipping office where lists of eligible men were kept.^"" Instead of the union card, the men were furnished with grade books. The instructions read, "One rule agents must observe strictly : a sailor owning one of these books must have the first chance for a job. Great attention must ISO On November 7 the Shipowners' Association aaopted a resolution to the effect that after November 10 the crews of all vessels should be selected from names of sailors on the shipping list kept in the office of the Association. For grade-book instructions, see the letter of October 20, 1893. 1910] Eaves: Calif omia Labor Legislation. 57 be paid to these books as we depend upon this system to prevent the union from again obtaining control of the affairs of the shipping of this coast, if men ever become scarce." As soon as the shipowners had obtained control, the reduction of wages began. In a letter of October 11, Williams writes, "Until further notice is given to agents, the Shipowners' Asso- ciation will not attempt to enforce any inflexible or universal rule respecting wages. It is intended that the law of supply and demand shall regulate wages to some extent. ' ' Not only was the standard of wages lower than that enforced by the union, but it was also stated that it was not generally customary to pay overtime. Even this lower scale was not inflexible. "Captains should be allowed to say how much they will pay so far as pos- sible," but the letter adds, "If a low rate of wages is offered, agents should permit only inferior sailors to accept it." In November the agent is instructed that he may ship deep-water sailors at as low a rate as $15 per month. A month later another cut in the wages of the coasting seamen is announced. Men who had received $40 and pay for overtime under the union rules were now paid $25, without overtime."^ That the Sailors' Union suffered severely from this attack is evident from the fact that in 1893 the amount of dues paid by members declined ten thousand dollars, and in 1894 there was an additional falling off of nearly eight thousand dollars. Not until 1895 did the income again equal the expenses. EBSULTS OF THE FIRST CONTEST WITH ORGANIZED EMPLOYERS. We can best state the results of this first contest between the organized forces of labor and capital by quoting from leaders on each side of the controversy. In an address delivered on the third anniversary of the establishment of the Employers' Asso- ciation, the president spoke of their unbroken record of success, saying : "It is a matter of congratulation that it is so, for, during 151 The shipowners demanded a 25% reduction in wages in November, 1891, a few months after the formation of the Employers' Association. (Coast Seamen's Journal, December 2, 1891.) The wage scales of the Ship Owners' Association are found in the letters of November 24 and Decem- ber 16, 1893. 58 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol- 2 the past year, the most serious struggle of any in our history — the struggle with the Sailors' Union — has been undergone. In this contest upon the sea the Association has acted precisely as it has acted in previous affairs upon the land. That is to say, it has simply helped the interests directly concerned to help themselves. . . . The general success of this Association can best be understood by the light of the fact that among the in- dustries of San Francisco there remains but a single union which imposes its rules upon its trade. That union is the Typo- graphical Union. The reason why this union still continues to dictate terms is because the employing printers have never com- bined to resist its demands. ' '^^^ In an unpublished manuscript of Walter Macarthur, editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal and the last president of the old Federated Trades Council, we find this statement of the results of the controversy: "The unions were destroyed, or at least demoralized. Individual resentment succeeded combined resist- ance in the minds of the working class. The sense of injustice in the attitude of the Employers' Association towards the unions was shared by a large part of the public of all classes. That the unions had made mistakes was freely admitted by all, even by trade-unionists themselves; that the employers' associations had erred in their general treatment of the labor question was re- garded as equally clear. Among the general public the attitude of the Employers' Association was regarded as morally inde- fensible. Irrespective of personal interest in one or the other party to the strife, the public felt that industrial peace had been secured at the sacrifice of those elements upon which alone harmonious and profitable relations between employer and em- ployee can be maintained, namely, mutual respect and con- fidence." It is probable that the employers could not have maintained the former standard of wages had they wished to do so, for they were confronted with a serious economic depression. It is hard to imagine any way in which they could have met the situation without a struggle with the unions, but the question arises 152 Coast Seamen 's Journal, August 7, 1901. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 59 whether they could have accomplished their purposes by com- bined negotiations rather than by the deliberate destruction of the unions. The contest was not settled but only postponed ; for the policy adopted created feelings of resentment and injustice which were strengthened by the deprivations of the period of economic depression that followed, and prepared the San Fran- cisco trade-unionists for a determined renewal of the conflict in 1901. THE REVIVAL OP THE SAN EEANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT, 1897-1901. Mindful of the many crises in which the stronger organiza- tions of San Francisco had rendered them assistance, the Sacra- mento trade-unions now rallied to the aid of their discomforted colleagues.^^" Two men were sent to San Francisco to assist in reorganizing the routed forces of the Federated Trades Council. It was still possible to gather representatives from thirty-four of the forty-four^^* unions that had been members in 1891. As it was no longer possible for San Francisco to claim trade-union leadership for the whole Coast, it was felt that the former title was a misnomer, so the name of San Francisco Labor Council was adopted by this re-organized body in 1892. But during the hard times of 1893-1894 it was increasingly difficult to hold the unions together. The Labor Council steadily declined in numbers. In 1896 only eighteen unions were still faithful, and a year later the lowest point was reached, when but fifteen unions with a membership of 4,500 were represented in the Council. Sometimes not more than a dozen delegates gathered at the weekly meetings. San Francisco now entered upon a period of unusual pros- perity. Not only did the Spanish- American war, the annexation of Hawaii, and the opening of the Alaskan gold mines bring a great increase of prosperity and business, but there A\'as also a general revival of the industries of the state and a great influx of capital seeking investment. The new prosperity was par- ticularly noticeable in the increased activity in building. The i-'3 Lahor Clarion, August 7, 1903; September 4, 190S. 154 My statistics of the Labor Council are taken from an unpublished manuscript by Ed. Rosenberg, who was secretary of the Labor Council and had access to the records at the time he wrote it. 60 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- ^ hundreds of idle workers now found employment. The savings banks again showed a surplus of deposits over withdrawals."^ The revival of prosperity brought new life to the trade-unions. At first the increase was gradual,"" but in 1899 to 1901 there was a period of unprecedented activity. The Labor Commissioner writes of this period: "We can but note the remarkable increase in organization of labor manifest since the commencement of the year 1899. "While prior to said time not more than eight or ten organizations have come into existence in any one year, and while the rule has been not more than four or five, we find the record for 1899 to have suddenly increased to twenty-five, while ten new organizations appear during the first half of the present year, 1900. "i" Not only were many new groups of workers organized, but the unions were affiliated with central bodies to a greater extent than ever before. "While less than one-half of the trade-unions of the state were represented in central bodies in 1900, practically all the unions had established such local affiliations by 1902. About one-fourth of this increase in the number of central bodies was due to the tendency to segregate kindred trades."^ The building trades were the most important of these groups of related crafts. They were now organized in separate councils for the first time. On February 6, 1896, five of the San Francisco building trades having a membership of about two hundred came together and formed the Building Trades Council. Several pre- vious attempts had been made to federate this group of unions. "We have seen that at the time when the Federated Trades Coun- cil was organized there was a general tendency to unite related trades in sub-federations. An organization of the building trades was formed, but does not seem to have been very active until 1890. At this time these trades, which were affiliated with the Federated Trades Council, were selected as the ones best qualified 155 During 1894, $97,496,712 were deposited and $104,155,474 withdrawn. In 1899 the amount deposited exceeded the amount withdrawn by $705,411. (Page, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 665, December, 1902.) 15S The statistics of the San Francisco Labor Council are : July, 1897, 15 unions; 1898, 18; 1899, 21; 1900, 34; July, 1901, 90; October, 1901, 98. 157 Ninth Biermial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 114. 158 Ihid., pp. 117-8. Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 78. ■'■^■'■^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 61 to demand the eiglit-hour day/"" This shorter work-day which went into effect on May 1, 1890, was obtained by the San Fran- cisco unions with very little difficulty. At the time of its enforce- ment a joint executive committee representing all the building trades was formed. While this was not permanent, it may be regarded as a predecessor of the present Building Trades Council. The great activity in building in San Francisco at this time brought increased numbers and prosperity to the new Council. By 1901 it was composed of one hundred and fifty delegates, who represented thirty-six unions with a membership of fifteen thou- sand. ^'"' It was able to announce that it represented every build- ing trade in the city,"^ and aimed to control the building industry from the foundation to the roof. Similar Building Trades Coun- cils were organized in other important cities of the state, largely through the efforts of the San Francisco Council. In 1902 these Councils were united in the State Building Trades Council. The reports of the State Labor Bureau show that during this period there was a great increase in trade-union membership in all the industrial centers of the state. Two hundred and seven- teen unions with an estimated membership of 37,500 were reported in 1900. They were distributed as follows : 90, or 41 per cent, in San Francisco; 23, or 10 per cent, in Oakland; 26, or 12 per cent, in Los Angeles ; 20, or 9 per cent, in Sacramento. In 1902 the number of unions had doubled. Of the 495 organiza- tions with an estimated membershij) of 67,500, 162 were found in San Francisco, 36 in Oakland, 68 in Los Angeles, 45 in Sacra- mento. About 66 per cent, of the trade-union membership -was in San Francisco. ^"^^ The great increase in San Francisco was due to the fact that among the newly organized unions were many trades employing ISO This eight-hour movement was national in scope. Everywhere the building trades were selected as the ones to make the demand. 100 Organised Labor, August 31, 1901. lei Several unions maintained membership in both the Building Trades and the Labor Council until 1902. 102 Alameda County Building Trades Council organized in 1899 ; Sac- ramento, San Jose, Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield, in 1900. {Organized Labor, August 31, 1901; Ibid., September 3, 1904.) 163 Ninth Biennial Report, Burea% of Labor Statistics, p. 92; Tenth Bien- nial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistict:, pp. 77-79. 62 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- ^ large groups of workers. The most important of these new unions were those of the butchers, cooks and waiters, stablemen, street- railway employees, retail clerks, laundry workers, teamsters, barbers, hodcarriers, tanners, and laborers.^""' The representatives of the less democratic building trades were inclined to doubt the wisdom of this rapid organization of unskilled trades. Their official paper sounded a note of warning to the energetic leaders of the rival central body.^^^ Three months later the editor complained that this warning had not been heeded. On the contrary, he says, "The professional organizer doubled his efforts and the Labor Council increased its organizing com- jnittee. Unions were formed — that is, very few of them were trade-unions, but there were many, many unions of divers occu- pations and callings. Charters were sent for and hung in the meeting halls until they covered the four walls. . . . The Labor Council gathered under its wings a most varied collection of eggs and hatched some curious ducklings and labeled them trade-unions. The one motto of all seemed to be : ' Organize, demand, strike ! ' The old staunch trade-unions tried to stem the current by passing a law to the effect that no new union should go on strike before it had been organized and a member of the Councilfor at least six months. This sensible provision, how- ever, failed to pass. ' '^°° This organization of new groups of workers was crowned and completed by the formation of the State Federation of Labor "in January, 1901. Delegates from eight cities were present at the first meeting.^"^ It has continued to hold annual sessions for the discussion of questions of general interest to the working people of the state, and has been particularly useful as a means of securing concerted efforts for the promotion of labor legislation. To sum up the conditions reviewed, we find that between 1897 and 1901 there was not only a complete revival of the labor organizations, but that this wave of unionism rose higher than ever before; new trades were organized, the central councils 184 Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 78. i«5 Organised Labor, March 2, 1901. nio Ibid., June 22, 1901. lei Ibid., January 12, 1901. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 63 gained a completer control over the labor conditions of the chief- industrial centers of the state, and these in turn were provided with the means for greater cooperation by the formation of permanent State Federations. We will now turn our attention to the use made of this new strength gained by perfected organization. THE SECOND GEEAT STRUGGLE OF ORGANIZED CAPITAL AND LABOR, 1901. The object of this great revival of trade-unionism soon became apparent. The working people were determined to gain what they considered a fair share of the great prosperity which char- acterized this period. It is interesting to find that at first both the San Francisco central bodies used their new strength to obtain better conditions of work rather than increase of wages. The Building Trades Council undertook to win the eight-hour day for the mill men. This was a vigorously contested fight last- ing almost seven months. Finally the trade-unions established a planing-mill of their own and at once proved their ability to run it in a business-like way. The mill owners then decided that it would be more profitable to come to terms with the Council. The new mill, which was the second largest in the city, was admitted to their Association, and the Council agreed that the members of its affiliated unions should refuse to handle lumber prepared in a mill requiring more than eight hours for a day's work. As the mills outside of San Francisco had the nine and ten-hour day, this meant a monopoly of the mill work for the members of the Association. Other groups of workers in the Building Trades Council also obtained the eight-hour day or substantial increases of wages.^"^ Early in 1901 the unions in the Labor Council also began demanding better conditions of work. The editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal, who was a prominent member of the Coun- cil, states clearly its policy at this time. He says: "In the early part of the present year [1901] the growth of organization among the workers of the city had proceeded sufficiently to jus- tify a movement for the establishment of better conditions in 168 Organized Labor, August 31, 1901. 64 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 many trades. Consequently a number of organizations in the Labor Council, acting with the advice and endorsement of that body, submitted proposals to the employers in the different trades, looking mainly to the reduction of hours and the im- provement of working rules. In some instances an increase of wages was asked, but these were comparatively few. As a result many unions gained substantial advantages." He then enumerates twenty-one organizations that have received benefits of this kind."" In this period prior to the organization of the Employers' Association, the writer claims that there was a general dis- position on the part of the employers to grant the demands of their workmen. He declares: "With few exceptions, the im- provements asked by the trade-unions were willingly conceded by the employers, who in many instances openly admitted that such improvements would redound to their advantage, provided the trade-unions were sufficiently well organized to insure the acquiescence of all employers in a given trade. The trade- unions met the requirement, thus for the time establishing peaceful and profitable conditions for all."^^" But this, from the workingmen's point of view, happy state of affairs did not long continue. In April the papers announced the formation of another Employers' .Association. After com- pleting its work, the Association of ten j^ears before had dis- banded, so that there was no organized opposition to the rapid revival of trade-unionism. It was evident from the outset that the new association was preparing for a great contest. As the profoundest secrecy was maintained about all of its business, it is difficult to obtain reliable information about its policy or actions. But it M'as said that each of the fifty men who met to form the association pledged $1,000 for its work. This or- iginal sum was reported to have been increased by subsequent donations, so that $250,000 was raised for the campaign. It was also stated that the members were under heavy bonds to stay with the association until its work was accomplished. ^^^ 100 Coast Seamen's Journal, August 7, 1901, p. 1. T'T^Ihid., p. 2. ^'''^ Los .Angeles Times, September 2, 1901. The author quotes from an unpublished manuscript by Charles E. Ferrier. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 65 Professor T. W. Page, in his study of the San Francisco labor movement, calls attention to the provisions in the by- laws which transferred the management of all contests with the unions from the individual employer or group of employers immediately concerned to the association. A portion of Article VIII reads: ". . . All differences and disputes between members of the Association and any labor union, and any and all demands of any labor union against any member of this Association shall be immediately referred to the Executive Com- mittee or to the Secretary of the Association, and no settle- ment or adjustment of such differences, disputes, or demands, shall be made save by and with the consent of the Executive Committee and in accordance with its instructions. . . .""- The influence of the new organization began to be felt im- mediately. On April 1, 1901, the metal polishers had struck for an eight-hour day with the same pay as for their former ten- hour day. A number of the smaller shops professed a willing- ness to grant the demands, but declared that they were threat- ened with a refusal of supplies if they granted the demands of the strikers. In Julj^ the iinion was forced to call the strike off without gaining the concession demanded. The questions at issue and the tactics to be adopted were clearly revealed in the next controversy, that of the cooks and waiters. This was one of the newly organized unions in a trade where there were many members who worked long hours for seven days of the week. It was proposed to unionize all the numerous eating places in the city, and on May 1 an agreement was presented to their proprietors for signature, its chief pro- visions being : "(1) The union agrees to furnish its union house card to the employer free of charge to him, and make no discrimina- tion between the employer and other firms, persons or corpora- tions, who may enter into an agreement with the union for the use of the house card, and to use all reasonable effort to adver- tise the union house card. . . "(2) In consideration of the foregoing valuable privilege, the employer agrees to employ none but members of the Cooks 'L~2 Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 668-9, December, 1902. 66 University of California Publications in Economics, [^d- 2 and AVaiters Alliance Local No. 30 in good standing and who carry the regular working card of the organization. " (6) It is mutually agreed that the union will not cause or sanction any strike, and the employer will not lock out his em- ployees while this agreement is in force. "(4) The employer agrees that six days shall constitute a week's work for the employees. "(5) The employer agrees that the maximum length of a working day shall be ten hours for the waiters and twelve hours for the cooks and kitchen subordinates." The remaining articles provide for a scale of wages and the method of settling differences. It will be seen that this agreement involved not merely concessions in the matters of hours and wages, but also a complete recognition of the union. In this, as in subsequent contests of this period, the employers declared that questions of hours and wages could be adjusted, but the recognition of the union was positively and persistently refused, on the ground that it would mean the loss of control of their business. About two thousand men and women were involved in the strike to enforce these demands. Three hundred of the smaller eating places soon displayed the union card. These restaurants depended on the working people for their patronage, and were often managed by the proprietor and his family with but little extra help. The larger places formed a Restaurant Keepers' Association, and, with the assistance of the Employers' Asso- ciation, prepared to resist the demands. It is difficult to straighten out the tangle of sympathetic strikes and pressure from employers of this preliminary skirmish of the two great contending forces. The unions at once com- menced a vigorous boycott of the non-union restaurants, while the employers' sympathizers refused supplies of bread, meat, oysters, and groceries to the places displaying the union card. To remedy this situation, the employees of certain bakers were called out, and the retail butchers were coerced by a threat of their journeymen to strike. The wholesale meat dealers then brought pressure to bear on the retail men by refusing to sell l^l"^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 67 to those displaying the union card/''* The removal of the union card of the journeymen butchers resulted in the strike of 1,500 men. But theirs was a new union, undisciplined and without strike funds, so the men held out only a few days. The meat dealers then refused to furnish meat to restaurants displaying the union card, and it soon came down in all but a few small places. In this first encounter the advantages were with the employers. While this controversy was in progress, there were also diffi- culties with other trades. The carriage makers made demands similar to those of the cooks and waiters. The employers de- clared their willingness to grant the hours and wages demanded, but refused to recognize the unions. The labor men claimed that there was the same coercion of those willing to concede all the demands of the union.^'* i'3 Professor Page gives a slightly difeerent version of this difficulty: "Some months earlier the journeymen butchers had drawn up a scale of wages and hours, and the retail meat dealers agreed to adopt it on con- dition that the journeymen would not require them to display in their windows the union card. To this condition the journeymen acceded. But some of the retailers, hoping to increase their custom among the working people, voluntarily displayed the card in token that their shops were 'unionized'; whereupon it is said that 50,000 facsimiles of the card were distributed broadcast by the journeymen, and people were advised to help the laborers by purchasing only where the original was displayed. Whether this accusation be true or not, at any rate trade was diverted to the ' union- ized' shops, and the proprietors of the others lost custom. To suppress this 'unfair' competition the aggrieved merchants appealed to the whole- sale butchers for assistance. The wholesalers, hearkening to their petition, ordered, under penalty of a refusal of supplies, that all cards should be taken down, whereupon the journeymen retorted by ordering all the shops to display them." {Political Science Quarterly, Vol. I7, pp. 673-4, Decem- ber, 1902.) 1'* The secretary of the Labor Council, whose position required him to take part in the efforts to settle controversies, gives the following account of the part played by the Employers' Association in these difficulties: ' ' "While the fight on this field was going on, strikes in other trades were likewise carried on. On May 1 a conference was held between a committee of the Carriage Makers ' Association and committees representing the Car- riage Blacksmiths, Woodworkers and Painters. It ended in the employers' committee agreeing to employ none but union men, the granting of the reduction of hours from ten to nine, and a minimum" wage scale. But a few days later to the meeting of the Carriage Makers' Association came the secretary of the Employers' Association and bluntly told them that if they entered into such an agreement they would be refused supplies, especially steel, and orders for carriages would be sent East. They were told that certain firms here were agents for the steel trust, and that no supplies could even be got East. On the other hand, if they would fight the union demands and affiliate with the Employers' Association, they would get support financially and otherwise, and that no supplies would be sold to any carriage manufacturer who could not produce the mem- 68 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 Over four thousand ironworkers also struck for the nine- hour day. This strike was not immediately connected with the controversy between the two organized forces in San Francisco, but was part of a general movement for a shorter work-day for which these trades had been preparing for some time. These unions were among the oldest in the city, and could be depended on for a determined fight. In this strike the question of sup- plies for small shops willing to yield to the unions also arose.^'^ The subsequent events of the struggle were the product not merely of the conditions of 1901, but also of the contest of ten years before. The editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal, who was prominent in the councils of labor at both periods, sums up the conditions in this way : "In only one particular did the situation of 1900 differ from that of 1890, namely, in the knowledge of the events that had transpired between these dates. That knowledge led to suspicion and distrust concerning the attitude of the employers and justified measures which would otherwise have been deemed unnecessary, and, indeed, have been impossible of execution. The men who, throughout the succession of strikes which began in 1901, were vested with the chief responsibility for the conduct of the labor force had been among those most prominently identified with the earlier epi- demic of labor troubles. Naturally, these men were disposed to advise the adoption of such measures as they deemed necessary bership card of the Carriage Makers' Association. A strike of 500 car- riage makers on May S was the result. A few small carriage shops gave in to the union clemands. They were refused supplies, as had been threat- ened. To break through the supply blockade, the Brotherhood of Teams- ters, membership about l.SOO, in turn gave notice that its members would refuse to haul for those houses that refused supplies to union carriage manufacturers. Negotiations followed, and on May 22 the carriage workers were granted their demands, the unions waiving the signing of agree- ments. ' ' I's In his accunt of the ironworkers strike, he says : ' ' Here, too, the supply question came up. In June over thirty-two small shops had given in, but the supply houses close around them and soon but four shops man- aged to run on the nine-hour basis. ' ' These extracts are from an unpub- lished manuscript written by Ed Eosenberg, the Secretary of the Labor Council, dated October 29, 1901. The attorney of the Employers' Associa- tion at one time denied that it had caused the refusal of supplies to em- ployers willing to grant the demands of the unions. It is evident through- out the controversy that the trade-unionists were thoroughly convinced that this method of coercion had been repeatedly resorted to, and this belief had much influence in arousing them to the extreme measures adopted to combat the employers. l^l*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 69 to prevent a repetition of the defeats that occurred in the pre- vious period. Thus, while the unions, generally speaking, lacked the experience that might have obviated many errors, both in their demands and in their tactics, the defensive features of the movement, as conducted by the older men, were based upon a justifiable presumption of their opponents' object. This dif- ference in the particulars of the situation in 1900, as com- pared with that of 1890, is important as an explanation of much that transpired in connection with the strikes and the political events incidental to the latter.""" In other words, the men who had been through the previous conflict were unwilling to permit the Employers' Association to pursue a policy of "divide and conquer." It was felt that it would be better to bring on a general engagement before the forces of labor were demoralized by the continued defeat of the weaker unions. As Professor Page remarks, "The insecurity of the situation, the vague feeling of uneasiness, the nervous tension of men facing a dubious prospect, were more intoler- able and exasperating than open hostilities could be. Both sides, therefore, were determined to precipitate a struggle as soon as it could be done without sacrificing any strategic ad- vantage. Under these circumstances the opportunity could not long be delayed. ' ' TEAMSTEBS' STEIKE OP 1901. The strike of the teamsters in July afforded an unusually favorable opportunity for this great trial of strength. The immediate cause of the strike was trivial in comparison with the real issues at stake. The Bpworth League was to meet in San Francisco, and a non-union firm had obtained the contract to deliver the baggage. But the manager of this firm had a brother who was a member of the Draymen's Association, and who sometimes assisted the delivery company when work became too heavy for its teams. The Brotherhood of Teamsters and the draymen had_ entered into an agreement by which the draymen were pledged to employ only union men and to handle no goods for firms who were not members of the Association. When the ! Erom an unpublished manuscript by Walter Jlacarthur. 70 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 teamsters employed by the union drayage company were ordered to assist in hauling the baggage which the non-union firm had contracted to deliver, they refused on the ground that to do so would be a violation of their agreement. A lockout of the teamsters so refusing quickly followed, and, as the Brotherhood persisted in its refusal to haul for non-union firms, or for firms whose men were locked out, it was only a matter of a few days before a large percentage of the members had left their work. The three hundred remaining members were then ordered out by the executive committee of the union. The Employers ' Association now made its first public appear- ance, announcing through its attorney that it approved of the course of the draymen and proposed to assist them in the con- troversy. Here again the labor men claimed that the draymen did not willingly resign the control of the situation to the Em- ployers ' Association. Their account asserts that when the Dray- men 's Association met, it at first decided by an overwhelming majority that the Brotherhood of Teamsters had a right to re- fuse the work of the delivery company. It is claimed that members of the Employers' Association then filed articles of incorporation of a new draying company, and confronted the draymen with a probable loss of business,"' and so induced them to fall in line \\ith the policy of the Association. Of all the unions represented in the Labor Council, the teamsters had the greatest power of working injury to the busi- ness of the city, ilany of the docks were without railway facili- ties, and but few factories and wholesalers could be reached by spur tracks. Had the unions been able to control the outside supply of labor as they did that in the city, this strike might have accomplished their purpose. The business of the city was at first serioush- crippled, but the Employers' Association held everyone firmly to the policy of refusal of recognition of the unions. Extra pay and a bonus for continued service during the trouble were guaranteed, and an employment bureau for fur- nishing help for the draymen established. Army teamsters re- cently returned from the Philippines, and help from the coun- "' From an unpublished manuscript by Ed. Eosenberg, secretary of the Labor Council. ^^^^] Eaves; California Labor Legislation. 71 try were soon procured and quickly trained to do the work of the teamsters. The labor men throughout the city looked upon this contest as the decisive one; they must win now or sacrifice all chance of fixture gains through their newly-perfected organizations. Some hot-heads in the Council were in favor of a general strike, but more conservative advice prevailed. It was decided that only the unions of the City Front Federation, in which the Brotherhood of Teamsters were represented, should be called on for help. Among the fourteen unions composing this federa- tion were some of the oldest, best disciplined, and richest in the city. Their leaders were not slow in reminding the members of the results of the contest of 1893-4, and no urging was nec- essary to secure an enthusiastic endorsement of a sympathetic strike by every union in the federation. On July 30th the sail- ors, longshoremen, marine firemen, porters, packers, warehouse- men, pile-drivers, hoisting engineers, ship and steamboat join- ers, steam and hot-water fitters, marine cooks and stewards, and coal-cart teamsters, in all about 13,000 men, left their work. To these were added the boxmakers and sawyers, and sand, rock, and gravel teamsters in San Francisco, the dock laborers of Oakland, Redwood City, and Benicia, and the warehousemen handling the grain crop at Crockett and Port Costa. The business not only of San Francisco but of the entire state was at a standstill. Many innocent parties saw themselves confronted with financial ruin. The situation was particularly hard for the fruit growers and the farmers. The supply of boxes and tin cans necessary for handling the crops was cut ofE, and the fruit could not be marketed or sent to the large can- neries of San Francisco and Oakland. The warehouses at Port Costa were soon congested with grain, so that the farmers feared that they would be unable to get their crops under shelter before the rains. Throughout the struggle many earnest efforts were made to effect a reconciliation of the contending forces, or at least secure a conference between the leaders. Civic bodies of all kinds, groups of business men, the clergy, the supervisors, the IMayor, and other prominent individuals all made repeated attempts to 72 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 bring this disastrous warfare to an end. To all of these advances the representatives of the labor interests responded heartily, but from the first to the last it was impossible to meet the mem- bers or the executive committee of the Employers' Association. Professor Page concludes his account of this feature of the con- test thus: "Eventually the Employers' Association absolutely declined to consider any proposition coming from disinterested parties, and through its attorney requested that no further negotiations or mediations be offered by anyone. By such sever- ity it undoubtedly injured its cause in the eyes of the public. It was widely believed that if a conference could be arranged between the executive committee and the labor leaders a settle- ment would not be difficult. Its stern reserve gave color to the complaints of the workmen that the employers were intolerant, arrogant, and tyrannical. ' '"^ It seems probable that the fear of the boycott had much to do with this persistent refusal. The employers were determined to make no concessions, and a conference would necessarily have revealed the membership of the Association. The labor men were making great efforts to discover the names of persons or firms in the Association, and in July the boycott had been de- clared against nine members. The secretary of the Council tes- tifies that several hundred thousand boycott circulars were sent out during each week of the strike, and that the working people of neighboring states kept up the "most thorough boycott ever prosecuted." It has also been suggested that men with polit- ical ambitions could not have been induced to join any but a secret organization, and that this policy would secure a more harmonious and united support of the diverse interests repre- sented.^^" In response to the efforts of the Mayor and a committee of the supervisors, two statements were isstied through their attorney, throwing some light on the point of view of this profoundly secret association. They sent the following response to the Mayor's request for the terms on which they would be willing to settle the strike:^*" 1^8 Page, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 682, December, 1902. i-'o Ihid., p. 669. ISO For the account of these efforts of the Mayor, see the San Francisco daily papers, July 30 to August 6, 1901. ■^^-'■^] Eaves: California Laior Legislation. 73 "The Employers' Association is willing to recommend to the members of the Draymen's Association that they fill all present and future vacant positions in their service by such per- sons as may apply for work, irrespective of whether the appli- cant belongs to a union or not, upon the following terms : "I. That the employee shall obey all lawful orders of the employer. "II. That the employee will not, directly or indirectly, at- tempt to compel a fellow-employee, against his will to join a labor union, nor to compel his employer to employ none but union men. "III. That the employee will not engage in or support any sympathetic strike or boycott." The committee of the Board of Supervisors appointed by the Mayor to endeavor to bring about a settlement of the strike wrote to the Association declaring that they merely asked for a conference, and expressing their conviction that public opin- ion was crystallizing against the Association because of the unwillingness to discuss the terms of settlement. The reply stated that, while they were willing to treat with the strikers individually at any time, any meeting with the representatives of the unions would mean the surrender of the principles at stake. This principle, the right of the employer to control his business, might be surrendered, but could not be compromised. A conference would but prolong the contest by inspiring hopes of a settlement on the terms of the strikers. These statements show clearly the attack on the united ac- tivities of the labor organizations ; the boycott, the sympathetic strike, the efforts to enlist new members, must be relinquished, and from the first to the last the employers refused to recognize in any way whatever the authority of representatives of large grovips of workers. As the labor men maintained throughout the contest, the issue at stake in support of which 20,000 men had abandoned their work was "the right to organize." The trade-unionists would under no circumstances forego their legal right to strike, nor were they willing to relinquish that equally powerful weapon, the boycott, or to cease their efforts to enlist fellow-workmen in the unions. Their pro- 74 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 posed agreement required that the members of the Employers' Association cease discrimination against members of the unions, and employers who were willing to employ union men only. The men who had quit work were to be restored to their posi- tions, and were to obey all orders concerning the work to be performed. In case of difficulties, the strike or lockout was not to be resorted to until an effort at arbitration had failed.^^^ For our purposes it will hardly be profitable to attempt an account of the events of this three months' contest between the great opposing organizations of capital and labor. The em- ployers continued to make increasingly successful efforts to enlist an adequate force to take the places of the strikers, while the pickets of the labor unions lost no opportunities to turn away prospective workers before they could. reach the city, or to persuade those already engaged to desert. As the strain be- came greater with the prospects of failure, the union leaders found it more and more difficult to restrain violence, particu- larly as among the large number of special police there were many irresponsible men who frequently provoked contests. On October 2 Governor Gage suddenly appeared in San Francisco, saying that he had been requested by the parties most concerned to attempt a settlement of the difficulty. He sent for the officers of the Draymen's Association and of the Brotherhood of Teamsters, and after a conference, it was an- nounced that terms had been agreed upon and the strike de- clared off. The next day the men went quietly back to their work. The terms were not made public, but since the teamsters returned to work with such of the non-union employees as cared to retain their places, it is evident that thej^ did not attain the immediate object of the strike. But we have seen that the real motive of the struggle was the desire to check what was believed to be a systematic campaign against the unions. This prolonged contest, with its disastrous effect on the business of the state, and the subsequent political successes, made it evi- dent that the overwhelming victories of 1891-4 were no longer possible. To quote from Macarthur, who was a member of the executive committee of the City Front Federation : "In letter ^si Coast Seamen's Jotirnal, July 31, August 7, 1901. 1910] Eaves: California Laior Legislation. 75 the agreement provided merely for a mutual cessation of hostili- ties, but in spirit it was understood to convey a renunciation by the Employers' Association of any design to prosecute an attack upon the unions with the object of disrupting them. The City Front Federation had vindicated the 'right to or- ganize', and its members returned to work in a spirit which, if not that of complete victory, was one of profound confidence of future peace between employer and employe. This confi- dence has since proved to be fairly well justified." Ray Stannard Baker, who made an investigation of the labor situation in San Francisco a few months later, wrote of the results : ' ' On paper the employers were successful in their main contentions; they avoided 'recognizing' the union; their workmen came back without reference to their affiliation with any labor organization; the right of free contract was estab- lished. But it was a barren victory. Practically the union won the day. There is a kind of fighting which makes the enemy stronger : that was the method of the San Francisco Employers' Association. It was an example of how not to com- bat unionism. "^'- THE LABOE UNIONS IN POLITICS. The municipal election of 1901 came a few weeks after the settlement of the strike. As in 1878, the working people had been thoroughly aroused and united ; as at that time class issues had been strongly emphasized. Not only was there the same stimulation of class consciousness, but there was also a similar bitter dissatisfaction with the city government. Throughout the contest the strikers complained that the municipal author- ities were fighting on the side of the employers. Although the labor leaders made sincere and earnest efforts to check disorder, there can be no question that there was much violence, particularly during the latter stages of the strike. The policy of the city authorities in dealing with this dis- order was bitterly criticised by the laboring men, and that a large number of disinterested citizens sympathized with their point of view seems evident from the results of the election. 1S2 McClure's Magazine, Vol. 22, p. 368, February, 1904. 76 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°l- ^ which furnished the first opportunity for an expression of the overwrought public feelings. In brief, the acts complained of were : First — The placing of policemen on the drays with the non- union drivers. It was claimed that the business of these teams- ters was all in the center of the city, and that policemen sta- tioned in the streets could have given ample protection. The strikers declared that the policemen directed the non-union drivers who were unacquainted with the city, and assisted them in various ways with their work. Second — The rough handling of the men on the waterfront caused much indignation. The leaders of these unions had determined to do all in their power to prevent strike-breakers coming into the city, and at the same time guard against vio- lence. They organized a large and effective force of pickets, who were on the lookout for new men who might be persuaded to give up their plans of seeking work in the city, and were at the same time charged with the duty of preventing disor- derly conduct on the part of their fellow trade-unionists. It was claimed that these men were roughly handled by the police without cause, and that many arrests were made of men whose only offense was their membership in the unions, merely for the purpose of clearing the docks. The third cause of complaint was the swearing in of a large number of special police who were paid by the employers. Many persons not engaged in the controversy questioned the wisdom of this policy. The resolutions of the Federation of Mission Improvement Clubs set forth the point of view of these critics : "Eesolved, That the action taken by the Police Commission in ap- pointing a large number of irresponsible and inexperienced men to exer- cise the duties appertaining to the enforcement of police regulations is in our judgment injudicious and a menace to the peace, security, and order which should be maintained by the constituted authorities. We desire to direct attention to the fact that men employed as police ofScers paid by private contribution will serve the contributor and cannot perform police duty impartially. In our opinion the Police Commission should draw upon the urgent necessity fund, when necessary to employ such additional policemen, who should be solely under the control of the con- stituted authorities, and thereby be required to perform impartially this high and important duty, "isa 183 San Francisco daily papers, August 16, 1901. 1^1''] Eaves: California Laior Legislation. 77 The Union Labor party was not officially recognized by the labor organizations, and at first was even discouraged by some of the men who had been most prominent in the strike. It was partly a spontaneous expression of this dissatisfaction with the city government, and partly the product of the insight of shrewd politicians, who seized the opportunity to utilize the social forces generated by the previous controversy. The strike had been an effort to check further aggression by a demonstra- tion of power. Its lack of entire success was believed to be due to the fact that the influence of the city authorities had been used on the side of capital. The coming election furnished another opportunity to show the strength of the labor move- ment and, at the same time, to weaken the employers by obtain- ing control of this powerful ally. This was the second election under the new charter which to an unusual degree centers power in the Mayor. At the election immediately following the strike the new party cap- tured this important office, their candidate receiving 21,774 of the 53,746 votes cast. They also elected three of the eighteen supervisors. The older parties at once realized the strength of this new influence in politics, and in subsequent elections combinations were made which resulted in placing a number of these joint candidates in office. In the state election of 1902 the Union Labor party nominated a judicial, congressional, and state legis- lative ticket.!*'* The influence of the party was confined to San Francisco, no attempt being made to elect a general state ticket. The party elected one state senator, seven assemblymen, the San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, and two Congress- men. With the exception of one assemblj^man, all of the suc- cessful candidates carried Democratic endorsements, and ran in districts where the influence of this party was strong. In the elections of 1903-4 it was clear that the new party was losing influence; the class issues raised in 1901 were being forgotten, and men were returning to their former allegiance to the older parties. It is true that Mayor Schmitz was reelected 184 The author is indebted to Walter Macarthur, editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal, for much of the material used in the account of the political activities of the labor unions. 78 Universitij of Calif ornia Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 by a vote of 26,050 in a total of 59,767, thus showing a gain in strength. One supervisor, who owed his success to the sup- port of the saloons, and a few candidates receiving endorsements of the older parties, were also elected to municipal offices. But in the state elections there was a decided loss of strength. One Superior Judge who ran on both the Democratic and Union Labor tickets, three assemblymen and three senators carrying the Eepublican endorsement were successful. The congressional representation secured two years before was also lost. But in 1905 there was a sudden accession of strength which gave the Union Labor party complete control of the San Fran- cisco municipal government. An analysis of the causes of this success would take us far from the history of the labor movement, and necessitate an examination of the manifold sources of corruption in the government of American cities. The Union Labor party had been managed from the outset by a very able and utterly corrupt boss. The use of the great power of the Llaj'or's office for four years had made possible the development of a powerful political machine. From the outset the administration of the Union Labor Mayor had been subjected to hostile criticism. During his second term there was much circumstantial evidence iji support of the charges of graft, but a thorough Grand Jury investigation failed to reveal any ground for the indictment of the leaders of the party, so it was easy to convince its many honest supporters that Schmitz was the victim of class prejudice and malicious persecution. The Union Labor ticket was opposed by a combined ticket of Democrats and Republicans. While this fusion party made graft the chief issue of the campaign, and was nominally a movement of reform, it soon became evident that it was largely- an effort of politicians to regain their power, and it failed to arouse any enthusiastic belief in its ability or sincerity. The influence of the party was also weakened by the fact that the Citizens' Alliance, an organization which was regarded as the successor of the Employers' Association, lost no opportunity to make known its support. By emphasizing this connection the managers of the Union Labor party were able to appeal to all the passions aroused in the previous struggle. 1310] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 79 As Schmitz had lacked four to five thousand votes of re- ceiving a majority of the total votes cast in the previous election, and as the Socialists, who were the third party, had only a small following, the fusion party felt confident of success. But when the returns came in, it was found that the entire Union Labor ticket had been elected, and that Mayor Schmitz had' received more votes than any other person on the ticket, with the exception of one police judge who had been nominated by both parties. The Union Labor party was now in complete con- trol of the municipal government. But this final demonstration of its power to command the votes of the people was followed by overwhelming revelations of the moral unfitness of its members to discharge the duties entrusted to them. The indictment of Maj^or Schmitz and of the political boss of the party, and the compulsory resignation of the grafting supervisors was the humiliating outcome of this first attempt to place in high offices of public trust men who nominally, if not actually, represented the working people. RECENT TENDENCIES OF SAN PEANCISCO TEADE-UNIONISM. While the political successes of the trade-unions have brought but few direct benefits, there have been indirect gains. The older political parties are now showing a disposition to give the labor men a fair representation on their tickets. AVith in- creasing opportunities for practical experience in the duties of public life there will be greater incentives for intelligent interest in and preparation for service of this kind. As there is much natural ability among the San Francisco labor leaders, we may hope that in time men will be developed whose knowl- edge of public affairs will be comparable to that of some of the great English labor leaders. All demonstrations of political power have a reflex influ- ence on legislation for the protection of the wageworkers. Dur- ing this period, the labor organizations have secured many use- ful laws. It has become a regular custom for the San Francisco Labor Council to maintain at Sacramento during the entire session of the legislature a representative who makes it his business to promote the bills sent up by the labor organizations, 80 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- ^ and to notify the Council promptly when any measures likely to prove injurious to the interests of the working people is introduced. The demonstration of their political power has given the labor organizations greater confidence in themselves. The Cit- izen's Alliance has never excited the alarm ot prompted the more aggressive actions that were felt to be necessary in deal- ing with the Employers' Association. A consciousness of power often tends to greater conservatism and tolerance. There is no better evidence of the real gains in stability and permanence of the San Francisco labor movement than the fact that, for the first time in its history, it has been able to pass through a period of extreme economic depression with- out serious losses. During the recent financial crises there have been manj^ idle men, but the unions have held together, and have relinquished but few of the many advantages gained dur- ing the previous period of extreme prosperity. The general history of trade-unionism in San Francisco, as in other industrial centers, shows certain well-marked periods of development. After many unsuccessful attempts, the men learn to subordinate their individual differences sufficiently to make possible continuous united activity. When power is ob- tained through the ability to maintain effective organization, the inevitable struggle in which the employers attempt to break down the union, or refuse the right of negotiation through its representatives, is sure to follow. The last stage of develop- ment is that in which the right to organize is fully recognized, in which hard-fought battles have taught mutual respect, so that both parties recognize the greater economy and wisdom of the concessions necessary for joint agreements. The older unions in England and to an increasing extent in this country have attained to this last stage of development. While it is probable that San Francisco must witness many renewals of the wasteful industrial conflicts of the past, there are hopeful signs of the transition to this third period in which the difficulties are settled by joint agreement. A very interest- ing example of this new method of gaining advantages is af- forded by the recent agreement by which the iron trades will l^l''] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 81 at last attain the eight-hour day. If one may judge by the frequent allusions to this and other agreements in the meetings of the Labor Council, a strong public sentiment in favor of the scrupulous observance of the terms of such agreements is being developed. However reluctant to do so, the employers have come to a realization of the fact that the unions are permanent factors in the industrial life of the community, and that negotiation and arbitration are more economical than a fruitless attempt at suppression. We are beginning to realize that our social in- heritance is as positive and uneseapable as our physical. We have seen that the San Francisco labor movement is not of recent origin; it is the product of the struggle and discipline of fifty years. While this great social force may be diverted into other channels, it cannot be destroyed. In the future, as in the past, it must play an important part in the economic development of the state. 82 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol. 2 CHAPTEE II. SLAVE OR FREE LABOR IN CALIFORNIA? THE SLAVERY QUESTION PEIOE TO 1849. Although many of our ablest historians believe that in set- tling this, her first labor problem, California became the deter- mining factor in the great controversy which was soon to imperil the nation, up to the time of her admission to the Union the opposition to slavery on the part of her inhabitants was so unanimous that the question could hardly be considered debat- able. Slavery was abolished in the Mexican provinces in 1829, and, aside from a few disputed cases where the services of Indian retainers were bartered, it had never existed in California. Only a small number of free negroes had found their way into the state. In 1847, of the 321 persons living at San Francisco, ten were negroes, who were said to be "as intelligent as is usual among the free negroes of the North. "^ In discussing the pos- sible introduction of slavery, the Calif or nian boasts, "Not a single instance of precedence exists in the shape of physical bondage of our fellowmen. " The article is very positive in its declaration of the universal disposition to maintain this condi- tion, asserting, "We desire only a white population in Cali- fornia; even the Indians among us, as far as we have seen, are more of a nuisance than a benefit to the country ; we would like to get rid of them. ... In conclusion, we dearly love the Union, but declare our positive preference for an independent condition of California to the establishment of any degree of slavery, or even the importation of free blacks."^ A few days later the editor of the California Star expresses himself with equal vigor, declaring, "We have both the power and the will to maintain California independent of Mexico, but we believe that though slavery could not be generally introduced, that its 1 The California Star, August 28, 1847. 2 The Calif ornian, March 15, 1848. •'■^■^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 83 recognition -would blast the prospects of the country. It would make it disreputable for the white man to labor for his bread, and it would thus drive ofE to other homes the only class of emigrants California wishes to see; the sober and industrious middle class of society. We would therefore on the part of ninety-nine hundredths of the population of this country, most solemnly protest against the introduction of any blight upon the prosperity of the home of our adoption. We should look upon it as an unnecessary moral, intellectual, and social curse upon ourselves and posterity. ' '^ He quote§ with approval the assertion of the Calif ornian, "It would be the greatest calamity the power of the United States could inflict upon California. ' ' DISCUSSIONS or SLAVERY IN THE FIEST CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. When our first assemblage of vigorous young lawmakers gathered in Monterey in September, 1849, to frame a state con- stitution, they promptly gave expression to this desire for free labor in California. The section of the Declaration of Rights which provides that, "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servi- tude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State, ' ' was adopted without debate or a dissenting vote.* In the Memorial to Congress presented by the representatives of the newly organized state, we are assured that this but ex- pressed the public opinion of the state. It declared, "The undersigned have no hesitation in saying that the provision of the Constitution excluding that institution meets with the almost unanimous approval of that people. . . . Since the discov- ery of the mines the feeling in opposition to the introduction of slavery is believed to have become, if possible, more unani- mous than heretofore. The relation of master and slave has never existed in the country, and is there generally believed to be prohibited by Mexican law, consequently the original Cali- fornia population is utterly opposed to it. Slavery is a question 3 The California Star, March 25, 1848. See also the article quoted from the New YorTc Evening Courier, Ibid., May 15, 1847. 4 Brown, J. Boss, Beport of the Debates in the Convention of Calif ornia on the Formation of the State Constitution, in September and October, 1849, pp. 43-4. 84 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 little discussed in California, so settled appears the public mind relative thereto. Public meetings have scarcely ever consid- ered it."^ The framers of the first California constitution wished not merely to insure the freedom of labor, but also to protect it from the degradation which they declared would be the inevit- able result of association with an inferior race. No one subject was so warmly debated as the section proposed by MeCarver providing that, "The Legislature shall, at its first session, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State, and to sffectuallj" prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this State for the purpose of setting them free."" MeCarver, in support of the need of such a section, said that he was acquainted with men who had received letters from the states declaring that in a short time hundreds of negroes would be brought to California for the purpose of working them in the mines prior to their liberation.' Steuart* and Semple" also knew of slave owners who were intending to carry out this plan, and several other mem- bers presented mathematical proofs of the great profits of such a procedure.^" It seemed evident that, unless something were done to prevent it, the state would soon be fairly overrun with a horde of ex-slaves. While these fears were greatly exaggerated, later history proves that they were not altogether groundless. Probably there had already been a few such cases. The census of 1850 shows less than a thousand negroes in California, but over two hundred of these were in Sacramento, the district represented by Me- Carver. Most of the others were located in the mining counties. Jones, a delegate from the miners, spoke as though the subject were one which they had fullj^ discussed, declaring that, in can- vassing his district, he found but one person who was not anxious to secure such an exclusion. "^"^ 5 Brown, op. eit., p. xix. 6 Ibid., p. 137. ^ Hid., pp. 137, 140. 8 IMd., pp. 146-7. Ibid., p. 138. 10 Ibid., pp. 138, 335. 11 Ibid., pp. 332-3. 19^0] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 85 The debates on McCarver's amendment were renewed at three different periods in the sessions of the convention, and over two whole days were occupied with the heated arguments which it called forth. These discussions not only throw much light on the labor conditions at that time, but in the strong race feel- ing displayed they foreshadow the labor controversies that have been most characteristic of the later history of the state. The points brought out in lengthy debates on the exclusion of free negroes may all be grouped under five arguments : First, their inferiority of race would make assimilation on terms of equality impossible. Second, they would degrade labor, and so discourage a more desirable class of immigrants. Third, monopolies and social inequalities would result from their exploitation. Fourth, they would constitute a vicious and disorderly ele- ment in the community. Fifth, the expenses of governing and supporting them would increase the burden of taxation. Wozencraft, the first speaker in support of the amendment, opened with a forceful argument to prove that when the two races were brought together certain social evils were inevitable. If they wished freedom and equality, then the inferior race must not be brought in contact with the superior, for said he, ' ' be assured the one will rule and the other must serve. ' '^- He, as well as Semple,^'' indulged in lofty dreams of the future great- ness of California, but in order to realize them he declared, "We must throw aside all the weights and clogs that have fet- tered society elsewhere. We must inculcate moral and industrial habits. We must exclude the low, vicious, and depraved. Every member of society should be on a level with the mass — able to perform his appropriate duty. Having equal rights, he must be capable of maintaining those rights, and aiding in their equal diffusion to others. There should be that equilibrium in societj- which pervades all nature, and that equilibrium can only be established by acting in conformity with the laws of nature. 12 Brooks, p. 49. 13 Ibid., p. 148. 86 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 There should be no incongruities in the structure ; it should be a harmonious whole, and there should be no discordant particles, if you would have a happy unity. ' ' The delegate from San Luis Obispo, a lawyer from New York, also set forth fully and forcefully the social evils of intro- ducing an inharmonious element in the population. He said, "I am opposed to the introduction into this country of negroes, peons of Mexico, or any class of that kind; I care not whether they be free or bond. It is a well established fact, and the history of every state in the Union clearly proves it, that negro labor, whether slave or free, when opposed to white labor, de- grades it. . . . Here are thousands upon thousands of enter- prising, able, and intelligent young men, leaving their homes and coming to California. They cannot all devote themselves to digging gold in the placers here ; they will be compelled to turn their attention to other branches of industry; and if you do not degrade white labor there will not be the slightest diffi- culty in obtaining white men to labor. But there will be a difficulty if they are to work with negroes. ' '" That these ex-slaves would degrade labor was an argument of the opening discussion which was taken up and repeated with all sorts of variations by the following speakers. The superior intelligence and culture of many of the men who had swarmed into the mines was pointed out. Their representative, who was born in Kentucky and had been a resident of Louisiana, ex- ' claimed, "Sir, in the mining districts of this country we want no such competition. The labor of the white man brought into competition with the labor of the negro is always degraded. There is now a respectable and intelligent class of population in the mines ; men of talent and education ; men digging there in the pit with the spade and pick, who would be amply compe- tent to sit in these halls. Do you think they would dig with the African ? No, sir, they would leave this country first. ' '^^ The fear of the growth of monopolies furnished the third ground of opposition. It was asserted that these groups of negroes who would be brought by their masters to work in the 1-4 Brooks, pp. 143-5. 16 Itid., p. 333. 1^10] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 87 mines, "would become a monopoly of the worst character. The profits of the mines would go into the pockets of single individ- uals. The labor of intelligent and enterprising white men who, from the want of capital, are compelled to do their own work would afford no adequate remuneration."" It is difficult to see how the greater profits of the capitalists could lessen the earnings of individual miners, but such were the fears of several of the delegates. There was a general conviction that the negroes were thor- oughly undesirable citizens; only one man in the convention seemed willing to defend their character. He asserted that in New York he had known men of color who were most respect- able citizens, — men of wealth, intelligence, and business capacity. He could not agree to any provision which would deprive such men of their rights." But Hastings from Ohio, McCarver, and Semple from Kentucky, Wozencraft from Louisiana, Tefft from New York, Hoppe from Missouri, all testified against them. With these formidable indictments of shiftlessness, indolence, vice, and riotous conduct charged against them, and the assur- ance that thousands would be brought into the state, the sug- gestion that an increased burden of taxation would be necessary for their support and control gained considerable weight. ^^ However, not all the members were carried away by this strong combination of real argument and race prejudice. Dim- mick and Gilbert were quite sceptical about the possibility of slave owners bringing their negroes to California in large num- bers. They pointed out the difficulties, expenses, and risks of such a course, and spoke eloquently of the injustice and incon- sistency of following the earlier lofty declarations of freedom and equality contained in the constitution, with this measure which discriminated against the free citizens of other states, not because, as Gilbert boldly declared, they had committed any crime, but simply because they were black.^^ Gilbert also pointed out that such a provision would be in conflict with the section 10 Brooks, p. 144; see also pp. 138, 140, 142, 146. " Ibid., p. 143. 18 md., 331. 10 IMd., p. 149. 88 University of California PuMications in Economics, [^ol- 2 of the United States Constitution which provided that, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states." He did not believe that Congress would accept the constitution with such a provision.^" Notwithstanding his impassioned plea in the name of justice and human progress, the committee of the whole adopted McCarver's amendment providing for legislation excluding free negroes from the state. When the measure came up for the final vote two weeks later, the opinions of the delegates had undergone a great change. The fears that such a section might delay the admission of the state were strengthened by references to difficulties with a sim- ilar provision in the Missouri constitution.^^ Other members felt that the constitution was becoming overburdened with pro" visions, and that the convention was encroaching on the func- tions of the legislature. The fate of the measure was settled by the announcement of a San Francisco delegate that he had heard from his constituents and they were much opposed to the meas- ure. Indeed, he declared that should the constitution contain such a provision, it would be unanimously rejected in San Francisco. ^^ By a standing vote of 9 to 33 the amendment was lost. COMPEOMISE MEASURES BY WHICH CALIFORNIA WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNION. It is evident that the members of the constitutional conven- tion had but little realization of the national significance of this question of the type of labor to be admitted to California. The section of the new constitution excluding slavery which they had accepted without question was for months the subject of the most violent controversy on the part of the representatives of the older states. The great statesmen were brought face to face with the hideous possibilities of disunion and all its terrible consequences, as realized ten years later. They succeeded at last in postponing the struggle by the compromise measures 20 Brooks, p. 150. 21 Ibid., p. 334. 22 Ibid., p. 338. 1^10] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 89 which admitted California with the free labor which her people desired, but left the matter of slavery an open question in the remainder of the territory purchased from Mexico, settled the disputed Texas boundary, prohibited the slave trade in the Dis- trict of Columbia, and enacted a drastic fugitive-slave law. It seems probable that, had the constitution also contained the section prohibiting free negroes from entering the state, it would have been rejected, as such a section might have antagonized the more radical defenders of the rights of the negro, who worked hardest to secure the admission of California as a free state. The long delays in admission, occasioned by the discussion of the slavery question, seem to have given the subject a dif- ferent significance in California. Pier lawmakers became a little more cautious about legislation on this topic, and those who secretly desired slavery began to hope that, with this evidence of strong support from other sections of the country, the matter was not an entirely closed issue in California. EFFOETS TO EXCLUDE FEEE NEGROES. P. H. Burnett, the first governor of the state, was thoroughly committed to the policy of excluding negroes from the Pacific Coast states. While a member of the Oregon legislative com- mittee, he introduced a measure which provided that any free negro or mulatto who did not leave the state within the time prescribed by the law, should be arrested and fiogged at inter- vals of six months until he left. To the credit of Burnett it must be added that a few months after the passage of this barbarous measure he introduced an amendment providing a more humane method of ridding the state of this unfortunate class of citizens. They were to be arrested and hired to persons who, for the shortest term of service, would undertake to remove them from the state. In his inaugural message in December, 1849,^^ and again in 1851,^* Governor Burnett urged legislation to prevent the bring- ing of indentured negroes to California. He believed that the 23 Journals of the California Legislature, 1850, pp. 38-9. ^ilbid., 1851, pp. 19-21. 90 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- ^ time was approaching when the natural increase of the popu- lation in the states east of the Rocky Mountains would render slave labor of little value, and thought that negroes under con- tract to work a few years in return for their freedom, would be brought to the Coast in great numbers. He pointed out that, since the laws of the state treated them as an inferior race, denying all the rights of citizenship, they would have no incen- tives to improve their characters. He thought that the negroes should either be admitted to all the privileges guaranteed in the constitution, or altogether excluded. Attempts were made in the 1850 and 1851 sessions of the legislature to carry out the recommendations of the gQvernor; the bill of 1850 passed the assembly, only to be indefinitely postponed in the senate,^^ while that of 1851 seems to have died in the assembly committee to which it was referred.^" Thus the bills "to prevent the emi- gration of free negroes and persons of color ' ' never became laws. INCREASE OF THE NEGEO POPULATION. While negroes were not brought to the state in such large numbers as had been predicted by members of the constitutional convention, it is evident that there was a sufficient number of such cases to keep alive the fears of those who had advocated legislative restriction. Governor Burnett, in his message of 1851, says, "As was anticipated, numbers of this race have been manumitted in the slave states by their owners and brought to California, bound to service for a limited period as hirelings. We have thus, in numerous instances, practical slavery in our midst. That this class is rapidly increasing in our state is very certain. ' '-'' The San Francisco papers noticed the coming of these so- called "servants." The steamer Isthmus, arriving April 15, 1852, is reported to have "brought up several gentlemen with a number of servants — one with twelve, another eight, another 25 Assembly Journal, 1850, pp. 723, 729, 873, 1223, 1232. Senate Jour- nal, 337, 338, 347. 2e Assembly Journal, 1851, pp. i315, 1440. ^T Ibid., 1851, p. 21. 1^10] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 91 seven, another five, and so on."^' The Pacific quotes this notice from the Herald and adds, "We also learn that many of these 'servants,' — and under our present constitution they are nothing more, — have lately arrived in various steamers with their mas- ters, and been distributed through the interior. ' '^^ Both papers quote from the Charleston Courier a statement that one steamer had, on her last two trips, taken out seventy-four slaves belong- ing to passengers bound for the gold diggings. The article adds that the reports from the mines continue favorable, and that a large number of negroes will be taken out on the next trip. ATTEMPTS TO SECUEE CONCESSIONS TO SLAVERY. This increase of "servants" whose masters were strongly interested in retaining their control brought about a more open advocacy of concessions to slavery. One southerner, writing to the Pacific in its favor, presented the somewhat novel argument that negro labor was necessary because the prevalence of poison oak made it impossible for white men to develop the agricul- tural resources of the state.^" A member of the legislature, born in Virginia, wrote to an eastern correspondent that the gold mines could be worked more profitably by slaves than in any other way, and that the legislature would probably pass a measure admitting them. James Gadsden and other prominent southerners became interested in a plan to bring out a colony which should include two thousand negro slaves. This plan must have been widely discussed, for, though it seems to have originated in South Carolina, it was criticized in the papers of Louisville, Kentucky.'^ A letter from Gadsden published at Shreveport, Louisiana, proposed to build a great highway to the Pacific, which should later become the route of the overland railroad. He wanted the people of that place to apply to the Government for the survey of the road, military protection, and possibly subsistence. He said that, should this request be granted 28 ^0)1 Francisco Herald, April 16, 1852. 28 The Pacific, April 23, 1852. 30 IMd., March 12, 1852. 31 Ibid., April 23, 1852. 92 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 and the California legislature respond favorably to the memorial of the proposed colony, "you will see us with some five hundred to eight hundred domestics, and two or three hundred axes open- ing the highway to the cultivation and civilization of the sfhores of the Pacific. ' ' "Mr. Peachy presented a most extraordinary Memorial to the House this morning," wrote a San Francisco newspaper correspondent two months later, ' ' a Memorial of twelve hundred and eighteen citizens of South Carolina and Florida, asking the Legislature of California to grant them, as an essential benefit to this State, the privilege of becoming citizens, of identifying themselves permanently with our interests, — and emigrating to our rural districts with a valuable and governable population in the relation of property, by whose peculiar labor alone our valuable soils may be rendered productive and our wilderness may be made to blossom as the rose. They ask permission to colonize a rural district with a population of not less than two thousand slaves. Upon the reading of this petition, as you will readily conceive, a highly exciting discussion occurred. A mul- titude of motions were made respecting it, but a motion to send it to the Committee on Federal Relations finally prevailed." As the legislature had no power to grant such a request the matter went no further. ^^ MOVEMENT FOE A DIVISION OF THE STATE. Those wishing to obtain concessions permitting slavery must do so either by an amendment to the constitution or by a division of the state. The latter course would have permitted the organ- ization of the southern part of the state as a territory, which, by the provisions of the Compromise of 1850, would have been open to slavery. The efforts to bring about a division of the state began in the summer of 1851 ■,'"^ its immediate cause being the disproportionate amount of taxation borne by the southern counties, and the discontent due to their neglect in the distri- bution of political patronage. A convention was held in August, 35 Daily Evening Picayune, February 11, 1852. Assembly Journal, 1852, p. 159. 33 Daily Evening Picayune, August 2, 1851. l^lf*] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 93 1851, at Santa Barbara for the consideration of the subject. The opportunity for the introduction of slavery offered by such a movement was quickly realized. During the next six years bills for the calling of a constitutional convention came before every session of the legislature, and the charge was freely made that the desire to introduce slavery was the real motive behind these persistent efforts. The alarm was sounded with the intro- duction of the first of these measures in 1852. The Pacific, a paper strongly opposed to slavery, asserted that, "It is now too well known to need repeating that the principal object had in view by those who advocate the proposed convention is that our Constitution may be so amended as to permit slavery, which it now prohibits. ' '^^ The article declared that the class of gen- tlemen from the South, "who had bound themselves, by fair means or by foul, according to law, or in contempt of it, to open California to slavery, seems to be remarkablj^ represented in our present legislature. ' ' This pro-slavery membership made possible the fugitive-slave law of 1852, but failed to secure the passage of the bill providing for the constitutional convention. This measure became the chief issue of the next session of the legislature, to which the members came prepared for a vigorous contest. The Free-Soil Democrats^'' had effected a somewhat tardy organization in October, 1852. They made no nominations, but elected a state central committee, whose chief function seems to have been the pointing out of the danger of choosing members to the legis- lature who would promote the plans to introduce slavery by means of a revision of the constitution. The governor's mes- sage to the legislature of 1853 recommended a number of changes in the constitution, and much time was given to the discussion of bills for carrying out his suggestions. A particularly objec- tionable measure which would have allowed the people no oppor- tunity to reject the work of the convention almost became a law.'" The efforts to secure the revision of the constitution were 3i The Pacific, March 19, 1852. 35 Hid., October 22, 1852. Davis, FoUtieal Conventions of California, p. 23. 30 Appendix to Senate Journal, Doc. 16, 17. 94 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°l- ^ renewed from year to year, until at last it came before the people in 1857, when it failed to obtain the necessary majority," and so put an end to all hopes of securing an opening for slavery in Southern California. THE CALIFOENIA FUaiTIVE-SLAYE LAW. The only concession to slavery granted by the laws of Cali- fornia was the bill passed in 1852 entitled, "An Act respecting fugitives from labor and slaves brought to this State prior to her admission into the Union. "^* The first three sections of this statute charged the state courts with the enforcement of a fugitive-slave law, whose provisions differed in no essential re- spects from those of the Federal law passed as one of the com- promise measures by which California was admitted to the Union. All the objectionable features which made that law so odious to the free states were repeated in the California statute. The owner or his agent was empowered to seize the fugitive, or obtain a warrant for his arrest to be granted by any judge, justice or magistrate of the state. The same summary procedure at the hearing to obtain the certificate authorizing removal was sanc- tioned, and the testimony of the fugitive on his own behalf was not admitted. Persons obstructing the arrest, assisting in escape, harboring or concealing such a fugitive were subject to a fine of not less than $500, imprisonment not less than two months, and civil damages to the claimant of $1000. Officers who neg- lected to enforce the law were liable to a fine of from $500 to $1000, and were subject to removal from office ; if the fugitive escaped through their neglect, assent, or contrivance, the officer or officers responsible must pay the claimant the value of the slave. ^° The real motive for the passage of this law was not the desire to secure the return of fugitive slaves. Indeed, it is doubtful whether any genuine cases of this kind ever occurred in California, as the difficult and expensive trip from the slave 37 Davis, op. cit., p. 84. 38 Statutes of California, 1852, p. 77. 3S lUd., 1852, pp. 67-8. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 95 states to the Pacific Coast would have been an impossible achieve- ment for a newly escaped slave. But a number of cases had come before the courts in which the questions of the right of a master to retain or remove his former slave from the state were raised. In the first cases which occurred soon after the admis- sion of the state, the alcalde of San Francisco returned the slave to his master, while the Sacramento judge freed him on the ground that slavery was prohibited by the constitution. In the following year there were two cases where attempts were made to remove slaves from the state.*" In both instances this was prevented by the courts. In the first of these cases, occur- ring in April, a San Francisco judge decided that the slave whose master wished to remove him was entitled to his freedom, since he had been voluntarily brought to the state after its ad- mission. A few months later a case of a mulatto child, who had been brought to the state in 1849, came before the Los Angeles courts. The master was allowed to retain the custody of the child acting in the capacity of guardian, but was required to give a bond not to remove her from the county. It is evident that, as interpreted by the California courts, the Federal fugi- tive-slave law would not permit the removal of these numerous negro "servants" from the state. The real object of the law of 1852 was embodied in the fourth section, which provided that, "Any person or persons held to labor or service in any State or Territory of the United States of America, and who shall refuse to return to the State or Territory where he or they owed such labor or service, upon the demand of the person or persons, his or their agent, or attorney, to whom such service or labor was due, such person or persons so refusing to return, shall be held and deemed fugitives from labor within the meaning of this Act, and all the remedies, rights, and provisions herein given claimants of fugitives who escape from any other State into this State are hereby given and conferred vipon claimants of fugitives from labor within the meaning of this section. ' '*^ •!» San Francisco Berald, April 1, 2, 1851 ; Hayes Scrap Books, Los An- geles, No. 28. (Unpublished books of manuscripts and clippings in the Bancroft Library, University of California.) 41 Statutes of California, 1852, p. 69. 96 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 When the bill was introduced in the assembly, this portion was the subject of what the correspondent of a San Francisco paper characterizes as "a keen, vehement, and powerful debate." It was pointed out that this practically introduced slavery into the state for an indefinite period. An amendment was passed which limited the time for the recovery of such slaves to one year from the passage of the bill. Out of respect for the consti- tutional prohibition of involuntary servitude within the state, it was provided that masters could reclaim such so-called fugi- tives only for the purpose of removal from the state.*^ Although the passage of the bill was hotly contested in the senate, all efforts to secure some scant measure of justice for the negro failed. The amendment providing that the person arrested should have the right to be heard by counsel, and to enforce attendance of witnesses as in cases of arrest for crimes, was lost.*^ Many of the negroes who had been brought to the state under indentures had honestly earned their freedom. The provisions of this section of the law permitted their recapture and return to slavery. Broderick's strenuous efforts to procure the passage of an amendment exempting such persons from the operations of the law, were unsuccessful. The most weighty argument in support of the measure was that which contended that the United States constitution protected property of citizens in all territory' under its jurisdiction, and that the California constitution provided for the future, but did not effect property rights existing at the time of its adoption.** The time allowed for the recovery of slaves was extended by the legislature of 1853 and 1854; thus for six years after the people had framed their Declaration of Rights prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude, negroes were held in bondage, — were even bought and sold in California. A few months after the passage of the law, it was held to be constitutional in the case of three negroes claimed by a man named Perkins. These darkies, who were brought to California iQ 1849 under an agreement to work for their freedom, declared 42 Daily Evening Picayune, February 6, 1852. 43 Senate Journal, 1852, p. 277. 44 San Francisco Herald, February 8, 1852. ^^1'^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 97 that they had worked the stipulated time in fulfillment of their contract. Their master had returned to Tennessee, but on the passage of the law sent out an order for their apprehension. Evidently the negroes had made good use of their brief period of freedom, for, when arrested, they had a span of mules, a wagon, and about four hundred dollars in money.^" The captives made a determined fight for their freedom. They were arrested in Placer County and brought to Sacra- mento, where a justice of the peace granted the certificate authorizing their removal from the state. On the refusal of the County Court to release them on a writ of habeas corpus, they appealed their case to the Supreme Court,*" where opinions on the constitutionality of the law were written by Chief Justice Murray and Justice Anderson. Justice Murray cited instances in which Federal statutes had been reinforced by state laws, and declared that the state had concurrent jurisdiction in slavery legislation by virtue of its police powers. Since the status of the fugitive from service must finally be determined in the state where his services were claimed, the law did not violate the right of trial by jury by providing for the removal of the person without trial. Property rights in this class of persons were recognized by the Constitution of the United States, which became the supreme authority after the conquest of the territory, and the state prior to her admission had no authority to impair any rights or obligations subsisting under the Federal consti- tution. Justice Anderson went even further in emphasizing this property right in slaves, forestalling the Dred Scott decision in declaring that the temporary residence of a slave in free territory did not change his servitude. Moreover, he asserted that legislative enactment was necessary in order to make oper- ative the clause of the Constitution of California prohibiting slavery. Since the legislature had failed to emancipate the slaves in the state at the time of her admission, their masters still had a right to their services. By order of the court the 43 The Pacific, June 18, 1852; Herald, June 4, 1852. 46 In re PerMns, 2 Cal. 429-459. 98 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol- 2 three men were remanded to the custody of the officer, to be taken from the state and returned to their former owner.*^ We find records of similar cases of the enforcement of the law, and doubtless many negroes, realizing the hopelessness of their position, returned to slavery without a protest. Some were able to buy their freedom, and in a few instances sympathizing friends paid the money necessary to insure their liberty. A curious case of this kind occurred in Sacramento. For several days this advertisement appeared in the Democratic State Journal : "Negro for Sale. — On Saturday the 26tli inst, I will sell at public auction a Negro Man, he having agreed to said sale in preference to being sent home. I value him at $300, but if any or all of his abolition brethren wish to show that they have the first honorable principle about them, they can have an opportunity of releasing said negro from bondage by calling on the subscriber, at the Southern House, previous to that time and paying $100. I make this great sacrifice in the value of the property, to satisfy myself whether they prefer paying a small sum to release him, or play their old game and try to steal him. If not re- deemed, the sale will take place in front of the Southern House, 87 J St., at 10 n 'clock of said day. ' ' To the credit of the "abolition brethren" of the little hump- back negro, who had been earning his living by blacking boots, it is recorded that the hundred dollars were promptly paid. Another such example was that of Judy, an old negro woman who had become a familiar figure about town at Los Angeles. She had been her own mistress for some time, but on the passage of this law, steps were taken to reclaim her and return her to the South. B. D. Wilson, the first county clerk of Los Angeles, paid five hundred dollars to save her from this fate.*'' In other instances the negroes made agreements with their masters by which they earned their freedom. Tinkham says there were many such cases in Stockton.^" The first recorded document of Butte County Vi,as a negro manumission paper,^"^ and Dr. Duniway reports that in his investigation of the early California if In re Perlhis, 2 Gal. 443-459. 48 The Pacific, June 25, 1852. 19 Hayes Scrap Books, Los Angeles, I, No. 28. 50 Tinkham, Geo. H., A History of Stockton, p. 128. 51 Wells, Harry L., History of Butte County, p. 199. -'■^-'■°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 99 comity archives he found many of these papers issued down to 1856.=2 Section 4 of the California law, which permitted masters to retain possession of negroes brought to the state before 1850, lapsed in 1856. After this date several attempts were made to reclaim negroes under the state and Federal fugitive-slave laws. A case in Los Angeles tried in 1856 involved the freedom of fourteen persons. A man named Smith had brought two negro women and their children to California, and four addi- tional children had been born in the state. He wished to remove his whole "patriarchal family" to Texas where, since no free negroes were permitted, they would return to the status of slaves. But the California courts intervened, and placed the minors in the custody of the sheriff in order to prevent their being taken from the state. ''^ THE LAST CALIFORNIA FUGITIVE-SLAVE CASE. The last, and in many respects the most interesting of the California fugitive-slave cases, was tried in 1858. For three months the whole state was stirred to an excited interest in the fate of Archy Lee,*^* a young negro whose master wished to take him back to Mississippi. C. V. Stovall, the claimant, was one of three brothers who arrived in California by the overland route in the fall of 1857. Archy, who is described as "a toler- able specimen of a young negro whose blood is not debased b.y any admixture of Anglo-Saxon stock," drove the ox-team of his master and cooked for the party. The master bought a farm in the Carson Valley, and, on arriving in Sacramento, hired out his slave and opened a private school. Stovall's school did not prosper, and after six weeks Archy 's employment was inter- rupted by sickness; so in January, 1858, j'-oung Stovall, who was in poor health, decided that he would return with Archy to Mississippi. But at the outset of the journey Archy, who no doubt had learned of his rights from the many free negroes 52 j«rt. Eeport American Historical Society, 1906, p. 224. 53 Hayes Scrap Books, Los Angeles, I, No. 519. Hi Sacramento Daily Union, January 9, 12, 27; February 11, 12, 13; see also the San Francisco papers. 100 University of California Puhlications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 in Sacramento, escaped and hid in a negro boarding house. The hiding place of the negro was soon discovered, and he was ar- rested and brought before the County Court. Judge Robinson decided that Archy was not a fugitive from labor within the definitions of the state or federal laws, and that Stovall, by the length of his stay and the fact that he had engaged in business, had forfeited his right to claim that he was a transient. He argued, ' ' Comity can never extend to strangers anything beyond the rights and privileges which the State allows its own citizens. Now if a man may retain his citizenship in the State of Missis- sippi, and sojourn here two months and work his slave, why may he not stay twenty years and work twenty slaves? The principle is precisely the same. The law would not permit a citizen of this State to hold and work a slave against his consent, and what it does not allow its own citizens to do, it cannot be reasonably expected to sustain strangers in doing. ' '^^ The accommodating judge had made known an hour before- hand what his verdict would be, so that Stovall was able to obtain another warrant before the negro was released. No sooner was the verdict pronounced, than the bewildered negro was re-arrested and, followed by a great crowd of sympathetic whites and negroes, led back to his cell. The case was then brought before the state Supreme Court on a writ of habeas corpus. "We have seen that P. H. Burnett, who was now on the Supreme Court bench, and who wrote the leading opinion in this case, had been uniformly opposed to the admission of negroes to the Pacific Coast states. Justice D. H. Terry, his associate in this case, was also a southern man. There can be no question but that, in this case, they allowed their prejudices rather than the law to dictate the decision. After carefully demonstrating that, by the length of his stay, and by entering into various busi- ness transactions, Stovall had forfeited the right to claim that he was a transient or traveler, and that Archy, who was volun- tarily brought to the state, could not be removed under the 55 Sacramento Daily Union, January 27; see also January 9, 11, 12, and San Francisco Bulletin, January 28. -^^■'■''] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 101 fugitive slave laws, the court pronounced this astonishing de- cision: "Prom the views that we have expressed, it would seem clear that the petitioner cannot sustain either the character of traveler or visitor. But there are circumstances connected with this particular case that may exempt him from the oper- ation of the rules we have laid down. . . . This is the first case and under the circumstances we are not disposed to rigidly enforce the rules for the first time. But in reference to all future cases, it is our purpose to enforce the rules laid down strictly according to their true intent and spirit." As further reasons for this judicial suspension of the constitution and laws of the state, the judge pointed out that Archy's master was young and might not have known the law, and being in poor health had need of the services of his slave. ^^ The early Californians could countenance the extraordinary judicial proceedings of the Vigilance Committees, and were cer- tainly but slightly bound by precedents of any kind, but when the Svipreme Court of the state delivered a convincing legal argument, followed by a decision diametrically opposed to its conclusions, every one, even the miners up at Rattlesnake Bar, was conscious of an outraged sense of justice. The papers of the state were immediately filled with protests which were couched in no uncertain terms." They declared that the decision which, as one paper remarked, "gave the law to the North and the nigger to the South, " " was a disgrace to the judges, would bring odium upon- the State, and render the Supreme Bench of California a laughing stock in the eyes of the world." The miners sent down a facetious "Syllabus of points decided," among which they included such rulings as, "The Constitution never operates for the first time." "The Constitution never operates against a young man traveling for his health. " " Con- stitutional rules to be relaxed in behalf of the infirm and indi- gent." "Decisions of the Supreme Court not to be regarded as precedents for the first time." "A man may gain all the law in the case and lose himself, ' ' etc. S6 Ex parte Arehy, 9 Cal. 147, 171. 6T Sacramento Daily Union, February 12, 1858; San Francisco Bulletin, February 13, 1858; Alta, February 14, 1858. 102 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 In the meantime the case was causing much excitement in San Francisco. When it was reported that Stovall, who had taken his heavily manacled and carefully guarded slave from Sacramento to Stockton, was soon to come to San Francisco to take passage for Panama, the negroes of the city determined to effect a rescue. At the time when Archy and his master were expected to arrive, the water front was patrolled day and night by between fifty and a hundred negroes. A prominent negro citizen had sworn out a warrant charging Stovall with kidnaping, and had also secured another writ of habeas corpus authorizing the apprehension of Archy. An officer was kept in readiness to serve these papers. As it was feared that Stovall would board the ship after it had left the dock, it was arranged to have outgoing ocean vessels accompanied by officers until they were outside the Heads. It hardly seems probable that the negroes of the city coiild have accomplished all this without the assistance of influential white friends."*^ As had been anticipated, Stovall, who feared the attempt to rescue Archy, undertook to board the outgoing vessel after it got under way. In the midst of a scene of great excitement, Stovall and Archy were arrested and taken back to the wharf where they were received by a wildly cheering crowd. B. D. Baker, one of the ablest lawyers and most eloquent orators of the early California bar, undertook to conduct the legal fight for Archy 's freedom which now commenced in the San Francisco courts. ^^ The case came first before the San Francisco County Court, and was then transferred to the United States Commissioner. It will hardly be profitable for us to go • into the details of the trial which was fully reported in the *{)apers, and followed with much interest by the people of the state. Witnesses were brought from Sacramento, and the evi- dence for both sides fully presented. After listening to the eloquent discussion of the case by the able counselors, Commis- sioner Johnson gave Archy his freedom."" ^» Bulletin, March 5, 6, 7, 1858; Alta, March 6, 7, 1858. ^^■i Bulletin, March 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31; April 6, 7, 14, 1858. 60 Baker was elected United States Senator from Oregon two years later. ■'•^"'"'^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 103 The news of the decision quickly spread, and a great crowd rushed to jail to witness Archy's release. That night the free negroes of San Francisco, Archy in. their midst, gathered to celebrate the great victory. The click of the coins so generously poured out to complete the payment of the expenses of Archy's defense was drowned in the great chorus, — five hundred strong, — that shouted the familiar hymns modified to fit the great occasion : "Sound the glad tidings o'er land and o'er sea, Our people have triumphed and Archy is free! " "Blow, ye trumpets blow! The gladly solemn sound, Let all the nations know To earth's remotest bound. The year of Archy Lee is come, Eeturn ye ransomed Stovall home." The colored citizens of the state were becoming quite dis- couraged, as, in addition to the Supreme Court decision in this case, a bill had been presented in the legislature to prohibit the immigration of free negroes and mulattoes."^ The San Fran- cisco negroes held a meeting to protest against the passage of this measure. It was pointed out that such a statute was entirely vmnecessary, as only twenty-four negroes had come to the state during the past year. They were still without political rights, and the legislature had promptly refused to consider the petition of the San Francisco negroes requesting that they be permitted to testify in the courts in cases to which white men were parties. This right was not granted until 1863. Such was the dissatis- faction that there was much talk of a plan to emigrate in a body, and Vancouver Island and Sonora were discussed as possible places of settlement."^ The reversal of the decision in the Archy case gave the many freedmen in the state a greater sense of security. They seem to have been right in their feeling that it marked a turning point in the history of the negroes in Cali- fornia, for there were no more fugitive-slave eases, and the more active campaign against them ceased. 01 Assembly Journal, 1857, pp. 811, 823, 824. e2 Bulletin, April 14, 1858. 104 University of California Publications in Economics. [yo\. 2 Throughout the period when the negro was the subject of legislative action, the measures presented were a reflection of the politics of older states, or were efforts to avert anticipated evils, rather than attempts to deal with problems that had act- ually developed to such proportions as to threaten the welfare of the state. In California as in other parts of the country, the active pro-slavery minority were able to profit by the disposition to make concessions rather than endanger the public peace and unity. By 1860 there were only about 4,000 negroes in the state, and the Chinese numbered 47,000; the people had begun to realize that not negro, but Chinese labor, would be the real race problem of the Pacific Coast. ■^^■^°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 105 CHAPTER III. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION FOR THE EXCLUSION AND REGULATION OF TILE CHINESE, 1852-1867. Legislation prohibiting the further immigration of Oriental laborers has been the chief object of the organized activities of the working people of California for over fifty years. Those vvhose occupations have brought them into direct contact with the Chinese or Japanese have never had but one opinion as to the significance of their admission ; whether in the mining camps of the early fifties, or in the factories and workshops of the later periods of industrial development, we find the same bitter complaints of the evils of such competition. Had the state been able to legislate on the subject, the question would have been settled long before the Chinese had arrived in sufficient numbers to constitute a serious race problem, but since Congress claimed the exclusive right to regulate immigration, it was neces- sary to convince the nation before the desired relief could be obtained. The small minority within the state whose interests were opposed to restrictive legislation were greatly reinforced by the merchants of older states, who feared to jeopardize the rich trade of the Orient, and by idealists who were loth to recognize the world-old significance of race in the application of their theories of political and social equality. By the per- sistent efforts of the working people of California first the state and then the nation have been converted to the policy of Oriental exclusion. THE BEGINNING OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION. The small number of Chinese merchants who came to Cali- fornia with the first rush of gold-seekers met with a cordial reception, for the thought that the Golden Gate would soon become the port of entry for the rich commerce of the Orient appealed strongly to the early Californians. These first ar- rivals were shown special honors ; we hear of them occupying a 106 University of California Publications in Economics, l^o^- 2 conspicuous place in the San Francisco celebration of the ad- mission of the state. They quickly realized the golden oppor- tunities of this new land, where they were received with a hospitality hitherto undreamed of in the overcrowded Orient. We cannot do better than to quote their own account of first impressions : ' ' We remember the time when the report went abroad of the great excellence of your honorable state and its inhabitants. The people of the Flowery Land were received like guests. ... In consequence, with the hope and desire of enjoying a residence where the customs were so admirable and just, we came. In those early times we were greeted with favor. Each treated the other with politeness. From far and near we came, and were pleased. Days and months but added to our satisfaction. The ships gathered like clouds. ' '^ Such favorable reports quickly resulted in an extensive immigration. Parker, our representative in China, wrote to Webster in March, 1852, that 14,000 Chinese had emigrated to California since January 1, 1851, nearly half of them sailing after January 1, 1852. He said that already there was a fleet of fifty to sixty vessels employed in conveying Chinese to the United States, and that the business was very profitable, as $50 per head passage money was charged.^ The officers of the Chinese Companies gave an even larger estimate ; declaring that early in 1852 there were 25,000 Chinese in California, but that many of these left after the opposition to them developed, so that there were 22,000 remaining in 1853.^ This decline was only temporary, as they reported 38,687 registered in their Com- panies two years later, a figure which is much more accurate than the governor's greatly exaggerated estimate of fifty to sixty thousand.* The period of this first extensive immigration was that of the greatest development of what is generally spoken of as the 1 Brooks, B. S., Appendix to the Opening Statement and Brief on the Chinese Question, San Francisco, 1877. 2 Ex. Doc. No. 105, 34tli Gong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 859. 3 Report of Committee on Mines, Assembly Journal, 1853, Appendix, Doc. 28. * Minority report on Resolutions of Shasta Miners ' Convention, Senate Journal, 1855, Ap., Doc. 19. ^^^'^l Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 107 "coolie trade." It has been estimated that between 1847 and 1859 fifty thousand of these contract laborers were shipped to Cuba alone.^ The conditions of the traiSc were, if possible, worse than those of the African slave-trade." There has been much discussion of the relation of the California Chinese immi- gration to this trade. The legislative committees, the Governor of the state, and the Chinese Companies all agree in declaring that the earlier arrivals came as contract laborers under Chinese masters, but there is no evidence indicating that their immigra- tion was involuntary, or that it was subject to the terrible abuses of the traffic in laborers for Cuba or the South American coun- tries. Nor is there any reason to doubt the assertion of the Chinese Companies that the plan of bringing over large numbers by Chinese masters proved unprofitable and was soon aban- doned.' THE FIRST EFFORTS TO SECURE ANTI-CHINESE LEGISLATION. The assembly committee on mines first pointed out the dan- gers of Chinese immigration. Their report presented April 16, 1852, declared that the policy of free mines had, in the main, proved advantageous, but that there had been accompanying evils, the greatest of which was the concentration within the state of vast numbers of Asiatics. Feeling that the time was not far distant when absolute prohibition of entry would be necessary for our own protection, they wished a resolution sent to Congress declaring that the importation by foreign capitalists of immense numbers of Asiatic serfs and Mexican and South American peons was daily becoming more alarming, that it threatened the peace of the mining regions, and urging prompt action to remedy the evil.' 5 Rep. on Coolie Trade, Com. on Commerce, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., H. R. No. 443, Serial No. 1069. 8 The U S Congressional documents give the correspondence from consuls in China, Cuba, Brazil, and Japan showing the terrible conditions of this trade. 7 Report of Committee on Mines, Senate Journal, 185^, Appendix, p. 669. San Francisco Herald, May 4, 1852. 8 Assembly Journal, 1852, Appendix, Doc. 28. 108 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 Governor Bigler promptly took up the matter; a week later his special message on Asiatic immigration was sent to the legis- lature." This called attention to the dangers of what he char- acterized as "the present wholesale importation of Asiatics," and declared that over two thousand had arrived in the last few weeks, and that fully five thousand were on their way. He stated that they usually came in bands of thirty or more, but that one vessel had recently arrived with one hundred on board who were under the control of one master. This message gives us the first analysis of the character of the Chinese as citizens. Governor Bigler pointed out that though there were a large number of these people in the state, not one had ever applied for citizenship. His objections to them were the same that have so often been repeated in subsequent anti-Chinese agitation. They remained a distinct people, with their own customs and laws ; they lowered the standards of labor, thereby shutting out the more desirable white laboring population; they came but to dig gold to be carried back to the country to which they still owed their allegiance, never to establish a home in the land of their adoption; with increased facilities of transportation they would come in overwhelming numbers. He recommended that the legislature check the immigration by taxation, and that Con- gress be urged to prohibit such contract, or coolie, labor in the mines. This message from the governor called forth many replies, and for a time there seemed to be a reaction in favor of the Chinese. They had learned at this early date the advantages of employing an able lawyer to present their side of the situ- ation; with such assistance, they were able to obtain a favor- able report from the committee on mines in the following year. Much prejudice had been aroused by the belief that a large percentage of the Chinese immigrants were exploited by a few of their countrymen who brought them to this country under contracts. While acknowledging that the earlier arrivals came in this way, the Chinese merchants declared that the plan did not prove profitable and had been abandoned, and that such " Senate Journal, 18.52, p. 373. ^^l*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 109 contracts as continued in use were merely for the purpose of working out the cost of passage, which was often advanced/" Notwithstanding this assurance that the plan had proved unprofitable, some of the white people of the state sought legis- lation that would enable them to utilize this cheap, contract labor. As originally worded, this ' ' Act to enforce contracts and obligations to perform work and labor," was general in its application. The opponents of negro immigration were at once aroused, as they suspected that it was designed to make profit- able the working of ex-slaves. The bill was amended to apply only to contracts made in "the Chinese dominions or in any of the islands of the Pacific Ocean." The representatives of the miners secured a further modification by which the intro- duction of such labor in the mines was prohibited. Even with these restrictions in its application, the bill met with much oppo- sition. There was great excitement when, after a heated debate, it passed the assembly, and an indignation meeting was held that evening where the "Coolie Bill" and its supporters were vigorously denounced. When the majority of the senate committee on mines re- ported favorably on the bill, the fears that it might become a law were increased, but the minority report of P. A. Roach saved California from the disgrace of such a sanctioning of involuntary servitude. He pointed out the unprecedented pros- perity of the state under the existing system, where labor was free to seek its rewards with the few but just regulations made by the working men. Since all capitalists were free to profit by the proposed arrangement, competition would quickly reduce the gains, thus the cheap labor would not result in the more profitable employment of capital. The many social evils of such a system were presented. The whole people would be charged with the expense of enforcing these contracts, whereas this should fall on those who reaped the profits. Such a meas- ure was utterly out of harmony with our free institutions. The oppressed of other nations would be betrayed by their faith in our laws into committing themselves to a situation which might 10 Se)iate Journal, 1852, Appendix, Rept. of Com. on Mines. 110 University of California Puilications in Economics. [Vol.2 work great hardships. Twenty years later this report was re- printed to serve as a campaign document in the anti-Chinese agitation, and its author, who still took an active interest in public affairs, was credited with prophetic insight." OPPOSITION" TO THE CHINESE IN THE MINING CAMPS. The Chinese name for California was "The Golden Moun- tains, ' ' and thej^, like the people of other nations, were attracted by the wealth of the mines. The miners, who were the first to meet large numbers of Chinese workers, led in the opposition to them as they had in all the efforts to exclude negro labor from the state. This was not solely due to the fact that the mines afforded the most frequent opportunities of contact and competition between the differing types of labor. As we be- come better acquainted with the social and political character- istics of the early California mining camps, we realize that these newcomers must have been utterly out of place in such com- munities. It has been suggested that when men are brought into contact with a primitive environment, they adjust themselves by a return to earlier forms of social organization. This was true in a large measure of the California mining camp. There were none of those stratifications which serve to protect one from a too intimate contact with persons whose habits or racial charac- teristics may be repugnant. Its members left behind all claims to social recognition based on family, social ties, or previous attainments. Distinction was commanded solely by the vigor, personal courage, and good-fellowship, which best fitted one for the rough life of the little democracy. Every one worked with pick and shovel; moreover, every one boiled his own beans, and even did the occasional washing that could not be avoided. There were no servants and so there could be no menial labor. Every claim-owner was entitled to a voice and vote in the settlement of all questions of public policy. The extent of the claim to be held by each miner, disputed titles, and other matters 11 Senate Journal, 1852, Appendix, p. 669. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. HI m a of vital importance to the little community were settled folk-moot, which was as primitive in its procedure as that an cient assemblage which historians assure us contained the germs of all later political institutions. This meeting also tried of- fenders, determining their guilt or innocence, and affixing the penalty either by the vote of the whole assemblage, or by a jury of six or twelve members. There was no place in such a community for any one who could not be accepted on terms of social and political equality. At first the Chinese seem to have suffered from the common prejudice against all foreigners. The Americans resented the way in which aliens were crowding to the mines merely to get gold to be carried from the state, particularly as these men contributed little or nothing to the support of the government. As much hard feeling had been aroused by the relatively small proportion of taxation borne by the mining regions, the legis- lature undertook to equalize the burden of taxation by forcing the foreigners to give up a share of the wealth which they were taking from the state. In 1850^=' a law was enacted which re- quired all who were not native-born citizens of the United States, or who had not acquired citizenship by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to take out a license before doing any work in the mines. The fee for this license was fixed at twenty dollars per month, and failure to take out the license was punishable by expulsion from the mines, or, in case of a second offense, by three months' imprisonment and a fine of a thousand dollars. It was argued that the payment of this tax would allay the feelings of antagonism against foreigners, and would also con- stitute a just contribution towards the expenses of government. ^^ The attorney-general immediately instituted proceedings to test the constitutionality of this law. It was decided by the state Supreme Court that such a tax was not in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as in levying it, the state exercised a power not expressly conferred on the Federal G-ov- ernment ; that after foreigners had landed and intermingled with € 12 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 221. 13 Senate Journal, 1850, Appendix, Eept. of Green, chairman of Com., p. 493. 112 University of California Puhlications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 citizens they became subject to taxation by the state for police purposes, or to pay for the government which gave them pro- tection. The state also had a right to prescribe conditions upon which aliens might enjoy a residence within it. The court held that the law was not in conflict with the section of the state constitution which provided that, "Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State," as this section referred only to the property tax, and not to the aggregate tax.^* The law met with much opposition, as the tax was so high as to be prohibitive for the poorer miners. Great difficulty was experienced in its collection. The Governor reported in 1851 that less than $40,000 had been realized for the state treasury, and the legislature decided that, since the operation of the law was so unsatisfactory, it had better be repealed.^^ The foreign miners' license law was re-enacted, however, in 1852, but with the greatly reduced rate of three dollars per month. The legislators endeavored in this law to offer induce- ments for its collection and payment; half of the money col- lected was to be paid into the county treasuries, and an un- licensed foreign miner could not claim the protection of the courts of the state. The law of 1852 also held those employing foreigners liable for the taxes of their employees. Even before the period of direct legislation against the Chi- nese, we find a growing disposition to make the license law bear more heavily on them than on other foreigners. The Chinese did not object to the payment of the license tax. On the con- trary, they suggested that it be increased, in the hope that its profits might make the Chinese miners more welcome in the counties receiving it, or even win them the just protection of their laws.^" The amendments to the law in 1853 increased the cost of the license to four dollars per month, and authorized the collection of the tax from all foreigners residing in the mining districts who were not engaged in some lawful business other than mining.^' While the law did not discriminate be- 11 The People v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 232. 15 Statutes of California, 1851, p. 424. 10 Eept. Com. on Mines, Senate Journal, 1853, Appendix. 17 Statutes of California, 1853, p. 62. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 113 tween the Chinese and other foreigners, the intention to make it particularly applicable to them is shown by the passage of a second act which provided for its translation and extensive publication in the Chinese language." The next modifications of the law show even more clearly the approach of the time when the Chinese were set aside as subjects for oppressive dis- crimination. First naturalized foreigners,'" and then all for- eigners who had declared their intention to become naturalized, were exempted from the application of the license law.^" The Chinese at first made no attempts to acquire, and later were refused, the privileges of citizenship, so that this proved an effective method of segregating them from other foreigners. EXCLUSION OF CHINESE TESTIMONY PEOM THE COUETS. A decision of the Supreme Court in 1854 contributed more than the legislative measures to this setting aside of the Chinese in a class to whom all social and political equality was denied. To it must be charged many of those lawless and unjust acts that have furnished such a disgraceful chapter in the history of the state, for it resulted in denying the Chinese the protection of the courts in many of the cases in which they were wronged. The laws of the state already prohibited the testimony of negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, in cases to which white men were parties. By Judge Murray's decision these laws were made to apply to the Chinese. The law was given this extended application by a remarkable ethnological argument in which it was declared that the term "Indian" included Mongolians, as Columbus had applied it to natives of America under a misapprehension, be- lieving them to be Asiatics, and that until recent times the two races were supposed to belong to the same species. After pre- senting various reasons for his assertion that the Indians prob- ably descended from Asiatic ancestors, his argument closes with the pertinent remark, "We have carefully considered all the consequences resulting from a different construction, and are 18 Statutes of California, 1853, p. 82. 10 lUd., 1854, p. 55. 20 Ibid., 1855, p. 210. 114 University of Oalifoniia Publications in Economics. ["Vol; 2 satisfied that, even in a doubtful case, we would be impelled to this decision on grounds of public policy. The same rule that would admit them to testify, would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench and in our legislative halls. "^1 This ruling was sustained in later decisions,^^ with results that were most disastrous for the Chinese. It made it possible for unprincipled whites to commit crimes against them with impunity, so long as there were none but Chinese witnesses. ^^ Several attempts were made to pass laws admitting Chinese testimony in cases where outrages had been committed against them, but they were unsuccessful. This injustice was not rem- edied until the passage of the Federal Civil Rights bill, which provided, among other things, that all persons in the United States should have the same rights to give evidence as is enjoyed by white citizens.-* A year later in a case tried in San Fran- cisco the judge held that this law permitted the Chinese to appear as witnesses, and one Ah Chuey was duly sworn in American fashion.^^ When the California Codes were compiled in 1872, the provision excluding such testimony was omitted.^" PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF THE ANTI-CHINESE LEGISLATION. There has always been a strong interaction between the at- tempts to secure anti-Chinese legislation and the immigration of the Chinese. An unusual influx of these Orientals would be followed by efforts to secure exclusion laws or to discourage them by the withdrawal of business opportunities. Immedi- ately a great decline in immigration would be noticed, but it 21 People V. Hall, 4 Gal. 399. 22 Speer v. See Tup Co., 13 Gal. 73. People v. Elyea, 14 Gal. 145. 23 B. S. Brooks gives many such cases in his argument before the Con- gressional Committee taken ±rom the Bulletin. 2-1 The California judges did not agree on the subject of whether the Fourteenth Amendment admitted the Chinese to this right. Judge Pro- vines decided that it did not and Judge Sawyer took the opposite view. See the editorials in the San Francisco Times of October 8 and 9, 1869. 2'^ Bulletin, May 17, 1871. 26 Code of Civil Procedure, p. 493-4. ""■ "^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 115 was promptly renewed as soon as the public agitation had ceased. We have noticed the first attempt to secure anti-Chinese legis- lation. Twenty thousand Chinese arrived in 1852, but in the following year, as a result of Governor Bigler's message, there were two hundred more departures than arrivals. But as was pointed out, this 'early movement was followed by a reaction. Not only the Chinese, but also the merchants of Monterey and San Francisco protested against the adoption of the policy recommended. The result of this reaction was a vigorous re- newal of immigration, over sixteen thousand arriving in 1854. The revival of opposition and the passage of anti-Chinese legis- lation in 1855 brought about another decline. There was an increase in the early sixties, which was again discouraged by the formation of societies opposing them among the working- men. The demand for workers on the railroads in 1868-1869 renewed the immigration so that it once more reached the figures of 1854: This was followed by the vigorous anti-Chinese cam- paign of the early seventies, resulting in a decline of one-half in the number of arrivals. Though renewed once more in the period from 1873 to 1877, the bitter anti-Chinese agitation of the Workingmen 's Party again brought about a decline, so that in 1880 nearly 1700 more returned to China than arrived in the state. The year of the greatest influx was 1882, when many hastened to avail themselves of the last opportunity to enter the state. '''' The legislation on Oriental labor sprang from the people. The centers of anti-Chinese agitation have always been found at the points of greatest contact between the two types of labor, hence the laws on the subject have not been of the type which far-seeing statesmen first suggest, and whose support is largely a matter of the education of public opinion. They were the product of the actual experiences, — sometimes of the race preju- dices, — of those in the humblest ranks of society. For thirty years the working people persistently made known their needs, winning at last a practically unanimous support in the state, so that all classes united to urge the tardy Federal legislation for exclusion. The largely instinctive judgment of the working people of California, which has refused to sanction this admix- 116 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 ture of races, has been accepted as the policy of the nation. This origin of the anti- Chinese legislation is shown in the rela- tionship which the different groups of laws bear to each other. The regulations made in the miners' meetings are repeated in the state laws and even in the Federal statutes; the demands of the labor unions are reflected in city ordinances, and these in turn suggested measures passed by the state legislature i while the futile attempts at state exclusion furnished the models for Federal laws regulating immigration. '- The legislation upon the subject of Oriental labor has been rendered intricate by the triple jurisdiction resulting from our peculiar form of government. Police measures, the control of licenses, and of many other conditions of labor, are largely ex- ercised by the local governing bodies of towns or cities. The state has paramount jurisdiction on the same subjects, and attempted to exercise the right to exclude altogether, or to tax heavily, the importation of undesirable immigrants. But here it came into conflict with the Federal Govermnent, which, by virtue of its treaty-making powers and control of commerce has the right to regulate immigration.^' The United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions has refused to recognize any state legislation encroaching on these powers. Thus the final action on this question, which was of the most vital importance in the social and economic development of California, was left to the representatives of states where no such problems had ever been met, and where there was a more or less complete ignorance of their significance. In stud\'ing the great mass of legislation by which these law-making bodies have attempted to deal with the problems of Oriental labor, we find that the measures fall naturally into four groups : First, the ordinances or orders of local authorities. Second, state laws which aimed to discourage immigration by special taxation or the curtailment of political and civil rights. Third, the attempts of the state to discourage or diminish immigration. 2T Passenger Cases, Smith v. Turner, 7 Howard 282. ^^1*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 117 Fourth, Federal legislation regulating immigration. In studying these four groups of measures, we will find three well-marked periods of development : First, the period prior to 1867, when the opposition to the Chinese was not well organized. Second, the strong, well-organized, anti-Chinese movements of the later sixties and the seventies, culminating in the radical provisions of the new constitution of the state, and the Federal exclusion law of 1882. Third, the period since the enactment of the exclusion law. LOCAL EEGULATION OF CHINESE LABOE, 1852-1867. It is difficult to trace the history of the local regulations affecting the Chinese, or to estimate correctly the influence of those measures of which it is possible to find the record. Many of the state laws merely gave authority for local enactments, and these measures were of a character not usually enforced with any degree of uniformity.^^ Often the most significant and effective action was extra-legal. For example, there are communities where by the unanimous consent of the public, the Chinese, without sanction of law, have been effectually excluded for years. As has been pointed out, the opposition to the Chinese devel- oped first in the mining regions, and it is here that the legislation against them began. It is impossible to learn much of the de- tails of these regulations of the miners. There seems to have been no uniformity in the rules governing the different districts, and we have but scanty records of the miners' meetings. We do not know what part of the status of the Chinese was deter- mined by definite enactment, and what part by common consent. They appear to have worked only the less profitable claims, and to have acquired title by purchase from the whites, or to have leased the right to work from white owners. They worked in 28 The law requiring a certain number of cubic feet of air to each person in sleeping apartments is an example of this. Also laws permit- ting the removal of Chinese houses of prostitution, or even at a later time, the removal of the Chinese quarters. The school regulations are also examples of local regulations authorized by state law. 118 University of California Publications in. Economics. [Vol.2 companies under Chinese masters. White men sometimes em- ployed them, but it was claimed that the latter always had to pay a higher rate of wages.-' It is evident that they were never permitted to work in some of the mining districts and that others passed laws ex- pelling them. Bothwick, who visited several mining camps, says, "In some parts of the mines, however, the miners had their own ideas on the subject, and would not allow the Chinese to come among them; but generally they were not interfered with as they contented themselves with working such poor diggings as it was not thought worth while to take from them. "^^ We have found a few newspaper reports of the acts of miners' meetings excluding the Chinese. In 1858, the Agua Fria District, Mari- posa County, passed a resolution to the effect that "the regula- tions which have been in vogue for two and a half years prohib- iting Chinese from working within our district shall be the law and rule of this district. Any Chinaman who tries to mine must leave on twent.y-four hours' notice, otherwise the miners will inflict such punishment as they deem proper."'^ The Gold Hill and Placerville miners in El Dorado County passed resolu- tions in 1858 and 1859 to prevent the Gold Hill Canal Company from acquiring claims for the purpose of speculation by selling them to Chinamen.^- At a mass meeting of the Gold Hill miners in 1858, resolutions were passed expelling the Chinese from Dia- mond Springs To\vnship. It was provided, however, that those who had purchased claims should be allowed to work them out before leaving.^^ The miners of Colville passed a law in 1862 excluding Chinese from the mines. ^^ The miners of the Buckeye Mining District held a meeting in 1867 to discuss the admission of Chinese to their district. They had never before been ad- mitted and it was decided to continue the exclusion.'^ These 20 Bothwick, J, D., Three Years in California, chap, xvii, Edinburgh and London, 1858. 30 Hid., p. 262. 31 Bulletin, November 24, 1858. 32 Historical Souvenir of Eldorado County, California, etc., Oakland, 1883, p. 102. sslhid., p. 102. ^i Bulletin, December 2, 1862. a-> nui, September 11, 1867. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 119 examples are sufficient to establish the possibility of local action of this kind. When we consider the strong feeling against the Chinese, and the failure to obtain relief from state laws, we have every reason to believe that there were many other districts with similar local regulations. COMBINED STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS, 1855-1S67. There was such an intimate connection between the local and state regulations in this early period that we will not at- tempt to separate the accounts of the remaining anti-Chinese legislation. Instead of deciding the matter for themselves, many mining districts looked to the state for relief, demanding the passage of exclusion laws, or measures preventing the great influx of Chinese to the mines. The legislature depended on the foreign miners' license laws to achieve this latter purpose. We have already traced the history of these laws to the point where they began to be particularly applicable to the Chinese. Later modifications resulted in their bearing practically the entire burden of this tax. While this and the impositions con- nected with its collection undoubtedly discouraged the Chinese miners, it at the same time prevented their absolute exclusion from the mines. The heavy contributions which it brought to the countj' treasuries served to reconcile the miners in many districts to the presence of the Orientals, and to prevent the more general action for their entire exclusion. The arrival of sixteen thousand Chinese in 1851 stimulated the state legislature to attempts to find ways of discouraging the immigration and excluding the Chinese from the mines. While the various committee reports agreed that some restriction of the immigration was necessary,^" they pointed out the impossi- bility of removing the Chinese entirely from the state, the evils of suddenly throwing a large number of laborers into the agri- cultural districts, and the fact that the revenues from the miners ' tax could not well be spared in many counties. Laws were finally passed taxing the immigration of the Chinese, arid in- creasing the miners' licenses in such a way that it would soon 36Eept. of Select Com., Senate Journal, 18.55, Appendix, Docs. 16 and 19. 120 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 be impossible for them to engage in that industry. The amount paid for licenses by foreigners ineligible to citizenship was in- creased two dollars per month, the addition to be made on October first of each succeeding year. Thus from October 1, 1855, to October 1, 1856, the tax would be $6.00; from October 1, 1856, to October 1, 1857, $8.00 per month, and so on." Of course in time the tax would become prohibitive, thus accom- plishing its purpose of exclusion. It was found impossible to enforce the law subjecting the Chinese to this special tax, and the next meeting of the legis- lature showed a decided reaction in their favor. The majority report of the committee on mines condemned the law as "a hasty, imprudent piece of legislation, unauthorized by the ex- istence of any evil at the time in view, or demanded by any fair expression of public opinion," while the minority report set forth the fact that the working people of the state were opposed to the repeal of the law.'* The original tax of four dollars a month for all foreigners was restored.^'' The law was again amended in 1858, so that foreigners who declared their intention to become citizens before the passage of the act were exempt from the tax.^" The provisions requiring the payment of the tax for all foreign employees or partners were also made more explicit. Practically the same regulations were retained until 1868,*^ when the whole matter of the collection of the tax was turned over to the counties, with the requirement that ten per cent, of the money collected be paid into the school fund, and, the balance to the general county fund. The Federal statutes regulating mines passed in 1866 and 1872 recognized the local jurisdiction of the miners' meetings; in the matter of the right to acquire title to mines, sanction was given to the exclusion of the Chinese, as only citizens or those who have declared their intention to become citizens can obtain a patent for mining land. 3' Statutes of California, 1855, p. 216. 38 Rept. of Com. on Mines, Senate Journal, 1856, Appendix. 30 Statutes of California, 1856, p. 141. 10 Ihid., 1858, p. 302. •11 lUd., 1867-8, p. 173. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 121 In 1860 the same requirement of a license costing four dollars a month was made of the Chinese fishermen.*^ The provisions of this law allowed the collector, in case of failure of payment, to seize the property of the delinquent and sell it at one hour's notice, in order to obtain the amount due. The law- less actions of unprincipled collectors often added to the burdens of the Chinese in this, as well as in the collection of the miners' tax. The law taxing the fishermen was repealed four years after its passage.*^ The other local and state laws passed for the regulation of the Chinese during this period were not strictly industrial, but dealt with educational and police measures. Negroes, Mongo- lians, and Indians were excluded from the public schools in 1860,^* although the school trustees were permitted to establish separate schools, supported by public funds, for their use. This law was modified in 1866, so that the trustees could permit the attendance of these children so long as parents of white children made no objections. ^^ In his report for 1859-1860, the San Francisco chief of police asked for the appointment of a special committee to whom he might impart the revolting facts connected with Chi- nese prostitution,*" and he continued from year to year to point out its evils. The coroner and health officers united with him in describing the extremely filthy conditions in China- town. In October, 1865, the supervisors passed an order per- mitting the police to remove the Chinese houses of ill-fame to quarters where they would be less offensive to the public.*^ A few months later the state legislature passed a law that would make possible the entire suppression of these houses." ■12 statutes of California, 1860, p. 307. 43 Hid., 1863-4, p. 493. 44 Ihid., 1860, p. 325, Sec. 8. 45 IMd., 1863-4, p. 213, See. 13. 40 San Francisco Municipal Reports, 1859-1860, pp. 62-3. 47 Ibid., 1865-1866, pp. 124-6. 48 Statutes of California, 1865-6, p. 641. 122 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol- 2 ATTEMPTS TO EXCLUDE THE CHINESE BY STATE LAWS, 1852-1862. During this early period of anti-Chinese agitation, the ina- bility of the state to exclude the Chinese was fully established in the courts. Before the question arose in California, the rights of the states and Federal government had been clearly defined in what are known as the "Passenger Cases." These were argued in 1849 by the best legal talent in the country, when every possible aspect of the subject was carefully discussed. It was clearly established in the decision that the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress by the Constitution is an exclusive power, that the transportation of passengers is an act of commerce ; and that the states could not tax such traffic ; nor exclude foreigners, except in self-defense when they were shown to be diseased, criminal, or paupers.*^ Apparently the California legislators did not know of this decision or failed to realize its significance, for they made re- peated attempts to regulate immigration by state laws. Many undesirable characters came with the rush to the gold fields, and it was feared that the state would be burdened with criminals and paupers, while the care of the homeless sick was already becoming a serious problem. An act was passed in 1852°" which required that each owner or master of a vessel bringing pas- sengers to California should furnish a bond of $500 for every alien passenger landed, or pay a commutation fee of $5.00 to the state hospital fund. If, in the opinion of the Mayor of San Francisco or the Commissioner of Immigration any passenger, by reason of sickness, insanity, or other disability, was likely to become an immediate public charge, the bond was increased to $1000 or such commutation fee as the Commissioner of Immi- gration should consider reasonable. This law does not seem to have come before the State Su- preme Court until 1872. In the case of the People v. S. S. Con- stitution, on the authority of the Passenger Cases, it was de- clared unconstitutional. In his concluding argument Justice *» 7 Howard, 282, 391 ff. •"'" Statutes of California, 1852, p. 78. Amended Hid., 185.3, p. 71. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 123 Crockett said of the measure : "It seeks to apply to emigrants from foreign countries, landing on our shores, onerous condi- tions not exacted from them at other of our domestic ports, and not imposed upon them by any Act of Congress. The regti- lation is not local in its nature or character, and, if Congress deemed it wise to do so, could as well be enforced at the port of New York, as at San Francisco. Congress having omitted to establish such regulations, and to impose such burdens on foreign emigrants, the presumption is that it deems it unwise or impolitic to do so. ' "*^ The senate and assembly passed concurrent resolutions in 1854 instructing the California representatives to procure the passage of an Act of Congress authorizing the imposition of a capitation tax upon natives of China and Japan who emigrated to California, the tax to be paid by owners and masters of vessels before the emigrants landed.^^ Without waiting for any such authority, the tax was levied in the following year. "An Act to discourage the immigration to this State of persons who cannot become citizens thereof" required the master, owner, or consignee of the vessel to pay a tax of $50.00 each for all pas- sengers landed. In case of failure to pay, the tax became a lien on the vessel.^^ The courts promptly declared this law unconstitutional.'** Notwithstanding this decision, the legislature passed a stringent exclusion law in 1858. After October, 1858, no Chi- nese or Mongolian was to be allowed to enter the state. Not only the captain or commander of the vessel, but also those employed on board, and even the passengers, were held respon- sible for knowingly permitting the landing of the Chinese. The penalty for violation of the act was a fine of $400 to $600, or imprisonment from six months to a year, or both such fine and imprisonment. If landed by accident or shipwreck, the captain of the vessel was exempt from the fine, if he used all due dili- gence to cause each and all of such Chinese to be immediately 51 People V. ; . 77 Mrs. Mary Eoberts Coolidge has called my attention to the fact that the ballots were printed in such a way as greatly to increase the chances of a vote against the Chinese at this election. I quote Governor Irwin's estimate of the significance of the vote. For a completer discussion of the subject, see Mrs. Coolidge 's book on Chinese Imminration (New York, 1909). ^ ' ■^^■^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 159 tion, Governor Irwin laid great emphasis on fhe significance of this "popular verdict; He declared that there was no reason to discount the result as an expression of the wishes of the people of the state, as the vote was by secret ballot at a time when there was no undue excitement. He claimed that the decision could not be attributed to ignorance or prejudice, as fully two-thirds of the voters of the state were natives of the United States, the majority of them from northern and western states. They were men not inclined to race prejudice, who by education and association had been well grounded in the prin- ciples of oilr free institutions and who fully appreciated the sacredness of individual liberty. A year later a similar vote was taken in Nevada with like results ; total vote cast, 18,397 ; for the admission of the Chinese, 183 ; against it, 17,209 ; not voting, 955.'* Even when one makes allowance for the influence of any peculiarities in the printing of the ballots, the results of these elections indicate a remark- able uniformity of public opinion. Those favoring the admission of the Chinese or failing to vote might easily have been persons whose economic welfare depended on a supply of (jlieap Asiatic labor. There can be no question that the great majority of the citizens of these states were thoroughly convinced that men of this race were unfitted for membership in an American commonwealth. After all the discussions of the constitutional convention, the provisions prohibiting the employment of Chinese by corpor- ations, and permitting cities and towns to regulate their places of residence, were the only new measures finally enacted. A decision of the United States District Court soon deprived these laws of their force. Much attention was attracted to the legis- lation restricting the employment of Chinese by corporations, as it led to the discharge of many such employees immediately after the adoption of the constitution. In a few instances, as in the case of the Pioneer Woolen Slills where three hundred Chinamen were discharged, it beeame necessary to close down for lack of skilled operators. The unemployed white men of San Francisco, who were still holding meetings on the sand-lots. ?8 Congressional Record, Vol. XI, p. 709. 160 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 also kept this law "before the public by a series of demonstratioDS for the purpose of inducing the corporations of the city to substitute white help for the Chinese in their employ. Day after day the procession of unemployed men marched to the headquarters of these corporations and presented their request. In many instances their efforts met with a favorable response.'" The validity of this provision of the constitution and of the subsequent act of the legislature was tested in the case of Tiburcio Parrott.^" In rendering his decision, Judge Hoffman took occasion to criticize severely this type of legislation and the lawless threats against the Chinese. He pointed out that the law violated the civil rights act, which provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same rights in every state and territory. He said that the right to labor for a living "is as inviolable as the right of property, for property is the offspring of labor. It is as sacred as the right to life, for life is taken if the means whereby we live be taken." He declared that this provision of the consti- tution was in open and seemingly contemptuous violation of the provisions of the treaty which gave the Chinese the right to reside here with all the privileges and immunities of the most favored nation. He concluded with a warning and a vigorous rebuke for the lawless element of the community that had so freely threatened violence against the Chinese. He said, "The declaration that, 'The Chinese must go, peaceably or forcibly,' is an insolent contempt of national obligations and an audacious defiance of the national authority. Before it can be carried into effect by force the authority of the United States must first be not only defied, but resisted and overcome. The at- tempt to effect this object by violence will be crushed by the power of the government. The attempt to attain the same object indirectly by legislation will be met with equal firmness by the courts; no matter whether it assumes the guise of an exercise of the police power or of the power to regulate corporations, or of any other power reserved by the State ; and no matter whether it take the form of a constitutional provision, legislative enact- 70 Alta, February 12-15, 1880. 80 Jji re Tiburcio Tarrott, 1 Fed. Eep. 481. Alta, Mareli 7, 21, 23, 1880. ■^^■^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 161 ment, or municipal ordinance." This warning checked further attempts to carry out some of the more radical restrictions which had been implied if not actually sanctioned by the new con- stitution. CONTINUED EFFORTS OP THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO SECURE CHINESE EXCLUSION. During the eighties the efforts to solve the Chinese problem were transferred from the state to the national legislative bodies, but the workingmen's organizations of the Pacific Coast were still back of the whole movement. They never relaxed their strenuous efforts to enlist the active assistance of fellow trade- unionists in the East, or ceased to make known their grim deter- mination to prevent the continued influx of Oriental labor, even if by a last resort to violence. They ignored all party lines and voted steadily and consistently with a view to the promotion of this one issue. The special anti-Chinese leagues were con- tinued, and all new organizations of workingmen recognized this as one of their chief aims. Special conventions for the consid- eration of the subject of Chinese exclusion were held in 1882 and 1885, as well as at subsequent periods when the renewal of the legislation on the subject was under discussion. The more detailed accounts of the actions of these conventions will be given in connection with the history of the Federal anti-Chinese legislation. 162 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 CHAPTEE VI. FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGULATING CHINESE IMMIGRATION, 1871-1902. NATUEALIZATION LAWS. We have seen that the first full presentation of the Chinese question in Congress by the representatives of the Pacific Coast resulted in a hard-A^on victory. The Chinese, through the re- fusal of the right of naturalization, were excluded from the full privileges of citizenship, which had recently been granted to the freedmen of the South, and which might also be acquired by negroes born outside of the United States. The amended laws did not positively prohibit the naturalization of the Chinese, and some of the eastern states, assuming that they were included in the term "white," admitted them to full citizenship.^ The Revised Statutes of 1873^ — it was claimed by a clerical error — omitted the word "white" from the section on naturalization. A number of Chinese, taking advantage of the alleged over- sight, hastened to apply for naturalization.^ In 1875 the orig- inal wording of the law was restored. We have seen that the generous guarantees of the Burlingame Treaty did not include the right of naturalization. Before ratification, on motion of a California Senator, Art. VII was amended by the insertion of the clause, ' ' But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer the right of naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States." The exclusion law of 1882 positively prohibited the natural- ization of the Chinese, and in the renewal of the guarantees of the privileges of the most favored nation in the treaty of 1894, 1 See the case of Hong Yen Chan, who was a naturalized citizen of New York, and applied for admission to. practice in the courts of Cali- fornia. 84 Cal. 163-4. 2 Revised Statutes, See. 2165. 3 Also Brooks, Brief on the Legislation, etc., p. 96. -^^-^°S Eaves: Calif onda Labor Legislation. 163 a clause was added "excepting the right to become naturalized citizens. ' '* LAWS PROHIBITINa CONTEACT LABOR. The earlier law of 1862 prohibiting the coolie traffic was intended primarily for the correction of the terrible abuses connected with the carrying of large numbers of involuntary contract laborers to the West Indies and South America, rather than for the regulation of the immigration to California.^ In the later sixties an attempt was made to introduce Chinese contract labor into the eastern and southern states. An agent traveled about taking orders, and Chinese laborers were sent to Massachusetts, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and pos- sibly some other states. But as the hopes for extensive orders were not realized, the plan was abandoned. A law was passed in 1875 for the purpose of making such schemes impossible, and for the correction of other flagrant abuses connected with Chi- nese immigration. The penalties for engaging in the coolie traffic were made more severe ;" all contracts entered into before immigration for the performance of labor in the United States were declared void ; and the importation of women for immoral purposes was made a crime.'' EARLY EFFORTS OP WESTERN CONGRESSMEN TO SECURE CHINESE EXCLUSION. In the long struggle to secure legislation excluding the Chi- nese the Congressmen from California, Oregon, and Nevada seem to have been equally diligent. Probably A. A. Sargent of Nevada City, California, and later of San Francisco, did more than any one man to bring about the first recognition of the need of restrictive legislation. As early as 1862," when serving * 28 Statutes at Large, 1211, Art. IV. 5 Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 16, 350, 593, 838, 855. 6 Revised Statutes, pp. 2158-2163. ^ 18 Statutes at Large, 477-8. » We have been unable to find this speech, though Sargent in a later speech said that he made such a presentation of the subject. See Con- gressional Record, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2856. 164 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol- 2 as a Representative, he presented the evils due to the presence of the Chinese; he was also the leader in the efforts to secure a modification of the Burlingame Treaty, and conducted the cam- paign resulting in the passage, in 187-9, of the first congressional measures restricting Chinese immigration." JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION OF 1876. We have seen that between 1870 and 1880 there was a great, and to the Californians, a most alarming increase in the number of Chinese arriving at San Francisco ; and that during this period the people of California, particularly the workingmen of San Francisco, were engaged in a continuous anti-Chinese cam- paign, which broke out at intervals in great popular demonstra- tions. We remember that the year 1876 was the one marked by the greatest influx of Chinese and by a correspondingly vigorous demonstration. The California representatives at Washington faithfully reflected the feelings and made knowni the demands of their constituents. In February, 1876, Senator Booth pre- sented the resolutions of the California legislature calling for Among some of the bills presented prior to the appointment of the Joint Committee of Investigation were the following: Senator Williams of Oregon, Bill to regulate the immigration of Chi- nese. Congressional Glohe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 299-301. Representative Johnson of California, Joint resolution declaratory of the right in states to protect themselves against a nuisance, etc. Ibid., pp. 338, 752. Representative Sargent of California, Bill to prohibit contracts for servile labor. Ibid., p. 4112. Representative Mungen of Ohio, Joint resolution in regard to the protection of our laboring and producing classes against the Chinese. Ibid., p. 5439. Senator Stewart of Nevada, Resolution calling for information in regard to the importation of coolies. Ibid., p. 5395. Representative Mungen of Ohio, Speech on Chinese. Congressional Globe, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 351-360. Representative Houghton of California, Bill providing for a commis- sion to collect information relative to the condition of the Chinese in the United States. Congressional Secord, II, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 587. Representative Page of California, Bill providing for the exclusion of the Chinese from the benefits of the naturalization laws of the United States. Congressional Record, III, 43d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 224, 1561. Representative Luttrell of California, Bill to prevent naturalization of Chinese and Mongolians. Congressional Record, IV, 44th Cone, 1st Sess., p. 477. ' * ' Representative Piper of California, Bill to restrict immigration of Chinese. Ibid., p. 3121. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 165 a modification of the Burlingame Treaty/" Sargent" in the Senate and Page^^ in the House promptly brought in concurrent resolutions requesting the President to open negotiations with the Chinese Government for the purpose of securing such changes in the treaty as would permit a restriction of immi- gration. The resolutions were passed, but the President failed to act in the matter. Committees were appointed in the Senate" and House to investigate the character and extent of the objec- tionable immigration, and, at the suggestion of Senator Sargent, it was agreed that they should act as a joint committee." This committee began taking testimony in San Francisco in the fol- lowing October, and in February, 1877, brought in a voluminous report of over twelve thousand pages. ^" As a result of this investigation a majority of the committee brought in a recommendation to the effect that, "Measures be taken by the Executive looking towards a modification of the existing treaty with China, confining it to strictly commercial purposes ; and that Congress legislate to restrain the great influx of Asiatics to this country. It is not believed that either of these measures would be looked upon with disfavor by the Chi- nese G-overnment. Whether this is so or not, a duty is owed to the Pacific States and Territories, which are suffering under a terrible scourge, but are patiently waiting for relief from Con- gress." The committee said that violence could be restrained so long as there was a reasonable hope that Congress would apply a remedy, but declared that the safety of the state de- manded that political power should not be placed in the hands of the Chinese, as they had no love for or appreciation of our institutions.^" The report stated that, while the resources of the Pacific Coast could be more quickly developed with the help 10 Congressional Record, IV, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 901. 11 Ibid., p. 2850. i^Ihid., pp. 3087, 3763. 13 Ibid., p. 4421. " Ibid., pp. 4678, 4705. 15 44th Gong., 2d Sess., Kept. No. 689. (Published in a separate vol- ume, Serial No. 1734.) 16 Report of the Joint Committee, 44th Cong., 2d Sess., No. 689, pp. v-viii, Serial No. 1734. 166 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°l- ^ of the Chinese, whose labor was profitable for the capitalist classes, the laboring men and artisans were, without exception, opposed to the further admission of the Chinese. The com- mittee found many lawyers, doctors, merchants, divines, judges, and other intelligent citizens, who declared that the apparent prosperity derived from the presence of the Chinese was de- ceptive and unwholesome, "ruinous to our laboring classes, pro- motive of caste, and dangerous to free institutions." Twenty operatives of different trades testified that the competition of the Chinese had reduced their wages to the starvation point. The fact that these hardships bore with especial weight on women wageworkers was emphasized.^^ The effect of these recommendations of the majority of the committee was greatly weakened by an incomplete minority report written by Oliver P. Morton. He had been chairman of the committee but died before its work was completed. The friends of the Chinese seized upon the following passage of his partial report, and frequently quoted it in refutation of the recommendations of the committee : "If the Chinese in Cali- fornia were white people, being in all other respects what they are, I do not believe that the complaints and warfare made against them would have existed to any considerable extent. Their difference in color, dress, manners, and religion have, in my judgment, more to do with this hostility than their alleged vices, or any actual injury to the white people of California." He did not believe that the Chinese could be protected, while remaining in their alien condition, without representation in the legislature or Congress, or a voice in the selection of the officers who administered the laws. Complete protection could be given them only by allowing them to become citizens and acquire the franchise, when their votes would become important in elections and their persecutions converted into kindly solici- tation.^* 1^ Eeport of the Joint Committee, etc., p. iv. 18 Senate Mis. Doe. No. 20, 45th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4, Serial No. 1785. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 167 THE FIEST RESTEICTIVE LEGISLATION,— THE FIFTEEN PA8SENGEE BILL. The report of the joint committee prepared the way for congressional action for a restriction of the immigration, and the violent agitation against the Chinese by the Workingmen 's Party of California^*' made the need seem more urgent. A number of bills were brought in at the next session of Congress proposing varied plans for dealing with the question. In the House Davis from San Francisco, and LuttrelP^ from Santa Rosa, consid- ered it their duty as representatives of California interests to present bills restricting the immigration of the Chinese or pre- venting their employment and naturalization. The Nevada Representative had a bill ready," and Shelley from Alabama proposed a plan which not only prohibited further immigra- tion,^^ but undertook to transport and colonize the Chinese already here.-* The California Senators also busied themselves with the Chinese legislation. Sargent presented a bill for the restriction of immigration,^^ but he and Booth devoted their efforts chiefly to procuring the passage of a concurrent reso- lution again calling on the President to open correspondence with China and Great Britain^" for the abrogation of the treaty provisions permitting unlimited immigration of the Chinese. The House Committee on Education and Commerce sent in a prompt and unanimous endorsement of the resolution calling for the opening of correspondence for the purpose of securing a restriction of immigration. Willis, the chairman of this com- mittee, was a Kentuckian who had a strong sympathy for the Californians in their efforts to solve the difficult race problem of the Pacific Coast. The report which he presented pointed 10 See above, pp. 30, 150. 20 Congressional Becord, VII, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 383. 21 IMd., pp. 98, 271. 22 IMd., p. 318. 23 IMd., p. 68. 24 IMd., p. 320. 25 IMd., p. 81. 26 This was necessary because the Chinese coming from Hong Kong were subjects of Great Britain. 168 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 out that during the twenty years of Chinese immigration the rate of increase was fifty per cent, in each succeeding five years, that at such a rate the Chinese would soon outnumber the whites, and that they already closely approximated the voting popu- lation in numbers.^' Once more Congress deferred action, wait- ing for the President to prepare the way by securing a modifi- cation of the treaty. But as with the previous resolution, there were no results ; the President was either unwilling or unable to meet the wishes of Congress. In a speech at a later date. Senator Miller indicated that the President made some advances in the matter, but that they met with an unfavorable response from China and were not pressed.^^ At the next session of Congress, the House, impatient with the long delay, showed a determination to take some action even though it meant the repudiation of the treaty with China. The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom the numerous resolutions, memorials, petitions, and bills on the Chinese had been referred, recommended a bill providing that no master of a vessel should be permitted to take aboard more than fifteen Chinese passengers bound for a United States port. In pre- senting this bill the committee reviewed the previous efforts to secure restrictive legislation, referring to the numerous petitions urging such legislation, that the people of the Pacific Coast had sent to Congress since 1868, and calling attention to the fact that the President had twice been presented with joint resolu- tions urging him to seek a modification of the treaty. The committee discussed the question of the power of Congress to pass laws which would supersede a treaty, maintaining that, "To refuse to execute a treaty for reasons which approve them- selves to the conscientious judgment of a nation is a matter of the utmost gravity, but the power to do so is a prerogative of which no nation can be deprived without deeply affecting its independence. ' '^^ 27 House Eeport No. 240, 45th Cong., 2ii Sess., Serial No. 1822. An adverse report by Kennaday, a lobbyist for the Chinese, was published, Sen. Misc. Doc. No. 36, Serial No. 1786. 28 Congressional Hecord, XIII, p. 1481. 20 H. of R. Eeport No. 62, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Serial No. 1866. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 169 Willis, the chairman of the committee recommending the bill, was one of the Mblest advocates of the measure on the floor of the House. In his speech in its support he stated, "There are today in the hands of our committee the joint resolutions of four state legislatures, the memorial of the Constitutional Convention of California, passed only a few days ago without a single dissenting voice, together with the proceedings of in- numerable societies, religious bodies, labor conventions, and the petitions of over one hundred thousand private citizens, setting forth from different standpoints the evils of Chinese immigra- tion, and urging upon Congress the necessity for prompt and vigorous measures of relief. ' '^" The bill restricting the number of Chinese passengers passed the House on January 28th, 1879, the vote standing, yeas 155, nays 72, not voting 61.^^ The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom the various anti-Chinese measures were referred, was unwilling to promote this restrictive legislation. Hamlin, the chairman of the committee, was one of the New Englanders who had per- sistently opposed all such measures, both because they feared that the commercial interests of their constituents would be jeopardized, and because siich a policy was in violation of the theories of political equality which were being so fully recog- nized in all the legislation dealing with the recently emancipated negroes. On behalf of the committee Hamlin reported the House bill with the request that they be discharged from its further consideration, thus sending the bill restricting the num- ber of Chinese passengers to the Senate calendar without recom- mendation.^^ In the debates^^ on the bill the Senators from California, Oregon, and Nevada were assisted by the southern members, who not only sympathized with the point of view of the people of the Pacific Coast, but also found in this discussion an oppor- tunity to protest against the legislation dealing with their own 30 Congressional Mecorcl, VIII, 45th Cong., 3cl Sess., p. 7£ 31 Ihid., pp. 791-2, 793, 793-800. 32 Hid., p. 1072. 33 Ihid., pp. 1299 ff. 170 University of California Publications in Economics. U^ol. 2 race problems. Blaine was one of the most influential sup- porters of the measure, — his enemies pointed out his inconsist- ency, since he had been an advocate of negro rights, and de- clared that his judgment was biased by his presidential aspira- tions. The most bitter opponents of the bill were the Senators from New England, Hamlin, Dawes, Hoar, Matthews, Wadleigh, and Edmunds. Of these Senators, Edmunds was particularly vigorous in his denunciation of this type of legislation. He declared that he wished to voice his utter abhorrence of the principles upon which the bill was founded, and expressed the hope that the Constitution had j^et provided some means by which the measure so odious to him would fail to become a law. The Democrats, who also had an eye to the next presidential campaign, lobbied quite energetically for the passage of the bill. By a vote of 39 to 27 the measure passed the Senate. Judging by an extract from a letter quoted by Senator Sargent, the rejoicing in San Francisco over the passage of this bill was quite hysterical in its intensity. His correspondent declared that men, — strangers to each other, — embraced upon the streets and wept for joy when they received the news.^* But their joy was short-lived for it was soon rumored that the President would veto the bill. Everything possible was done to prevent such action. The chambers of commerce of the Coast cities, ^'^ and the constitutional convention sent telegrams urging the signature of the bill. The merchants of San Fran- cisco closed their places of business so that their employees might swell the numbers of the great mass meetings held under the auspices of the city and state officials.^'' The Pacific Coast representatives called on the President and his Cabinet with additional arguments and evidences of the urgent demands for the approval of the measure. But no amount of pressure would induce President Hayes to sign the bill. In his veto message he said that, while he recognized the right of Congress to terminate a treaty, such a ^* Alta, February 26, 1879 (report of Sargent's speech). So Itid., February 2.5. 30 San Francisco daily papers of February 27 and 28, 1879. The Alta publishes a list of S2 merchants who closed their places of business during tne meetings. 1910] Eaves: Calif otviia Labor Legislation. 171 denunciation was justified only by a great necessity. lie also pointed out that the abrogation of a part of the treaty might invalidate the whole and thus leave American interests in China unprotected.^^ BITTEE EESENTMENT OP THE VETO OF THE BH^L. Of course the veto brought bitter disappointment to the people of the Pacific Coast. A Salt Lake paper, in commenting on the California press notices, declared that the stock of de- nunciatory words in Webster's Unabridged was exhausted by the editors of the state in their efforts to give adequate expres- sion to the indignation aroused by the President's action. The strong influence of the Chinese question was clearly shown in the presidential elections of this period. In 1880 six of the seven California electors cast their votes for the Democratic candidate, though the state legislature of the same year had a strong Republican majority. In the election of 1884 the whole electoral vote of California was cast for Blaine in appreciation of his efforts on behalf of Chinese exclusion. The situation in San Francisco was becoming quite strained. The meetings and processions of the unemployed still continued, and these desperate men had long been threatening to take matters in their own hands if Congress gave no relief. Other smaller cities on the Coast had already succeeded in expelling the Chinese by popular uprisings. The repeated threats, to- gether with the efforts to drill and arm some of the men, caused much uneasiness, and fears of an outbreak of violence against the Chinese. An organization known as the Citizens' Protective Union was formed for the purpose of suppressing disorder and guarding against an outbreak. An address to the public was issued in which it was declared that, ' ' The drills in secret places, the nightly tramp in the streets of irregular armed forces, ac- companied by the arrogant threats of violence by their leaders, are an intolerable menace to the peace and well-being of so- ciety. "^^ All good citizens were called upon to assist in restoring order, and to be prepared to prevent any outbreak of violence. 3T Congressional Secord, 45tu Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 2275-6. 38 Alta, March 9, 1880. 172 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 The organization does not appear to have been a large one, and since its proceedings were secret, it is difficult to estimate its influence. The knowledge of the existence of such a body of men may have proved a restraining influence. While no doubt the rank and file of the workingmen of the city were good, law- abiding citizens, a numerous lawless element tended to collect at this great center of population. The long-continued idleness of large numbers of men, many of whom had no family ties, was in itself a sufficient cause of demoralization. The frequent sand-lot meetings, with their intemperate oratory, tended to aggravate the discontent and bitterness due to the unfortunate economic conditions. Then, too, there were undoubtedly many men who sincerely believed that it was their highest duty to exclude the Chinese by force if Congress failed to give relief.^" For many j'ears the public had been listening to impassioned oratory presenting in the most forceful way the righteousness of this cause, and every one felt the full support of public sym- pathy. In the test vote of September, 1879, only 224 of the 41,258 voters of San Francisco had voted in favor of the con- tinued admission of the Chinese. The past history of the city furnished ample precedents for the execution of the will of the majority of the citizens by illegal or extra-legal popular up- NEGOTIATION OP A NEW TREATY WITH CHINA. When the Forty-sixth Congress convened, the western mem- bers promptly renewed their efforts to obtain action on this, the chief political issue of the Pacific Coast.^" At last the Presi- dent appointed commissioners*^ to negotiate a modification of the treaty with China, and in November, 1880, the new treaty was concluded. It provided that, "Whenever, in the opinion of 39 AUa, March 22, 1880. A typical expression of this point of view is that of the speech of McCormick. Similar expressions frequently occur in the speeches of the time. When one considers the long agitation of the subject, it is easy to see that persons of somewhat fanatical tempera- ments might easily have acquired this point of view. 40 For bills and resolutions on the subject see Congressional Record, X, 46th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 143, 151, 221, 286, 646, 678, 1438. H. E. Misc. Rep. Doc. 5, Serial No. 1928. *i The commissioners were James B. Angell, John F. Swift, Wm. H. Trescot. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 173 the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Gov- ernment of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. "■*- THE EXCLUSION LAW OF 1882. The way was now open for legislation. The Senate at this time was evenly divided between the Republicans and the Demo- crats, while in the House there was a Republican majority. The platforms of both parties contained planks pledging their candidates to the support of measures restricting Chinese im- migration, though the Democrats were disposed to go much further than the Republicans in promoting such legislation. In the House the Committee on Education and Labor embodied the provisions of the various measures referred to them*^ in a substitute bill which was reported back with their recommen- dation.''* But it soon became evident that the Senate with its stronger Democratic membership would take the lead in legis- lation of this kind.'*^ Sargent had been succeeded by J. F. Miller, who reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs the bill which finally passed both houses. This bill, which was entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to the Chinese," gave as the reason for exclusion the fact that the coming of Chinese laborers endan- gered the good order of certain localities. The original bill proposed to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers for twenty 42 Treaties and Conventions of the United Slates, jip. 182-3. Sen. Ex. Doc, 48th Cong., 2(1 Sess., Vol. I, Pt. 2, Serial No. 2263. 43 Berry and Page of California and Willis of Kentucky introduced the bill in the House. Cong. Becord, XIII, 47th Cong,, 1st Sess., pp. s!), 90, 217, 561. See also H. B. Sept. No. 67, 1017. ii Congressional Becord, XIII, pp. 645, 737, 1899. *■"• Senators Miller and Farley of California and Grover of Oregon in- troduced bills in the Senate. Ihid., pp. 5, 630, 2599, 2639. 174 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 years. Chinese laborers who were in the United States On the seventeenth of November, 1880, or who came during the ninety days following the passage of the act were exempted from its restrictions.*" Provisions were made for the identification of *o Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof; therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, . or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States. Sec. 2. — That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer from any foreign port or place, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and may be also imprisoned for ■■•, term not exceeding one year. Sec. 3. — That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States oh the seventeenth day of No- vember, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and who shall produce to such master before going on board such vessel, and shall produce to the collector of the port in the United States at which such vessel shall arrive, the evidence hereinafter in this act required of his being one of the laborers in this section mentioned; . . . (Not to apply in case of shipwreck.) Sections 4, 5, and 6. — (Certification and registration of Chinese entitled to return, and of Chinese other than laborers.) Sec. 7. — (Penalties for falsifying certificates, $1000 fine, imprison- ment not more than 5 years.) Sees. 8 and 9. — (Lists of passengers to be furnished the Collector of Customs.) Sec. 10. — That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be brought into the United States by land, or who shall knowingly aid or abet the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any vessel of any Chinese person not lawfully entitled to enter the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year. Sec. 11. — (The vessel forfeited to the United States if guUty of viola- tion of the provisions of the act.) Sec. 12. — (Provided for the removal of Chinese not entitled to resi- dence in the United States.) Sec. 13. — (The act not to apply to Chinese officials.) Sec. 14. — That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in confiict with this act are hereby repealed. Sec. 15. — That the words "Chinese laborers," wherever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining. (22 Statutes of the United States, Ch. 126, p. 58. May 6, 1882.) The original bill is found in Congressional Mecord, XIII, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1480-1. l^^O] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 175 such Chinese as were entitled to admission, and severe penalties attached to the violation of the terms of the act. Before coming to a vote the whole subject of Chinese exclusion was again dis- cussed most exhaustively, — at times with considerable acrimony. Miller in opening the Senate debate made a dignified and forceful argument in support of the bill, which he presented as the unanimous report of the Committee on Foreign AfEairs. Pie pointed out that the government was already committed to such legislation, since a treaty had just been negotiated for the purpose of permitting it. In the last election both political parties and their candidates had pledged themselves to a re- striction of Chinese immigration. He quoted the results of the test vote in California and Nevada to show how universal was the opposition to its continuance on the part of people best fitted to judge of its significance. He produced statistics showing the magnitude of the immigration, and its possible development in case this measure failed to pass. The conditions making it impossible for the two types of labor to compete were fully explained, and figures presented showing the encroachment of the Chinese in the industries of the Pacific Coast. He declared that, "An 'irrepressible conflict' is now upon us in full force, and those who do not see it in progress are not so wise as the men who saw the approach of that other 'irrepressible conflict' which shook the very foundations of American empire on this continent. ' '*' The other Senators from the region west of the Eocky Moun- tains were, of course, equally ardent in their support of the bill. Senator Crover of Oregon declared that throughout its history 'the people of his state had opposed the admission of the Chinese, as in the state constitution it was provided that the legislature should have authority to exclude from the state all persons not qualified to become citizens, and no Chinaman, not a resident of the state at the time of the adoption of the constitution, was to be allowed to hold any real-estate or mining claim, or work any mining claim in the state.""* i7 Congressional Beoord, XIII, Senate debates, pp 1481-1488 1515- 1523, 1545-1549, 1581-1591, 1634-1646, 1667-1675, 1702-1(1/, 1/38-1754. Passed, 1753. *s Congressional Eecord, XIII, p. 1545. 176 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 But the negotiation of the new treaty had by no means re- moved the objections of the New England members. As during' the previous debates, they bitterly opposed every eifort to put into execution this policy which threatened the commercial in- terests of the East, and appeared to them to be in direct violation of long-established national traditions, which had but recently been enforced at great sacrifice in the South. They had care- fully studied the voluminous report of the joint committee of 1876, and were well supplied with facts in support of their arguments. They attributed the feeling in the western states to race prejudice, and to the agitation of foreign-born political demagogues. In answer to the claim that the working people were being injured by their presence, figures were produced proving that, notwithstanding the presence of the Chinese, the wages on the Pacific Coast were higher than in other parts of the country. Senator Hoar closed with the solemn warning, "As surely as the path on which our fathers entered a hundred years ago led to safety, to strength, to glory, so surely will the path on which we now propose to enter bring us to shame, to weakness, and to peril."*" Dawes, Piatt, and Edmunds also did all in their power to defeat or amend the bill. Piatt claimed that it went beyond what was intended in the recently signed treaty, and supported his assertions by quoting from the corre- spondence of the commissioners.^" As in the debates on the previous restrictive measure, the southern members were heartily in sympathy with the proposed legislation. Senator George of Mississippi said he favored the passage of the bill for two reasons: First, because the white people of the states most affected by the Chinese immigration with alinost entire unanimity desired its passage. Second, be- cause it would really and truly protect American labor. ^^ His emphasis of the wisdom of a similar home-rule policy in the settlement of southern race problems was the subject of a good deal of comment. Call of Florida and Brown of Georgia said they would vote for the restriction or a reasonable time of sus- 4" Congressional Record, XIII, pp. 1515-1523. so Ibid., pp. 1702-1707. 51 Hid., p. 1637. ^^'^'^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 177 pension of Chinese immigration, at the same time insisting on the necessity of amending the proposed bill so that it would conform to the terms of the recently negotiated treaty.'*^ The last two sections of the bill were added as amendments, after its introduction. . Senator Farley proposed the section pro- hibiting the naturalization of the Chinese ;^^ Senator Grover added the definition of ' ' laborers ' ' as including both skilled and unskilled workers.^* Various attempts were made to pass other amendments that would have weakened the bill, but these were defeated. In both the Senate and the House objections were raised to the section which included the skilled laborers in the prohibited class, and to the length of the time specified. It was repeatedly pointed out that twenty years was a much longer time than had been contemplated in the negotiations of the recent agreement with the Chinese government, but all amend- ments reducing the time were voted down. It was evident that the friends of the measure had good majorities in both houses and were determined to make no concessions. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 29 to 15.^^ The arguments with which we have already become familiar were repeated in the House of Representatives, which finally approved the bill by a vote of 167 to 66.=<' While the debates were in progress, every effort was made to impress Congress with the extent of the popular demand for legislation of this kind. A legal holiday was proclaimed in California for the purpose of holding mass meetings." Need- less to say, the people availed themselves of the opportunity to express their wishes. Four meetings were held in San Francisco, one of which claimed an attendance of thirty thousand. In Oakland, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, Fresno, and a long, list of other California cities, similar meetings were held, and resolutions adopted endorsing the bill. These were telegraphed 52 Congressional Becord, XIII, pp. 1638-1644. 63 liid., p. 1481. lii Ibid., p. 1480. 55 Ihid., p. 1753. 60 Ibid., pp. 2227-8. 57 Ibid.., pp. 1667-8. See also the California papers, March 4-7, 1882. 178 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 to Washington to be used in the debates as evidence of the de- mands of the people. By this time the labor organizations all over the country were thoroughly enlisted. Petitions and me- morials expressing the wishes of hundreds of thousands of work- ingmen were presented from New York, Massachusetts, Penn- sylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Alabama, Maryland, and California. As was frequently pointed out in the debates, the bill marked a radical departure from the national policy which had hitherto welcomed the foreign immigrant of every country, but it is impossible to question the full endorsement of this legislation by the American people. Once more the President refused his sanction to the Congres- sional plan for solving the long-discussed problem. In his veto message. President Arthur said, "I am persuaded that if Con- gress can feel that this act violates the faith of the nation as pledged to China, it will concur with me in rejecting this par- ticular mode of regulating Chinese immigration, and will en- deavor to find another which will meet the expectations of the people of the United States without coming in conflict with the rights of China." He pointed out that the new treaty with China provided that, while the immigration might be limited or suspended, it was not to be absolutely prohibited. Neither contracting party had contemplated so long a suspension as twenty years, or would have considered such a period a "reas- onable" suspension or limitation. The President declared that he regarded this provision as a breach of aux national faith; and being unable to bring himself into harmony with the views of Congress on this vital point, the honor of the country con- •strained him to return the act with this objection to its passage. He also thought the registration provision futile and irritating, and pointed out the failure to provide for travelers in transit from other countries. With his message, the President trans- mitted the correspondence of the commissioners who had nego- tiated the treaty. This clearly showed that so long a period of suspension had not been contemplated by those negotiating the treaty.^'* 58 Sen. Exec. Doc. No. 148, 47tli Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 1990. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 179 The President's veto came near the end of the session, so that it was feared that there would not be time to secure any restrictive measure. It was not possible to pass the bill over the veto, so' the changes suggested were hurriedly made, and the amended bill rushed through both houses, under a suspension of rules, without debate. The bill was finally passed May 6, 1882. its restrictions to take effect in the following August. During the period when Congress had the subject under discussion, the San Francisco Trades Assembly was particularly active in the efforts to encourage this legislation. ' A mass meet- ing was held in February for' the purpose of expressing appre- ciation of the efforts of the California Congressmen,"" and another convention was called in April to protest against the action of President Arthur in vetoing the bill."" At both of these meetings emphasis was laid upon the dutj^ of the working people of the Pacific Coast to take matters in their own hands in ease Congress failed to give relief. The first of these meet- ings adopted a resolution to the effect, "That if Congress can- not or will not act in this matter, it is both the right and duty of the people of this Coast to attend to it themselves, living as they do at the outpost of. American civilization against Asiatic barbarism." At the second of these meetings ten anti-Chinese leagues and many labor organizations of California and also from Nevada were represented. It was said that the miners' delegation from Virginia City came with instructions to report that if physical as well as moral support was necessary to ac- complish the purpose of the convention, the members of the Miners' Union could be depended on to come down to San Francisco and give their help. At this time it was declared that, "The executive body created by this convention will when they have perfected the measures necessary for such action pre- vent the landing of that people on our shores at all hazards. This resolve we have made after mature deliberation because the further immigration of Chinese to this country means death to American labor. Resistance is now our duty." The Trades Assembly also made an unsuccessful attempt to organize an !>« Bulletin, February 16 and 17, 1882. 00 Ihid., April 2.5, 1882. 180 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 extensive boycott of Chinese-made goods. "^ After the passage of the exclusion law which took away the chief reason for their existence, both the special anti-Chinese organization known as the League of Deliverance, and the San Francisco Trades As- sembly fell to pieces. AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW OF 1882. When put into operation, the exclusion law of 1882 did not prove entirely satisfactory to the people of the Pacific Coast. The first important defect complained of was its failure to establish clearly the status of the Chinese who, by virtue of their residence in territory ceded to Great Britain, were no longer subjects of the Chinese Emperor. In 1883 there were two cases where the right of these immigrants from Hong Kong to enter the United States was contested. The case growing out of such an attempted landing at Boston was tried before Justices Lowell and Nelson of the United States District Court in Massachusetts. They decided that, since the exclusion law was in execution of a treaty with China, it did not apply to persons of the Chinese race who were subjects of other countries, and permitted the man to land."" "When a similar case came before a court of the same rank in California, Justice Field reached an opposite conclusion.''^ He maintained that it had not been deemed necessary to negotiate treaties with other gov- ernments with respect to the Chinese, because it was believed that they would have no objections to the exclusion law. He claimed that the act of 1882 applied not only to laborers coming from China, but also to laborers of the Chinese race coming from any part of the world. The second section of the act made it a misdemeanor to land "any Chinese laborer from any foreign port or place." The whole purpose of the law would be defeated by any other construction. It was maintained that some of the rulings of officers charged with the administration of the law had also opened the way for «i San Francisco Daily Report, December 7, 1885, speech of Haskell. 62 JJ. S. V. Douglass, 17 Fed. Eep. 634. 03 In re Ah Lung, 18 Fed. Eep. 28. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 181 its wholesale evasion. Acting Secretary of the Treasury French decided that the Chinese who had left the country between the date of the ratification of the treaty with China and the time when the exclusion law took effect were entitled to return, and, in the absence of certificates, could establish their prior residence in the courts."* Another of these rulings was that of the Attorney-General who declared that Chinese laborers who came to this country in transit to some other place were not within the prohibition of the law and need not have certificates.'''* The California newspapers complained bitterly of what was charac- terized as the "process of nullification" of the exclusion law."" Once more Congress was confronted with this perennial ques- tion. The Pacific Coast delegation, which included the repre- sentatives from California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington Territory, held a conference at which they agreed upon the amendments necessary to make the law of 1882 effective. Section 1 of the former act was changed so that it would read, "during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come from any foreign port or place, or having so come . . . to remain within the United States."''^ It was also proposed that the certificates issued by the Customs officials should be the only evidence permissible for establishing the right of re- entry of Chinese laborers. As the Chinese government had grown somewhat careless in the matter of issuing certificates to merchants, provisions were made for a more complete descrip- tion, and it was also required that such certificates be endorsed by the consular or diplomatic representative of the United States, who was held responsible for an investigation of the truth of its statements. Hucksters, peddlers, and those engaged in taking, drying, or preserving fish, were excluded from the priv- ileges of merchants. The most important addition was that in Section 15, which declared that "the provisions of this act 04 In re Leong Yiclc Dew, 19 Fed. Eep. 490. In re Chin A On, IS Fed. Eep. 506. In re Tung Yeong, 19 Fed. Eep. 184. 05 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 483. House Ex. Doe. 214, 48th Cong., 2d Sess. 6« See editorials, Bulletin, August 23, 1883. (17 Congressional Record, XV, 3752-3777, passed Senate, 5937-8. House Eeport No. 614, 48th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2254. 182 University of California Publications in Economics. ["V'ol. 2 shall apply to all subjects of China and Chinese whether subjects of China or any other foreign power.""* Miller in the Senate, and Henley in the House, led the efforts to secure the passage of this new act, which they claimed was necessary to make the execution of the earlier law effective. In support of their demands, they pointed out the uncertainty of application of the law of 1882 as shown in the conflicting decisions of the Hong Kong immigrant cases, presented figures displaying the rapid increase of those claiming exemption from the restrictions of the earlier act, and complained of the clog- ging of the courts with the cases where, in the absence of certifi- cates, attempts were being made to establish the right of entry by parole evidence."'' The opponents of these amendments insisted that the law of 1882 had achieved the desired reduction in the number of Chi- nese, since during the two years that it had been in operation the excess of departures over arrivals amounted to 11,434.''*' A letter from Judge Hoffman was quoted in which he declared, "Not only has the flood of Chinese immigration with which we were menaced been stayed, but a process of depletion has been going on which could not be considerably increased without serious disturbance to the established industries of the State. '"^ The number of petitions and memorials from all parts of the country requesting the passage of the law was even greater than in 1882. The bill passed both houses by large majorities and was approved by the President.^" These amendments were effective in excluding the Chinese who were subjects of countries other than China, but did not correct the evils that arose when they attempted to establish their right to enter by a court procedure. The United States Supreme Court decided that the section of the law of 1884 which declared that the certificates specified in the law should be the only evidence permissible to establish the right of entry, did not 68 23 statutes at Large, 118. 60 Congressional Becord, XV, 48th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 3752-3777. 70 Ibid., pp. 3758-9. 71 Ibid., p. 3761. 72 Ibid., pp. 3777, 5737-8, 6171. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 183 apply to Chinese laborers who resided in this country at the date of the treaty of November, 1880, departed before May, 1882, and remained out of the country until after the passage of the amending act of July, 1884. Justice Field wrote a dis- senting opinion in which he claimed that the law required that the certificate should be the only means of entry for all classes, as the law of 1884 was passed to correct abuses that attended the trial of cases admitted on parole evidence." The Chinese were most ingenious in devising ways of evading the laws. They secured writs of habeas corpus, and gave bail bonds with worthless sureties. The courts soon became so clogged that there was much delay in trying the cases. About sixty- five per cent, of those claiming the right to enter were ordered deported, but when the decisions were rendered it was impos- sible to execute the orders of the court, as only about five per cent, of the subjects of these decisions could be found. The judges of the Federal courts were so overwhelmed with these cases that they found it impossible to attend to the regular business of the courts. Just prior to the introduction of the amendments of 1888, Judge Hoffman wrote that he had five hundred cases pending,'* and, with the prospects of the passage of a law doing away with this method of entrance, the number of cases multiplied to seven thousand in nine months.'" Many Chinese obtained an entry by the use of fraudulent certificates. Chinese returning to their native land would sell their certifi- cates to countrymen desiring to emigrate. One of the Customs officials became a party to the fraudulent issuance and sale of these return permits.'" The people of California were dismaj-ed and exasperated by the discovery that the number of Chinese claiming admission was as great as, or even greater, than before the passage of the exclusion law. The following table shows the fluctuations in the immigration as affected by the different laws : 73 Cheio Heong v. V. S., 112 U. S. 536; 112 U. S. 543. Also in Opinions and Papers of S. J. Field, Vol. II, No. 32. ''i Congressional Record, XIX, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 6568-9. 7= S. B. Bept. No. 255, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3042. 76 Kept, of Spaulding, Ex. Doe. No. 103, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2340. See also the San Francisco daily papers of December, 1885. 184 University of California Publications in Economics. \yo\. 2 Chinese Arriving in San FranciscoJ^ 1877 9,264 1878 6,675 1879 6,950 To November 17, 1880 5,495 November 17, 1880, to August 5, 1882 45,952 August 5 to December 31, 1882 39 1883 3,014 1884 6,602 1885 9,049 1886 6,714 1887 11,572 1888 to October 1st ' 18,838 FEELING AGAINST THE CHINESE IN THE LATEE EIGHTIES. These wholesale violations of the exclusion laws took place at a time when the opposition to the Chinese was, if possible, greater than ever before. A number of factors contributed to this culmination of anti-Chinese feeling, the most important of which were : 1. The greater competition between white and Chinese workers. 2. The increased activity and strength of the labor organ- izations. 3. The long agitation had given the question undue promi- nence, so that all economic ills were charged to the presence of the Chinese. 4. Political conditions which made the presidential electijan hinge on the vote of the Pacific Coast states. With the -economic development of the state, the two races came into more intimate contact and competition. The Chinese were first brought to this country largely for the purpose of utilizing their labor in building the railroads, draining the swamps, or clearing the farm lands. As they became more familiar with their new economic environment, they were able to undertake enterprises of their own, and they also acquired the skill and the capital that made it possible for them to enter the more desirable occupations. They no longer worked in rough, isolated communities, but assembled in the cities and " H. E. Sept. No. 2915, p. 17, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2815. l^l*'] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 185 towns where they came into more direct contact and competition with the M'hite workers. After the somewhat desultory efforts of the earlier periods, the labor organizations of the Coast were now coalescing into a powerful unified movement. There were central bodies in the chief cities of California, Oregon, and "Washington, and these wece federated with the San Francisco organizations, which had taken the initiative in their formation. With the development of these central bodies representing large groups of workers, the political power of the labor organizations became greater. The need of more effective Chinese exclusion was kept con- stantly before the public. The Knights of Labor, who were then at the height of their influence in California, called a con- vention at San Francisco in November and December, 1885, for the purpose of discussing means of lessening the evils of compe- tition with Chinese labor, and other subjects of interest to the working people. The more radical members gained the ascend- ency in this convention, and after indulging in much reckless talk, passed resolutions congratulating Seattle, Santa Cruz, and other cities that had expelled the Chinese, calling upon the supervisors to enforce the anti-Chinese ordinances, and to take steps to remove them outside the city limits, and making plans for a general boycott of Chinese products.'^ In the midst of the heated debates, a delegate proposed to add a resolution de- manding the complete removal of the Chinese from all parts of the Pacific Coast, and especially that they be removed from San Francisco within sixty days.'" One hundred and seven of the two hiindred members of the convention voted on this reso- lution, which was carried by a vote of 60 to 47. On the passage of this resolution, the Knights of Labor and the more conservative trade-unionists immediately withdrew from the convention, as they were unwilling to sanction a measure that might lead to violence. Evidently the remaining delegates had no serious intention of putting the resolution into execution ; it was merely an expression of their feelings, not a definite plan of action. The Knights of Labor held a separate convention a '8 San Francisco Daily Report, December 1, 3, 5, 1885. '■o/bu?., Detember 3. 186 University of California Publications in Economics. U^oh 2 few weeks later in which they advocated absolute exclusion of the Chinese.*" In March, 1886, a large state convention was held for the purpose of urging further legislation for Chinese exclusion. During the previous month a convention was held in San Jose, attended by one hundred representatives of the anti-Chinese leagues of nine counties. As a similar organization known as the Citizens' Anti-Chinese Convention was about to convene in Sacramento, it was decided to hold a joint meeting at the latter place. A lengthy memorial to Congress'^ was adopted which once more set forth the objections to the presence of the Chinese. It declared that the social, moral, and political aspects of the question were more important than the economic ones. After showing how the competition of the Chinese lowered the standard of living of the white workmen, the memorial continued : ' ' But what is even more immediately damaging to the State is the fact that he [the workman] is kept in a perpetual state of anger, exasperation and discontent, always bordering on sedition, thus jeopardizing the general peace, and creating a state of chronic uneasiness and distrust, and apprehension throughout the entire community." The dangers of a large unassimilated element in the body politic were dwelt upon, and the greater strength of nations of homogeneous population emphasized. The convention urged the passage of the bill recently intro- duced by Senator Mitchell, or in case of the failure of this bill, they recommended the adoption of any of the measures proposed by the California representatives. A boycott of all who em- ployed Chinese or purchased goods from them was- endorsed. A permanent state organization was formed, with an executive committee of three members from San Francisco, and one from each county of the state. There were present 198 delegates from San Jose and 415 from Sacramento, making a total of 618 in attendance at the joint convention.*^ The holding of these large conventions outside of San Fran- cisco is indicative of the more general feeling against the so San Francisco Call, December 20, 1885. 81 Adopted March 11, 1886. 82 Sen. Misc. Doc. No. 107, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2346. Davis, Political Conventions of California, pp. 479-480. 1910] Eaves: California Lahor Legislation. 187 Chinese. The smaller cities and towns of the state were repeat- ing the earlier history of San Francisco, and had now begun to develop their Chinese quarters with the attendant evils. Many of them passed ordinances for mitigating these evils. As in the case of San Francisco, the more oppressive of these were declared unconstitutional by the courts. ^^ In a number of the smaller towns where there was great unanimity of feeling, the inhabitants took matters in their own hands; they expelled the Chinese and gave them a rough notice not to return. «•' Some of these places have continued to enforce this local exclusion policy to the present time. No doubt whatever economic evils may have resulted from the presence of the Chinese were greatly exaggerated in the public mind by the long-continued agitation, which had been necessary to secure the passage of the la\vs restricting immi- gration. The press and public speakers had explained fully to the remotest settlement just what harm could or would result from the presence of the Chinese, and there was a universal disposition to charge them with whatever economic evils vexed the times. The presidential elections of 1880 and 1884 had conclusively demonstrated that the Chinese issue determined the electoral vote of California, and possibly of Nevada. As the strength of the two great national political parties was so nearly equal at this time, the Pacific Coast states held the balance of power. The desire to make political capital of the Chinese legislation is clearly shown in the debates on the law of 1888 ; the question as to Avhich party had been most zealous in the promotion of the exclusion laws called forth much more heated arguments than did the merits of the bill under consideration.^^ The political platforms of this period all expressed a strong desire to meet the popular demand for this class of legislation, and a 83 Ex parte Fiske, T2 Gal. 125, 129. Ex parte KuhacTc, 85 Cal. 275. Bul- letin, February 16, 1886. 84 Among the places taking such action were Eureka, Truekee, Bed- ding, Santa Cruz, Bloomfield, Boulder Creek, Nicolaus, in California; Tacoma in Washington. Seattle attempted it, but was restrained by Tederal troops. 85 Congressional Secord, XIX, p. 7296. 188 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2 disposition to hurry such measures through just before election is also quite noticeable. THE EXCLUSION LAWS OE 1888. Congress was allowed no respite in the matter of Chinese exclusion. Numerous bills were introduced in 1886 and 1887. The people of the Pacific Coast were disposed to agree with Senator Mitchell of Oregon who claimed that his bill which provided for an absolute exclusion of the Chinese laborers was the only solution of the problem. This bill passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. Once more action was deferred pending the negotiation of a treaty Avith China. There was much delay in the ratification of this treaty, and as the time for the next presidential election approached Congress became very impatient. Both parties were anxious to meet the indignant demands of the people of the Pacific States that something be done to stop the wholesale evasion of the Chinese exclusion laws. Without waiting for the ratification of the treaty, a law was passed September 13, 1888, which embodied the provisions of the pro- posed treaty, and was to take effect when it was accepted.^" This law provided that no Chinese laborer in the United States should be permitted after having left, to return thereto, except under the following conditions : If he have a lawful wife, parent, or child in the United States, or property to the amount of one thousand dollars, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement. A Chinama'- claiming this right of return must apply to the Collector of Customs a month before leaving, and must give a description of his family or property, and permit the Collector to make a full description of his person. These descriptions were to be filed at the Custom House, and a certificate issued containing the filing number, but no descrip- tions, thus making its transfer more difficult. The right to return must be exercised within one year. In case of sickness an extension of the time could be had by application to the con- so Act of September 13, 1888, 25 Statutes at Large, Ch. 1015, pp. 476- 479. ^^■^'^-I Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 189 sular representative of the Chinese G-overnment stationed in the United States at the port of departure." As the treaty which this law was intended to put in execution was never ratified, there was some uncertainty about the validity of the law. In the First Supplement of the Revised Statutes,'*'^ and in a circular of May, 1892, issued from the Treasury De- partment, it was held that the act never went into effect on account of the failure of the treaty. But the decisions of the courts and the opinions of the Attorney-General have held that parts of the act are not dependent on the treaty and have a field of action.*" The Act of 1902 in extending the action of laws then in force, included the sections of this act which had been held operative by the courts."" The government of China was not satisfied with the treaty, and wished further consideration of' some of its provisions. Since the law of September 13 had been made dependent on the treaty, there was great uncertainty in its application. As the Chinese were pouring into the United States at the rate of two thousand a month, and the people of the Pacific States were becoming very impatient, the representatives of both polit- ical parties in Congress were eager to amend the exclusion laws without reference to the treaty, — particularly as the time for the next presidential election was approaching. The law of October 1, 1888, repudiated all former agreements permitting the return of laborers who had left the country. No more certificates of return were to be issued and those previously issued were de- clared void."^ The courts fully sustained the validity of this refusal to recognize the certificates issued under the earlier treaties and 87 Convention with China, December 8, 1894, Art. II, provides that the Chinese consul at the part of departure shall perform this duty. 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 357. 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 54.5, 582. 8S 1 Sup. Eev. Stat. 625. 89 2 Sup. Sev. Stat. 141. Sections 2, 4, 15, declared invalid V. S. v. Long Hop (1892), 55 Fed. Eep. 58; Sec. 12 not binding, Li Sing v. U. S. (1901), 180 U. S. 486. 90 Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 were included. 32 Statutes at Large, 176. 91 Law of October 1, 1888, 25 Statutes at Large 504. President Cleve- land's criticism of the act. Sen. Ex. Doc. 271-2-3, 50th Cong., 1st Sess, Serial No. 2514. 190 University of California Publications in Economics, l^ol. 2 laws. Justice Field in his opinion said that the question of whether our government was justified in disregarding its agree- ments with other nations was not one for the determination of the courts. He held that the power of excluding foreigners, being an incident of sovereignty, belonged to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers dele- gated by the Constitution, and the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, could not be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. "Whatever license the Chinese laborers had obtained previous to the act of 1888 to return to the United States after their departure, was held at the will of the govern- ment, revocable at its pleasure. He pointed out that the labor- ers in question were not citizens of the United States, but were aliens. That the government of the United States, through its legislative branch, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which he did not think open to controversy.^^ The United States Census of 1890 showed that after eight years of strenuous efforts at exclusion there had been an actual increase in the Chinese population of the country of about two thousand. The Census of 1880 reported one hundred and five thousand Chinese residents, and that of 1890 found the nimiber increased to one hundred and seven thousand.''^ It was no longer possible to come direct to San Francisco, but new routes of entry were soon discovered. The thinly settled, poorly guarded Canadian and Mexican frontiers offered tempting op- portunities for entering the forbidden land, and the Chinese soon developed a well-planned underground railroad for bring- ing in their countrymen."* It has been impossible to prevent this comparatively small immigration, which continues to the present time."'' •J- In re Chae Chan Ping (1888), 36 Fed. Rep. 431. Opinions and Papers of S. J. Field, Vol. Ill, Doc. 20. »3 The Census shows the Chinese population to have been as follows: 1880, 105,465; 1890, 107,475; 1900, 106,659. "* Ealph, J., "Leak of (Chinese into the United States" (through Canada), Harpers' Magazine, 82, 515. H. E. Rept. No. 255, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3042. 35 San Francisco Chronicle, February 26, 1908, reports 26 brought to San Francisco for deportation. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 19] RENEWAL OF THE EXCLUSION LAWS IN 1892. The time was now approaching when the exclusion law of 1882 would expire. It was rumored that the Six Companies were collecting a large sum of money with which to fight its renewal. The whole country was once more aroused for another effort to insure the desired legislation.'"' Meetings of working- men were held, and petitions and memorials prepared for circu- lation throughout the country. The uneasiness in California was so great that the state legislators ignored the many decisions declaring their lack of jurisdiction, and passed a drastic exclusion law.^^ It provided that no Chinese person should be permitted to enter the state either by land or sea. Masters of vessels were not allowed to land them, and ticket agents must examine their certificates of residence before selling them any tickets. All the Chinese residents of the state were required to register, paying a fee of five dollars for their certificates. These fees and the heavy fines imposed for the violation of the law were expected to furnish a fund for its enforcement. This law must have been passed merely for the purpose of showing Congress what the people of California desired in the way of Chinese exclusion, for it hardly sterns probable that the legislators were not aware of the fact that the state had no authority to enforce such a law. Of course this statute was promptly declared unconstitu- tional. The decision pointed out once more that "the power exercised belongs exclusively to the general government hy virtue of its authority to regulate commerce." It was declared that the law was clearly in excess of the power of the state, as Congress had prescribed the conditions on which Chinese now here should be permitted to remain.^* The main features of this act of the state legislature corresponded with those of the bill which Senator Mitchell had introduced some six years be- fore in the United States Senate. Many claimed that the policy of absolute exclusion which he advocated was the only solution '■"> See the Call and other San Francisco papers, December 1, 4, 5, 1891. '■>'! Statutes of California, 1891, p. 186. OS Ex parte Ah Cue, 101 Gal. 197; 35 Pac. 556. 192 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2 of the (luestion, and his bill had been widely and favorably commented on by the papers of the Pacific Coast states. Between 1888 and 1892, the Chinese question was continuallj' before Congress. As the time approached when the original ten-year period of exclusion would expire, a flood of petitions and memorials began pouring in from all sections of the country. Most of these were from labor organizations, and were in favor of a vigorous exclusion policy. There were, however, a small" number protesting against the alleged injustice of the Chinese legislation, and advocating more generous treatment. The large number of bills dealing with the subject presented in the Fifty- second Congress were of two types : First, those which pro- posed to renew and extend the existing laws. Second, the more radical measures aiming to secure absolute exclusion, and a care- ful registration of the Chinese already in the United States. The Oregon Senators, Dolph and Mitchell, were the leading advocates of these two opposing policies, which sought recog- nition in the legislation of 1892. Senator Dolph 's bill extending the operation of the acts of 1882, 1884, and 1888, passed the Senate^'' and was sent to the House before that body had succeeded in coming to any agree- ment on the subject. Instead of acting on the Senate bill, Geary brought in a more radical measure as the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.^"" This bill, which had been introduced by Geary and slightly amended in the committee, was practically the same bill which Senator Mitchell had been presenting regularly during the previous seven years. ^"^ Rep- resentative Morrow had also made a great effort to pass a similar law two years before.^"^ The registration feature had been much discussed as a means of detecting the illegal entries through Canada and Mexico. The Select Committee on the Eleventh Census had recommended a bill proposing an accurate and care- 00 Congressional Record, XXIII, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 33, 788, 1271, 1312. 100 lUd., p. 128.5, 2911. H. B. Sept., 407, Serial No. 3043. 101 Congressional Becord, XXIII, p. 3480. 102 See Morrow's letter to the San Francisco Federated Trades, pub- lished in the Coast Seamen's Journal. October 1, 1890. Also S. B. Bept. No. 2915, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2815. ^^^^i Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 193 ful enumeration of the Chinese popiilation, which was to be accompanied by the issuance of certificates to all such resi- dents.i"^ The Geary bill "to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States," as originally passed in the Plouse, was much more severe in its provisions than the measure that was finally adopted.^"^ As the title indicated, it proposed to exclude all classes of Chinese, for it was claimed that the concessions to merchants, students, and tourists had led to abuses. The minority report signed by three members of the committee had refused assent to the bill on account of this provision, which, it was claimed, was in violation of the treaties with China. ^"^ The Geary bill in all its original severity passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 178 to 43, 108 members failing to vote. On being sent to the Senate, the bill was debated at great length,^"" and it soon became evident that the more drastic features of the House measure would not be accepted. As the time approached when the old law would expire, it was reported that large numbers of Chinese were camped along the frontiers waiting for the sixth of May, when they would move across the border. In their excitement and anxiety, the people of the Pacific Coast imagined a small army of Orientals preparing for invasion. Finally a conference was arranged between represent- atives of the two branches of Congress, and a measure drafted which combined certain features of their respective bills."^ This new bill was then rushed through in time to receive the Presi- dent's signature on the fifth of May, one day prior to the expir- ation of the old laws. The new statute,"* which is commonly known as the Geary Act, continued all laws then in force for a period of ten years. 103 fl^. B. Bep. No. 486, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (February, 1890), Serial No. 2808. wi Congressional Becord, XXIII, p. 2911. 105 E. B. Bep. No. 407, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3043. 106 Congressional Becord, XXIII, pp. 3236, 3438, 3475, 3522, 3608, 3829, 3832, 3862, 3922. 107 Ibid., pp. 3925, 4191. 108 Act of May 5, 1892, Ch. 60, 27 Statutes at Large 25. 194 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 Chinese illegally in the United States were to be removed to China, or to the country of which they were citizens. The third section of the law introduced a new principle into the litigation on the subject, by throwing the burden of proof upon the persons charged with being in the country contrary to law. It provides, "That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent arrested under the provisions of this act or the acts thereby extended shall be adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States unless such person shall establish by affirmative proof, to the satisfaction of such justice, judge, or commissioner, his lawful right to remain in the United States. "^'"' It was claimed that merely deporting those who entered illegally would not deter them from trying the same plan again, so the law provided that imprisonment at hard labor should precede de- portation. But the courts have refused to sanction any impris- onment other than detention pending trial.^^° Another section which met with much opposition in both the Senate and House was that which declared that no bail should be allowed on applications for writs of habeas corpus. In sup- port of this Geary declared that over eight thousand writs of this kind had been issued in one year. The bail offered was worthless, as Judge Morrow had declared forfeited over a quarter of a million dollars of Chinese appeal bonds, and the Attorney- General had never been able to collect a dollar of the money.^^^ The matter was compromised by a stipulation requiring such cases to be tried without unnecessary 'delay. The much-discussed registration provision was also retained in the law. This required all Chinese laborers to obtain certifi- cates of residence within one year. Those failing to obtain siieh certificates were subject to deportation, unless they could prove that their failure to comply with the law was unavoidable. The Chinese sought the advice of eminent lawyers, who assured them 109 27 Statutes at Large 25, Sec. 3. The true theory is, not that all Chinese may enter this country who are not forbidden, but that only those are entitled to enter who are expressly allowed to do so. 23 Op. Atty. Gen., 485. lie V. S. V. Eing Quong Chow (1892), 53 Fed. Eep. 233. U. S. v. Wong Sing, 51 Fed. Eep. 79. In re Ng Loy Hoe, 53 Fed. Eep. 914. In re Ah 7uk, 53 Fed. Eep. 781. Ill Congressional Record, XXIII, 2915. 27 Statutes at Large 25, Sec. 5. 1910] Eaves: California Laior Legislation. 195 that this registration requirement was unconstitutional. "^ On the fifteenth of May, ten days after the time for re.uistration hid expired, the United States Supreme Court declared that this section was valid."^' The Fifty-third Congress found itself confronted with the perennial Chinese problem, which now began to assume a some- what ludicrous form. The more radical opponents of the Chinese had, in years gone by, frequently advocated the deportation of the objectionable Chinese population. They now had an oppor- tunity to carry out such a plan, as only 12,243 had registered, and about 85,000 Avere liable under the law to deportation. While there had been a number of arrests and twenty or more convictions, there had as yet been no deportations, and there seemed to be no funds for this purpose.^" When Secretary Carlisle was asked to send in an estimate of what it would cost to execute the law, he informed Congress that the most conserv- ative estimate indicated that it would cost over ten million dollars to convict and deport the Chinese who had failed to register."^ This was more than any one had bargained for, and Congress hastened to pass another bill relieving the oificials from the duty of executing this portion of the law.^^" The McCreary Act extended the time allowed for registration six months, and provided for the discontinuance of all proceed- ings instituted for the violation of the former act. No Chinese person who had been convicted of a felony was to be permitted to register. Each person registering must prove by one white witness that he was a resident in this country on May 5, 1892. The law also defined more clearly who should be considered merchants, and who laborers. ^'^ 112 They had opinions from Messrs. Choate, Carter, and Ashton, all of whom declared the provision unconstitutional. (H. B. Bep. No. 70, 53rd Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3157.) 113 Justice Gray wrote the affirmative decision, and Justices Brewer, Field, and Fuller wrote dissenting opinions. Fong ¥ue Ting v. U. S. (1893), 149 U. S. 698. There were a number of decisions sustaining the deportation provision, e.g.. In re Ny LooTc, 56 Fed. Eep. 81. 11* S. E. Ex. Doc. No. 9, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3150. H. B. Eep. No. 70, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3157. 115 ff. B. Ex. Doc. No. 10, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3150. Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 13, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3144. 116 November 3, 1893, Ch. 14, 28 Statutes at Large 7. 117 Ihid., See. 2, p. 8. 196 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°l- ^ In 1894 a belated treaty which sanctioned these various measures was negotiated with China. This treaty was to be in force ten years, and was to be considered as renewed for a like period, unless notice of its abrogation was given by either Gov- ernment within six months of the time when it would expire. ^^^ In order to insure the effective administration of the laws, particularly in cases where the right of transit is claimed, and in their adjustment to the island territory of the United States, it has been found necessary to allow the Secretary of the Treas- ury a large amount of discretion.^'" RENEWAL OF THE EXCLUSION LAWS IN 1902. It was evident when the ten-year period again drew to a close that the working people had not changed in their deter- mination to prevent any increase in the number of their Chinese competitors. The California labor organizations, which were exceedingly influential and active at this time, adopted resolu- tions in their central bodies and held a large convention in San Francisco for the purpose of making known their desire that there be no relaxation in the exclusion policy. Congress renewed for an indefinite period all the laws pro- hibiting and regulating the coming of the Chinese.'"" It was also specified that these laws should be applicable to the island terri- tory of the United States, and that they should prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers, not citizens of the United States, from such island territory to the mainland of the United States.'^' lis December 8, 1894 (28 Statutes at Large 1, 1210). 119 Act of April 30, 1900, Ch. 339, Sec. 101, 32 Statutes at Large 161. 120 Act of April 29, 1902, Ch. 641, 33 Statutes at Large, 176. 1-1". . . and said laws shall also apply to the island territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, and prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers, not citizens of the United States, from such island territory to the mainland territory of the United States, whether in such island territory at the time of session or not, and from one portion of the island territorj^ to another portion of said island territory. Provided, however. That said laws shall not apply to the transit of Chinese laborers from one island to another island of the same group; and any islands within the jurisdiction of any State or the District of Alaska shall be considered a part of the mainland under this section." (32 Statutes at Large 176.) 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 197 CHAPTEE VII. THE LENGTH OF THE WORK-DAT IN CALIFORNIA. THE TEN-HOUE LAW OF 1853. At the time of the acquisition and settlement of California, the ten-hour movement was receiving much attention from the trade-unionists of the older sections of the countrj^, so it is not surprising to find that this was the first of the general eastern labor movements to be transplanted to California. We have already shown the promptness with which the craftsmen of the state formed organizations for bettering their conditions of labor. The numerous strikes of the early fifties were chiefly for the purpose of enforcing demands for better pay. As work- men were scarce, and the wages demanded appeared extortionate when compared with those paid in other parts of the world, employers must have been strongly tempted to require a long day's work. It was soon proposed to remedy any such tendency by the passage of a law making ten hours a legal work-day. The act to limit the hours of labor, as originally introduced and recommended from the joint committee appointed to con- sider it, proposed to punish by fine and imprisonment any person who required more than ten hours for a day's work from any one in his employ.^ When the committee brought in its report a substitute bill was offered, which simply stated that ten hours should constitute a legal day's work. In this form the measure met with but slight opposition, passing, and receiving the Grov- ernor's approval on May 17, 1853.^ The law in its weakened form seems to have been effective. We have been unable to find any complaints of its violation, and at a later period the effectiveness of this early law was cited as a strong argument in favor of the eight-hour legislation.^ 1 San Francisco Herald, May 11, 1853. - Assemhly Journal, 4th Sess., p. 573. Statutes of California, 1853, p. 187. 3 AUa, February 11, 1866. 198 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 THE EIGHT-HOUE MOVEMENT OP THE SIXTIES. The difficult period of economic readjustment immediately following the Civil War was characterized by great activity among the labor organizations all over the country. The soldiers returning from the disbanded armies often found that there were no places for them in the industries by which they had formerly earned their living, and the economic depression of this period added to the numbers of those who could find no work. There was a general feeling that a shortening of the hours of labor might create a demand for more workers, and thus furnish a remedy for the distressing economic evils of the time. It has been suggested that the California eight-hour agitation of the sixties may have been prompted by the succe.sR of the Australian law of 1857.^ but as the movement was quite general in the United States at this time, and there was a strong tendency in California to duplicate the activities of the labor organizations of older sections of the country, it is not necessary to seek such remote antecedents. According to the account of A. M. Kenaday, the first secretary and second president of the San Francisco Trades Union which was organized in 1863, the California eight- hour movement was started as a means of keeping alive the interest in this first central body. He declared that when it was about "to dissolve for want of encouragement," he sug- gested the calling of a mass meeting for the agitation of an eight-hour law. At this meeting a petition asking for the pass- age of such a law was adopted, and Kenaday was authorized to bring it before the local delegation of members of the legis- lature.'^ He also went to Sacramento as the representative of the San Francisco trade-unions to present their petition and lobby for -the bill." The Sacramento trade-unions, which were quite active at this time, ably seconded all the efforts of their fellow-workers in San Francisco. Assemblyman Wilcox, "the Mariposa blacksmith," who was * Haskell, in McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., p. 608. - Pacific Union Printer, December, 1890, speech of Kenaday. <^ Ibid. McNeill, Labor Movement, etc., p. 608. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 199 regarded as the champion of the working classes, presented the bill with its accompanying petition.' The joint committee to whom the matter was referred were deeply impressed by the petition which had been signed by eleven thousand of the citizens of San Francisco.'* Their favorable report stated that, since the petition emanated from a large body of intelligent citizens who were presumed to know their best interests, the committee did not feel disposed even to attempt to controvert its arguments. The report continues, "As an evidence of the earnestness of the petitioners, it may be cited that the document has been sub- mitted to large assemblages of citizens directly interested in the subject, in the cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, and Marys- ville, its merits freely canvassed, and after careful deliberation, adopted as an expression of their respective wishes. In the public press, also, the matter has been extensively discussed, and your Committee are not made aware of a single public journal that has opposed the measure, nor indeed has opposition raised its head from any quarter."" An attempt was made in the assembly to add an amendment requiring that wages be paid in gold coin, but this failed. The bill with an amendment made in committee passed the assembly by a large majority.^" A few days later the bill was attacked in the San Francisco Bulletin. The editor realized that the extraordinary labor con- ditions of California could not be maintained, and it is evident that his forceful statement of unwelcome truths made a strong impression on the legislators. He declared that it was not prob- able that the high rate of wages paid in California could be maintained, as the inflation of the currency had increased prices, and the wages paid here were higher than anywhere else in the world. He estimated that the reduction in hours demanded was equivalent to a further increase in wages of twenty-five per cent. He claimed that there was no branch of business which afforded a margin of profits from which to pay this increase. T Sacramento Daily Union, January 25, 1866; Alta, January 2.5, 1866. Assembly Journal, 16th Sess., p. 252. sAUa, June 4, 1867. (Speech of Wilcox.) Assembly Journal, 16th Sess., p. 304. 10 Ibid., p. 317. .200 University of California Puhlications in Economics. L'^'ol. 2 and that such a reduction in hours must be followed by a corre- sponding decrease in the earnings of the workers. The difficulty of competing with places having a much longer workday was emphasized, and it was asked, "Is it prudent for California, — considering the fact that the price of labor is already so high that manufactures struggle for existence, while millions of acres of rich virgin soil cannot be cultivated, — to lead every other State in the Union on this labor question?" The workingmen were warned that wages were destined to decline, and advised to make the most of their present advantages/"- This was the first general labor movement in California, and the accounts of the demonstrations in support of the eight-hour law indicate that at this early date the working people of the state were quick to respond to an appeal for united efforts to promote their class interests. The resolutions adopted at the San Francisco mass meeting claimed that this law had the over- whelming support of the majority of the people of the state. Thej^ declared, "That a spontaneous rising of the workingmen throughout the State, and their prompt rally to the support of their rights, and the spirit here displayed, sufficiently attest the great importance attached to this question. The workingmen of California, for the first time in the history of the State, ask and petition the legislature to pass one law for their direct benefit." It was argued that the success of the earlier ten-hour law, and of the eight-hour laws of Australia and New Zealand, was suffi- cient evidence of the value of such legislation. Should the law prove injurious, the clause allowing contracts for a longer work- day provided an easy remedy.^^ The argument claiming that it would be impossible for Cali- fornia to develop her industries if the conditions of labor varied 11 Bulletin, February 6, 8, 1866. 12 The meeting was presided over by Henry S. Loane, the chairman of the eight-hour committee of the Trades Union. He claimed that the peti- tion against the law which had been recently sent to Sacramento had only eighteen signatures, and that it had been promoted by a manufac- turer who employed Chinese labor. Among the signers were a junk dealer and also several capitalists. The Alta reports the presentation of a remonstrance signed by "sundry mechanics of San Francisco," a few days after the mass meeting. (February 15, 1866.) A delegation of members of the state legislature, including Wilcox, the sponsor for the bill, were present at the meeting. Alta, February 11, 1866. ^^^•^1 Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 201 greatly from those of other parts of the country seems to have made a strong impression on the state senators. They added an amendment to the assembly bill which provided that the Cali- fornia eight-hour law should take effect when Massachusetts passed a similar measure.''^ This killed the bill; its friends per- mitting it to die on the files. After the failure of the eight-hour law in the legislature, many of the workingmen determined to obtain the shorter work- day by the collective bargaining of their trade-unions. The building trades, particularly the house carpenters, led in the eight-hour demonstrations of this time. In April, 1866, as soon as it became evident that the law would not pass, the carpenters gave notice that on June 3, 1867, they would demand the eight- hour day.^* The other building trades also set dates for the inauguration of the new system. The journeymen ship and steamboat joiners gave notice that on January 1, 1867, they would adopt the new time schedule, the bricklayers set February 1, 1867, as their date, and the stone masons March 1.^° It is difficult to get information about any labor movement among the miners, but a letter from Austin, Nevada, dated January 28, 1867, states that the eight-hour system was being adopted to a great extent among the miners and that they hoped it would become universal, both in the mines and among laborers and mechanics. "^"^ While there was general sympathy with these efforts to shorten the workday, a number of the San Francisco trade- unions realized that they were not prepared to join in the de- mands for an eight-hour day. The Typographical Union found that it could not endorse the movement, and, though willing to send a delegate to the Mechanics' State Council, passed resolu- tions stating that, while its members sympathized with the efforts of fellow-mechanics, they felt that the conditions of their trade 13 Senate Journal, 16th Sess., p. 673. See also Alta, January 23, 1868. (Speech of Lupton.) 14 Bulletin, June 3, 1867 ; report of the meeting says the resolution was adopted April 9, 1866. See also Alta, June i, 1867. 15 Industrial Magazine, January, 1867, p. 48. 16 Ihid., February, 1867. 202 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 would not permit the adoption of an eight-hour system.^' The machinists and other organizations of the metal workers also found themselves unable at this time to make so radical a change in their working hours. The first half of 1867, the period during which the shorter work-day was inaugurated in many of these trades, was marked by great activity among the trade-unions. The house carpenters, who had given themselves a year in which to prepare for the change, enlisted all of their craft in a House Carpenters' Eight-hour League which claimed a membership of eighteen hun- dred. The M'orkingmen 's convention called by the Industrial League held meetings during the three months prior to the date set for the change.^* As the day approached, several large mass meetings were held to complete the education of public opinion in support of the new system.^" The speakers at these meetings were the leaders of the workingmen's organizations, who de- voted their oratory to the two main topics of interest to their followers, namely, Chinese exclusion, and the eight-hour work- day. A. M. Winn, the president of the Eight-hour League, was particularly optimistic about the benefits that must follow the establishment of the new system. He said, "If the house car- penters succeed in establishing among themselves the eight-hour system, — and I hope and believe they will, — it will be but a few weeks until eight hours will be as regularly a day's work as ten hours have been heretofore." He claimed that the line of dis- tinction among men was drawn by education, and that class distinctions would be destroyed when the workingmen had the leisure to cultivate their minds. He believed that when the new system was once established, schools for men would spring up as fast as they were wanted, that all would be furnished with the necessary means of improvement. June 3, 1867, the date set for the celebration of the shorter work-day, may be regarded as the first California Labor Day. Some of those who were unfriendly to the movement predicted 1' Minutes of meetings of December 30, 1865; January 27, April 27, 1867; February 28, 1870. . IS The San Francisco papers report meetings from April 1 to June 28. ^•■>AUa, June 2 1867. Bulletin, May l.'i. 1^1°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 203 a disorderly demonstration. The editor of the Alta declared that "fiery and indiscreet orators" had in all probability "fumed up excitement" ;2° but on the day following this first labor holiday he had the grace to acknowledge that nothing could have been "more orderly, quiet, and pleasant" than the demeanor of the eelebrants.^^ Two thousand and sixty-six" trade-unionists who claimed the shorter working-day marched in the procession.' The order in the line of march, which was determined by priority in the adoption of the eight-hour day, was as follows :^^ Ship and Steamboat Joiners' Association, Bricklayers' Protective Union, Laborers' Protective Benevolent Association, Journeymen Lathers, Riggers, Gas Fitters, House Carpenters. Assemblyman Wilcox, who loved to pose as "the Mariposa blacksmith," and who was then at the height of his popularity, was chosen as the orator of the day. He told the history of the eight-hour bill which he had recently championed in the state legislature, and with the assistance of the other speakers, did ample justice to this and the Chinese question. Evidently the carpenters planned all the details of this early eight-hour movement with great care, for at the meeting it was announced that a committee had been appointed to assist those thrown out of work, and to see to it that no one suffered for the necessities of life while the new sj^stem was being started. The result of this thorough preparation and careful education of public opinion was the peaceful establishment of the new time- schedule for this large group of workers. In a few instances contractors attempted to defeat the movement by offering extra pay for ten hours' work, but on the whole the eight-hour day was fairly well established in the trades participating in the movement. One of the difficulties of the early labor movement was the lack of sufficient feeling of class interests to prevent the for- mation of counter-movements among some of the workmen. In July a Ten-hour Labor Association was formed. This was not 20 Alta, June 2, 1867. 21 Ihid., June 4, 1867. 22 This is the count made by the representative of the Alta. 23 Alta and Bulletin, June 4, 1867. 204 University of California Publications in Economics. \yo\. 2 strictly a workingmen 's organization, as it proposed to admit capitalists and master-builders. A meeting was held and reso- lutions adopted, but the association appears to have met with little success and soon dropped out of existence.^* It is evident from the bitter complaints of the effects of the eight-hour system in the papers opposed to it that it was gen- erally maintained in the building trades, and probably intro- duced among other groups of workers. After visiting the archi- tects of the city, a reporter of the AUa claimed that he found manj' instances where plans to build had been abandoned because of the increased cost of labor. ^'^ The sessions of the workingmen's convention not only cul- minated in the great eight-hour celebration of June 3, but also in a successful political movement by which a majority of their candidates were chosen in the San Francisco primary election of June 5. The workingmen's convention had passed resolutions to the effect that the men there represented would vote for no candidate who Avould not pledge himself to the support of the eight-hour movement.-" As the convention ap- pointed a large committee of its delegates who were to carry on a systematic correspondence with the workingmen of other portions of the state,^' it is probable that this pledge was widely circulated. These efforts immediately bore fruit ; the three party conventions of 1867 all inserted strong eight-hour resolutions in their platforms. '^^ With this good preliminary work, the passage of the eight-hour law in the next session of the legislature was assured. The new eight-hour bill which had been thoroughly discussed in a meeting of workingmen in December, 1867, was presented by Assemblyman O'Malley. The judiciary committee of the assembly, to whom the bill was referred, reported a substitute measure with a recommendation for passage. This act pro- vided that eight hours should be held a legal day's work in all 2i AUa, July 20, 1867. 25 Ibid., July 22, 1867. 26 Bulletin, April 3, 1867. 2' San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867. 28 Davis, Political Conventions of California, pp. 249, 260, 265-6. ^^^''] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 205 eases within the state unless otherwise expressly stipulated be- tween the parties concerned. No one having minors in his employ was permitted to require more than eight hours' work in one day. Agricultural, horticultural, vitieultural, and do- mestic labor were excluded from the operation of the law.'" This last section was proposed by Dwindle, and added in com- mittee. It was claimed that it was often necessary to work overtime to save the crops, and that this class of labor had leisure at other times in the year.^" On the floor of the assembly, O'Malley introduced as an amendment to the committee's substitute measure the section of his original bill which they had omitted.^' This provided that eight hours should constitute a legal day's work where the same is performed under the authority of any law of the state, or under the aiithority or direction of any officer of the state, whether acting in his official capacity, or by authority of any county or municipal government, and that 'a stipulation to that effect should be made a part of all contracts for such work. "The bill was debated at some length in the assembly and senate. ^^ In both bodies efforts were made to recommit, and to strike out or to amend the Section dealing with child-labor. Evidently the speakers were more concerned with the questions as to which party or person deserved most credit for the measure, and as to whether they were fulfilling the expectations of the workingmen, than with the possible effects of the bill. Such economic theory as was brought to bear on the subject was of a pronounced laissez faire type. One member declared that, if he had read political economy to any effect, it had taught him that the relations of capital and labor, if left to themselves, would regulate themselves, and that all spasmodic efforts to regulate them by special legislation would in the end prove futile. However, notwithstanding his theories, he was willing to vote for the measure if its friends thought it would do any 20 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 63. AUa, January 23, 1868. 30 Sacramento Daily Union, January 23, 1868. 31 Assembly Journal, 17th Sess., pp. 221, 312, 477. S2 Sacramento Daily Union, January 22, 23; February 14, 1868. Alta, January 23, 1868. 206 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 good.^" As all parties had pledged themselves to the eight- hour legislation, there was no difficulty in securing the necessary majority for the passage of the bill, and it was approved by Governor Haight on February 21, 1868. The following day had been set aside by the San Francisco labor organizations for the celebration of this successful issue of their eight-hour campaign.^* The Oakland trade-unions sent over a large delegation to swell the ranks of the torchlight pro- cession,^'' which was the favorite form of celebration at this period. A number of members of the state legislature contrib- uted to the oratorical features of the program. As in the procession of June 3, 1867, the order of marching was deter- mined by the date of adoption of the eight-hour day.^'' EFFORTS TO ASSIST THE PASSAGE OF THE FEDEEAL EIGHT- HOUE LAW. The California trade-unionists also interested themselves at this time in the efforts that were being made to secure the passage of a Federal eight-hour law. The Mechanics' State Council, which was organized in the fall of 1867 for the purpose of giving the eight-hour movement wider scope, undertook to have petitions favoring the passage of a national eight-hour 33 Speech of Assemblyman Tully, Sacramento Daily Union, January 23, 1868. 3* San Francisco papers, February 21 to 24, 1868. The Times gives a particularly good account. s"' The Oakland delegation was reported to number about 450. This is the frrst account we have found of the participation of the Oakland trade-unionists in a. San Francisco celebration. It was quite common in later periods of the labor movement. 36 Each organization carried a transparency giving the date when its members had adopted the eight-hour day. These dates as reported by the Times of February 24, 1868, were as follows: December, 1865 — Ship Caulkers. January, 1866 — Ship Wrights, Ship Joiners. March, 1866— Ship Painters. August, 1866 — Plasterers. February, 1867 — Bricklayers, Laborers' Protective and Benevolent As- sociation. March, 1867 — Stone Masons. May, 1867 — Stone Cutters, Lathers. June, 1867 — House Carpenters Nos. 1 and 2, Eiggers, Wood Turners, Metal Roofers, House Painters. July, 1867 — Plumbers and Gas Fitters. 1910] . Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 207 law circulated for signatures throughout the State. San Fran- cisco was divided into fifteen districts to be canvassed by mem- bers of the council. Copies of the petition and the resolutions of the council were sent to members in other places, or to post- masters with the request that they be given to eight-hour men for circulation. **' In August, 1869, A. M. Winn, the president of the Mechanics' State Council, went to Washington, where he sent each member of Congress a copy of the resolution of the council requesting that Congress pass a law positively requiring that the public work be done at eight hours for a day's work, and making it a penal offense for its officers and contractors to evade this provision. While in Washington, Winn was elected Chairman of the National Bight-hour Executive Committee, an organi- zation composed of officers of state and national associations of mechanics. This committee made an unsuccessful attempt to secure an amendment to the Federal eight-hour law requiring the public work to be done with the eight-hour working-day, whether done by day labor or by contract.'^ ENFOEGEMENT OF THE CALIPOENIA EIGHT-HOUB LAW. The new law was to take effect sixty days after its passage. On IMay 7 the laborers engaged in grading the streets of San Francisco struck to secure a reduction of their working hours so that they would conform to the law.^^ The work was being done by contractors whose bids were based on the older ten-hour system. They were determined not to adopt the shorter work- ing-day, though they offered to pay the men by the hour and let them work as long as they chose. The laborers refused to accept this compromise, and tried to prevent others from con- tracting for the extra hours. In some parts of the city the work on the streets was suspended, and in others the new men worked under guards, but the strikers attempted no violence." We have seen that the ship caulkers and carpenters were 3T Alta, November 30, 1867. 38 Winn, Valedictory Address, so Alta, May 8, 1868. 40 iMd., May 10, 1868. 208 University of California Publications in Economics. 1'^°^- 2 among the first of the organizations to secure the shorter worli-day, and these unions were also the first to be met by a vigorous counter movement on the part of their employers. It was easy to engage men at New York or other Atlantic ports who would gladly work for less pay and longer hours than were demanded in California,*^ particularly as this was a period of great economic depression in the East, and there were many unemployed men. The shipowners imported men for their own service, and granted special rates to facilitate the importation of a new supply of labor. Following the disbandment of the great armies of the Civil "War, there were many who preferred to make a new start in the West, so there was a large influx of men at this time. Within a week of this strike the Alta reports, ' ' Several thousand able-bodied men from Pennsylvania and New York, accustomed to labor upon public works, have arrived here within a few days by steamer, and went to work with alacrity at the wages offered. . . . Many arrived on Sunday and went to work on Monday. The contractors say they are unus- ually good workmen. ' '■'^ The strikers did not have to suffer for their devotion to the cause of the shorter working-day, for there was still plenty of work in California. At this time the Labor Exchange*^ con- tinually reported more orders for labor than could be filled. The members of the Eight-hour League made every effort to induce the newcomers who had accepted the street work, and also those who applied to the Labor Exchange, to demand the shorter working-day. The general financial depression grad- ually began to make itself felt in California, so there was an increasing disposition to take work on whatever terms were offered. In earlier chapters of this book we have given an account of the economic changes that took place at the time of the opening of the overland railroad. The greater competition with the East, the increased number of new arrivals, thousands of 41 Alta, October 5, 1868. -12 lUd., May 13, 1868. 43 This was a free employment agency supported by the city and state. See later chapter on employment agencies. ^^^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 209 men released from employment in building the railroad, and the vast increase of the Chinese immigration, resulted in a great surplus of labor. For the next fifteen years unemployed —sometimes hungry — men gathered in the streets and vacant lots of San Francisco to discuss the need of work by which they could earn their daily bread, and to grow bitter in the contemplation of the extravagant displays of great wealth by their more fortunate fellow-citizens. It soon became evident that the workingmen would have a severe struggle to retain the advantages that had been so easily won. Early in August, 1869, the California Planing Mills gave notice that they would no longer employ men under the eight- hour rule. Their employees refused to work for ten hours a day and the mills closed for the lack of workmen. On August 3 the Eight-hour League held a meeting to consider the situ- ation. Resolutions were passed approving the course of the members in refusing to work ten hours, and commending those who had declined to accept an increase of wages for additional hours of service. They agreed that members of the League would refuse to "put up work gotten out at the California Mills from and after the day they commenced working their men ten hours per day." The League also resolved to furnish a stamp to all mills running on the eight-hour plan, so that they would be able to identify the work of the ten-hour mills. ^^ After a few days of idleness, the California Mills were able to resume work with ten-hour men. The papers report that "At the opening of the works there were large numbers of the members of the Eight-hour League present, who used their utmost endeavors to persuade the ten-hour men to quit, assuring them that their expenses would be paid, and that next week they could have plenty of employment under the eight-hour system in a mill about to be started by the League. "^^ But they were unsuccessful, and so this first break from the eight- hour day prepared the way for greater losses that were inevit- able in the period of business depression upon which the indus- tries of the state were entering. 4-» Bulletin, August 3, 1869. 45 Alta, August 5, 1869. 210 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 It was a losing fight against economic forces which they could not control, yet the .California workingmen relinquished none of the advantages which they had gained without a vig- orous contest. On August 20 a crowded mass meeting was held for the purpose of renewing the pledges of allegiance to the eight-hour working-day, and expressing indignation against those who were attacking it/" The speakers protested against the disposition to attribute all the economic evils of the times to the eight-hour rule. Some one remarked that he expected to find the recent plague and earthquake that had afflicted the city charged to that cause. In the following October a decision of the California Supreme Court paved the way for the defeat of the eight-hour law by those who contracted for the public work. The Board of Super- visors had awarded a contract for street grading to a man named Drew. "When it came to the execution of this contract, the Superintendent of Streets insisted on inserting a clause which not only stipulated that the work be done on the eight- hour basis, but also provided that the pay of the contractor should be forfeited if he worked his men for a greater number of hours per day. The contractor refused to sign such an agreement, and offered instead to insert a clause to the effect, "And it is hereby expressly stipulated that eight hours' labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all labor to be performed under this contract." The Superintendent of Streets refused to execute the contract on these terms, and so Drew applied to the District Court for a mandamus compelling the execution of the contract. This court sustained the Superintendent of Streets, but on appeal to the Supreme Court the decision was reversed, and the lower court directed to issue the mandate. The Supreme Court decision was not a unanimous one; of the four judges who wrote opinions, two affirmed the decision of the lower court, the fifth concurring in the reversal without writing an opinion.*^ Justice Sawyer, in delivering the opinion of the court, based his argument on a strict interpretation of the actual language i See action of the house painters in the same number of the Bulletin. 60 Alta, August 9, 1875. "1 nid., Res. 4 and 5. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 215 manufactures of various kinds, have produced more than can be consumed by the people ; hence thousands are out of employ- ment waiting for the consumption of what their hands have produced. ""2 It is evident that, aside from its benefits to indi- vidual workmen, the eight-hour work-day was believed to be the solution of the problems of the unemployed and the general economic depression of the time. But little effort seems to have been made to carry out this plan to inaugurate the shorter work-day on the ' centennial Fourth of July. San Francisco was crowded with men whose necessities made them eager to get work on any terms. All other labor interests were forgotten during the great anti-Chi- nese demonstrations which absorbed the attention of the city at this time. THE EIGHT-HOtm LAW ADVOCATED BY THE WOEKINGMEN'S PARTY. The shorter work-day was a frequent subject of discussion in the ferA'id oratorj' of the sand-lot meetings. As we have pointed out, the eight-hour law had from its inception been looked upon as a means of furnishing employment to the large number of idle workers, and the movement had owed much of its popularity to the hope that it would help solve the distressing problem of the unemployed that had oppressed the country since the Civil War. The sand-lotters were therefore disposed to attribute their misfortunes partly to the failure to enforce the law, and so furnish work for a larger number of men. The strengthening of the eight-hour law was one of the objects which the Workingmen 's Party emphasized most strongly ; their convention including in its resolutions the declaration : ' ' Sec. 8. All labor on public works, whether state or munic- ipal, should be performed by the day, at current rates of wages. "Sec. 9. Eight hours is a sufficient day's work for any man, and the law should make it so. ' '"^ 62 Alta, January 14, 1876. 63 Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 380. 216 University of California Publications in Economics. 1^°^- 2 THE EIGHT-HOUE PEOVISION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION. This, like other reforms demanded by the Workingmen's Party, found a place in the new constitution. The eight-hour sections proposed in the convention went much further than the measure finally adopted. Beerstecher, of. San Francisco, wanted the constitution to declare it a misdemeanor for any person, firm, or corporation to employ any one at manual labor for more than eight hours in one day, or forty-eight hours in one week."* Others wanted the eight-hour rule to apply to corporations; and to all public work, whether state or municipal. In connection with the eight-hour requirement, it was proposed to stipulate that all public work be done by the day instead of by contract."^ The section finally adopted by a large majority did not go any further than the law of 1868, as it merely pro- vided that, "Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public works. ' '"^ TRADE-UNION EPFOETS TO SHORTEN THE WORKING-DAY, 1882-1890. The California trade-unionists did not again undertake an eight-hour movement of such general scope as that of the sixties, but, as a heritage from the earlier struggles, they held fast to this standard for the length of the work-day. With each re- current period of prosperity, different groups of workers have seized the opportunity to press a little nearer the goal, until at the present time a very large percentage of the trade-unionists of the state have already attained, or have definite expectations of attaining, this standard work-day. As the conditions of work in the building trades have always been found peculiarly favorable to the collective bargaining of the trade-unionist, they continued to lead the efforts to shorten the working hours. With the return of prosperity in the eight- ies, the carpenters re-organized and, as in previous years, the 04 Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Califor- nia, p. 92. 06 Ibid., pp. 177, 262, 560, 1422, 1423. 00 Constitution of California, Art. 20, Sec. 17. ^^^'^1 Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 217 shorter work-day soon became the chief object of their endeav- ors. The first move was for the eight-hour day on Saturday. This was achieved without opposition on September 1, 1882. On February 9, 1883, a resolution was passed to the effect that after May 1 they would abolish piece-work and adopt the nine- hour day. On March 30 they held a mass meeting in the interest of their movement."^' The new time-schedule went into effect on May 1 with very little opposition."* The Los Angeles car- penters obtained the nine-hour day a year later.''*" At about this time a number of the other building trades succeeded in obtaining this reduction in their working hours. ^^ The Knights of Labor were quite active at this time in the formation of organizations among the working people of the State. Their platform adopted in 1884 contained a declaration in favor of the eight-hour work-day,'^^ and no doubt it was a subject of frequent discussion in their educational meetings. The eight-hour day was also one of the earliest objects of the American Federation of Labor. The next important eight- hour campaign in California was a part of the national move- ment planned in the 1888 meeting of the Federation." At this meeting it was recommended that eight-hoiir leagues be organ- ized in all parts of the country for the purpose of carrying on an educational campaign in preparation for the general adoption of the shorter work-day. May first, 1890, was set as the date for the change. In accordance with this plan, a systematic agitation in favor of the shorter work-day was undertaken in California. A vigorous campaign was started in Los Angeles a few months prior to the organization of the San Francisco Bight-hour League.''^ The latter grew out of a mass meeting called by the OT Call, March 31, 1883, 3-6; April 28, 1883, 3-5. 68 Organized Labor, February 24, 1900. 68 Examiner, April 7, 1889. 70 I have been unable to find just when they made the change. Some may have nad it sooner. The Third Biennial Beport of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 134, reports the nine-hour day in a number of these trades when others were working ten hours. For the painters, see Call, May 10, 1883, 3-6. 71 Second Biennial Seport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 17-18. 72 Beport of St. Louis Meeting, American Federation of Labor, pp. 9, 30. 73 Examiner, March 31, April 7, 1889. 218 University of California Publications in Economics. ['Vol. 2 Federated Trades Council on June 2, 1889.'* The league, of which Joseph F. Valentine was president, was composed of dele- gates from the different unions and was purely educational in its aims.'^ At this time the San Francisco central body was supposed to represent the labor organizations of the entire Pacific Coast, and it made a much greater effort to assist the labor move- ment outside the city than it now does. Largely through the influence of the San Francisco league, the agitation in favor of the shorter work-day became quite general.'"' Hundreds of dollars were spent in the purchase of eight-hour literature, and branch leagues were organized in neighboring states and territories. The Eight-hour League continued its meetings as a separate organization for a year, during which its members lost no opportunity to interest their fellow-workers in the move- ment. It made a special effort to insure the success of the Labor Day celebration of the September following its inception, and held a mass meeting in February, 1890, in preparation for the prospective change. May 1, 1890, was set apart for labor demonstrations in both Europe and America. Its approach was dreaded as a probable day of riot and bloodshed in the Old World, but in the great cities of the United States the efforts of the workingmen to better their condition met with less opposition, and were not the occasion' for an apprehensive mustering of extra police and military protection. In California this May-day celebration created little excitement and no apprehension. In most in- stances the trades that had decided to adopt the shorter day at this time had already come to agreements with their em- ployers, so there were no large strikes to mark the day. In San Francisco only a few of the building trades" and the brewery workmen were prepared to demand a reduction in their hours at this time, though the president and some of the I* Coast Seamen's Journal, Minutes of Federated Trades Council, May 22, 27, June 5, 1889. '5 Ibid., July 2, 1889, February 26, 1890. '6 Article by Valentine, Examiner, May 4, 1890, p. 6. 77 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners were selected by the American Federation of Labor as the organization best prepared to malce the change. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 219 most active members of the Eight-hour League were metal trade workers. It was reported soon after the inauguration of the eight-hour campaign in Los Angeles that a large number of the contractors were willing to grant the reduction in hours,'^ so it is evident that the change was made there without friction. Such was also the case in San Francisco and Oakland.^'' Over ninety per cent, of the San Francisco contractors agreed to the reduction in hours without decrease of pay. It was reported that not more than fifty carpenters, both union and non-union, were obliged to resort to a strike to obtain their demands.'" The plumbers and gasfitters were also granted the shorter day on May 1. The brewery workmen had an organization with branches in California, Oregon, and Washington. Their hours had been very long — from ten to thirteen per day. They suc- ceeded in enforcing a demand for a nine-hour day at this time.'^ The Eight-hour League was not continued as a separate organization after the closing of the special campaign for the shorter working-day. The constitution of the Federated Trades Council was amended so that there would be a standing eight- hour committee, and the work of the League was transferred to this committee. '- EENEWED EFFOBTS TO ENFORCE THE BIGHT-HOUE LAW ON PUBLIC WORKS. The interest in the eight-hour movement, and the strength and influence of the labor organizations, led to a renewal of the efforts to enforce the state constitution and laws which required the eight-hour day for those employed on public works. The State Labor Commissioner reported frequent violation of these laws. The contractors either boldly proclaimed that the laws did not apply to them, or hired men by the hour and by this legal fiction evaded the law.*'' 78 Examiner, April 7, 1889. 70 Ihid., May 2, 1890. so Ibid., May 4, 1890, p. 6. 81 Ibid., May 2, 1890, p. 2. 82 Coast Seamen 's Journal, Minutes Federated Trades Council, Septem- ber 17, October 1, 1890. 83 Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 325, 327, 339, 340. Compare with the Seventh Biennial Beport of 1895-6, p. 92. 220 University of California Publications in Economics. ["^°l- 2 An eight-hour ordinance was passed in Los Angeles which declared, "It shall be unlawful for any contractor, by himself or through another, when having labor performed under any contract with the city, to demand, receive, or contract for more than eight hours' labor in one day from any person in his employ or under his control, with the promise or understanding that such person so laboring over eight hours shall receive a sum for said day's work more than that paid for a legal day's work." But the courts refused to permit this encroachment on the freedom of contract ; the law was held to be unconstitutional in the State Supreme Court. The judge quoted from Cooley the general rule that any person is at liberty to pursue any lawful calling not encroaching on the rights of others. He declared, "We cannot conceive of any theory upon which a city could be justified in making it a misdemeanor for one of its citizens to contract with another for services to be rendered, because the contract is that he shall work more than a limited number of hours per day. "^* The San Francisco labor organizations also made a vigorous effort to secure the enforcement of the eight-hour rule in the city work. The committee from the Federated Trades Council promptly investigated the complaint that men were working nine hours per day on the City Hall, and its chairman finally reported that the City Hall Commissioners had decided that in the future all work must be on a strictly eight-hour basis. *^ In his inaugural address of January, 1891, Governor Mark- ham spoke of the complaints of the evasion of the eight-hour statute which he had received from the labor organizations. He urged upon the state legislature the need of remedying the matter, if this failure was due to any inherent defect in the law.*" In 1895-1896 there was constant complaint of the violation of the law in municipal and county work. The State Labor Commissioner followed up these charges persistently, and was ^*Ex parte Kubaoh, 85 Cal. 274. 85 Minutes of Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen 's Journal, March 5, July 23, 1890; October 30, August 9, 1891. 86 Inaugural Address, Appendix, Journal Senate and Assembly, 29tli Sess., 1st Vol., p. 5. ■^^■^'^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 221 able in some instances to secure an observance of the law. He reports, "I have used my utmost endeavor to enforce the law, and in every instance where I have found a violation of the same I have insisted upon its being respected. In many in- stances contractors have immediately desisted, in other cases they have continued its violation, and disregarded my instruc- tions, while I have been powerless to remedy the difficulty, owing to the indefinite construction of the law. "When the contracts on the public work are drawn in accordance with the law, and the stipulation that eight hours shall constitute a day's work*^ is incorporated, the enforcement of the law is made easy, as the contractor would rather obey its provisions than take chances of having to sue for his pay- ment upon a contract the provisions of which he has violated. . . . I regret exceedingly to record the fact that in some instances those who are sworn officers of the law, and entrusted with the administration of public affairs, as well as making laws, have been violators of this section."** AMENDMENTS TO THE BIGHT-HOTJE LAW, 1899-1901. When in 1899 to 1900 the trade-unions regained their strength and infiuence, they hastened to make use of their new power to secure further legislation for the enforcement of the eight-hour work-day on all public improvements. In 1899 a new law was passed in the state legislature, which was an exact copy of the bill that the American Federation of Labor was then urging upon Congress. This made it unlawful for persons or corporations to require or permit any one in their employ engaged upon public work to labor more than eight hours in one day, except in case of emergency, where life or property was endangered, or in the construction of military defenses in time of war. The terms of the law were applicable to labor on any part of the public work, whether performed on the ground or elsewhere. Every contract must stipulate a penalty of ten dollars for each person for each and every day 87 They could omit this stipulation without invalidating the contract. See Bdbcoclc v. Goodrich, 47 Gal. 488. 88 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Laior Statistics, p. 92 ff. 222 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 in which he labored for more than eight hours, the money thus forfeited to be withheld from the money due under the con- tract.^^' The eight-hour legislation received further re-enforcement in 1901. The law of 1899 had not yet been tested in the courts,*" but an earlier decision had declared that a contract was not invalidated by the omission of the eight-hour stipulation,"^ and the new measure was evidently intended to safeguard that point. The act of 1901 declared that any contract "which does not contain the stipulation herein prescribed, shall be null and void, and no recovery shall be had thereupon. ' "^ In order to remove all doubts of the validity of the eight-hour legislation, this session of the legislature also passed a consti- tutional anlendment which was to be submitted to the people for ratification at the next election."^ This provided that, "The time of service of all laborers or workmen or mechanics em- ployed upon any public works of the State of California, or of any county, city and county, town, district, township, or any other political subdivision thereof, whether said work is done by contract or otherwise, shall be limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, except in eases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, fiood, or danger to life or property, or except to work upon military or naval works or defenses in time of war, and the legislature shall provide by law that a stipulation to this effect shall be incorporated in all contracts for public works, and prescribe proper penalties for the speedy and efficient enforcement of said law. ' ' When this amendment was ratified there was some question as to whether it applied to statutes already enacted, as it called for future legislation in its execution. To remove these doubts, the legislature of 1903 enacted an eight-hour law, the terms of , which were practically the same as those of the law of 1899."* 80 statutes of California, 1899, p. 149. Coast Seamen's Journal, Vol. XII, 18-7, 27-7. so Ninth Biennial Beport, Bureau Laior Statistics, pp. 64-66. 91 Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488. 82 Statutes of California, 1901, p. 562, Sec. 2. 93 IMd., pp. 959-960. oi Statutes of California, 1903, p. 119. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 223 The provisions of this statute have also been embodied in the new codes. "'^ These precautions to insure the validity of this class of legis- lation were necessary, as the California courts accepted these laws with great reluctance. In 1901 there were several Superior Court decisions in which the judges, on the authority of the Kubach case, declared the law unconstitutional."'^ We remember that in this case the Supreme Court held the Los Angeles eight- hour ordinance unconstitutional because of its violation of the freedom of contract." Judge Sloss declared that the only dif- ference between the Los Angeles ordinance and the state law of 1899 was that the former declared the offense a misdemeanor and punished by a fine, while the latter declared it unlawful, and affixed a penalty for each violation."^ The Superior Court cases of 1901 were not taken to the Supreme Court. The adoption of the amendment to the constitution in No- vember, 1902,°=' and a decision in the United States Supreme Court recognizing the validity of a Kansas law similar to that of California, completely established the authority of these laws for which the workingmen had contended for twenty-five years. The California judges had argued the question from the stand- point of the right of the individual to engage in any lawful calling, or to make contracts to do any lawful work, so long as he did not interfere with the rights of others, and because these laws interfered with the right of the individual to enter into contracts to render lawful services they were declared unconsti- tutional. Justice Harlan, in rendering his decision, approached the subject from an entirely different standpoint, — that of the right of the state to have its work done on terms established by its laws. He said, ' ' We rest our decision upon the broad ground that the work being of a public character, absolutely under the control of the State, and its municipal agents acting by its 0= Penal Code, 653c, Statutes of California, 1905, p. 666. 98 Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 32. 97 Ex parte Kubach, 85 Cal. 276. OS Emanuel v. Harbor Commissioners, Case No. 75322, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 99 Constitution of California, Art. XX. Sec. 17. 224 University of California Publications in Economics. V^ol. 2 authority, it is for the State to prescribe the conditions under which it will permit work of that kind to be done. Its action touching such matter is final so long as it does not, by its regu- lations infringe upon the personal rights of others, and that has not been done." He claimed that such a law did not encroach upon personal rights or liberties, because the right to do public work was not a part of the liberty of, the citizens of a state, and no one has any absolute right to do such work. "When a con- tractor undertakes such work, he has no right to violate his agreement with the state by doing what the statute under which he proceeds distinctly and lawfully forbids him to do.^"" LAWS EESTKICTING THE HOURS OF LABOR OF CERTAIN SPECIAL CLASSES OP WORKERS. Certain special classes of workers in California have had their hours of labor regulated by law on the ground that the restric- tion of the length of their work-day was necessary to insure the public safety. The first law of this kind was passed in 1887 for the regulation of the hours of labor of drivers, grip- men and conductors of street-cars. These employees of the dif- ferent San Francisco lines struck in 1885 for a reduction in hours and increased pay. It was claimed that this unfortunate class of workers was required to labor thirteen, fourteen, or even a greater number of hours. The next session of the legislature limited their hours of work to twelve, and punished the violation of the law by a fine of fifty dollars to be forfeited to the person prosecuting the aetion.^"^ In addition to the law regulating the hours of labor in the street-railway service, two others applicable to special classes of workers have been passed. In 1903 the policemen of the state were given the eight-hour day,^°^ and in 1905 the much-abused drug clerks were protected by a law requiring that their labors be confined to sixty hours in one week.^"' Attempts to pass 100 Atlcin V. Kansas, 191 U. S. 222, 224, decided November 30, 1903. 101 Statutes of California, 1887, p. 101. Pol Code, Sec. 3246-3250. The street-car men of San Francisco have since obtained the nine-hour day. 102 Statutes of California, 1903, p. 51. 103 ma., 1905, p. 28. ■^^-"^"^ Eaves : California Laior Legislation. 225 laws giving the eight-hour day to the women workers of the state have been unsuccessful."* BECEXT PEOGEESS OF THE EIGHT-HOUE DAY, 1900-1908. A number of the trade-unions have made use of the strong organizations developed since 1896 to gain the eight-hour day. The building trades have been particularly successful in these efforts to maintain the shorter working-day. By 1900 the unions whose members were engaged in the construction of buildings had attained the eight-hour day,^"^ and the San Francisco Build- ing Trades Council then undertook to help those workers who prepared the material for the buildings obtain the same favor- able conditions of labor. In August, 1900, the varnishers, pol- ishers, woodworkers and millmen demanded the eight-hour day. The first three crafts gained the desired concession without diffi- culty, but the mill-owners combined to oppose the change. After a few days the combination was broken, a few of the mills granting union hours. ^"^ The others held out for about six months. Finally the Building Trades Council established a large competing mill, and the mill-owners then agreed to arbitrate the difficulties. After six months' work at eight and a half hours per day, the millmen obtained their eight-hour day on June 1, 1901."^ The iron trades have had a much severer struggle to obtain their shorter day than the building trades. The machinists all over the United States struck for the nine-hour day on May 1, 1901."^ It is estimated that fifty thousand men took part in this strike."" The San Francisco unions represented in the Iron Trades Council demanded the nine-hour day at this time. About 230 shops, employing three thousand men, were involved in this strike. The men left their work on May 20. They soon 104 Made in 1905 and 1908. 105 Ninth Biennial Report, Bureau Labor Statistics, p. 98 ff. 106 Organized Labor, August 18, 1900. 107 iMd., October 27, November 10, 24, December 15, 1900; February 23, 1901. 108 lUd., May 25, 1901. 109 lUd., June 8, 1901. 226 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°^- 2 gave up all demands but that for the shorter work-day, and after a hard struggle lasting over two years the nine-hour day was fully established in these trades. ^^^ In August, 1906, the Iron Trades Council announced that its members were determined to attain that long-sought goal — the eight-hour day — on May 1, 1907. During the weeks prior to the time set for the change, committees of the council and Metal Trades Association held repeated conferences, but no agreement was reached. On the appointed day members of the unions represented in the council walked out of all shops refus- ing to concede their demands. The conferences of represent- atives of Iron Trades Council, and Metal Trades Association, together with representatives of the Civic League continued, and finally it was agreed to leave the drawing up of an agreement to Joseph F. Valentine, the president of the International Mold- ers' Union, and J. W. Kerr who acted as representative of the employers. ^^^ This agreement which was accepted by the con- tending parties provided for a reduction of fifteen minutes in the length of the work-day to take place at intervals of six months, the eight-hour day to be attained June 1, 1910. The first step in the consummation of this agreement was taken without friction on December 1, 1908. The members of the Iron Trades Council rejoice not only in the near prospect of the realization of their long-cherished ideal in the length of the work-day, but also in the fact that after forty years of bitter controversies their organizations are at last fully recognized, and the way seems open for the peaceful adjustment of trade dis- putes in place of the wasteful contests of the past.^" The printing trades have also obtained the standard work- day. The book and job printers made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain the nine-hour day in 1897. Their failure was largely due to the lack of sufficient financial support."^ At what was known as the Syracuse Convention, an agreement was made 110 Labor Clarion, March 10, 1903 ; April 10, 1903, p. 9. 111 A good summary of the history of this struggle is given in the Labor Clarion, September 1, 1908, p. 4. 112 ia&or Clarion, November 27, p. 8; December 4, p. 8; Coast Seamen's Journal, December 9, 1908, p. 6. 113 Labor Clarion, August 4, 11, 1905. ^^•^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 227 between the United Typothetae of America and the International Typographical Union by which the nine-hour day was to be granted to the' book and job printers on November 21, 1899. The San Francisco Typothetae repudiated this agreement. While the printers on the newspapers had an eight-hour day, those in the job and book printing offices continued to work ten hours."* Acting under instruction from the International, the San Francisco Union decided to inaugurate the nine-hour day on October 1, 1900."^ In 1903 these unions asked for an in- crease of wages, and after some negotiations the Typothetae agreed to a compromise by which there was to be a gradual decrease in the length of the working-day, and a slight addition to the wages. As a result of this agreement, the eight-hour day was obtained for the printers in the job and book printing offices on January 1, 1905."" The Citizens' Alliance was quite active at this time, and it was generally believed that the influence of this organization for cliecking concessions to the trade-unions had much to do with the subsequent attempts of the employers to return to the nine- hour day. As soon as the agreement expired by which the shorter working-day had been granted, the Typothetae declared that the reduced profits and the difficulty of competing with eastern firms, where the longer work-day prevailed, made it necessary to return at once to the former hours of work. This resulted in a lockout from many of the large job printing offices of the city. The Citizens ' Alliance and the individual employers made great efforts to import printers to take the place of the union members refusing to accept the new conditions of employ- ment, but they were unsuccessful. After about two months the union men and women returned to work with the eight-hour day fully recognized. The 1906 report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the printers in all the cities of the state except Los Angeles have the eight-hour working-day.^^^ The brewery workers are also among the groups of trade- unionists enjoying the standard work-day. The large brew- 114 Organized Labor, May 19, 1900. 115 nid., September 1, 1900. ^^B Labor Clarion, June 2, 1905. See also June 7, 9, 14, 21, July 28. 117 Twelfth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 88-150. 228 University of California Publications in Economics. \yo^- 2 eries of San Francisco and Portland granted the eight-hour day to their workmen in April, 1901.^" In some of the trades, as the sheet-metal workers, the upholsterers, and electricians, the eight-hour day has been obtained for a part of those employed. The Labor Commissioner estimates that in 1906 about 17 per cent, of the whole number of those employed in San Francisco and Oakland and 10.8 per cent, of those employed in Los Angeles had obtained the eight-hour day.^^" The establishment of strong labor organizations throughout the state has resulted since 1900 in a general movsment for the reduction of hours. The Labor Commissioner in his report for 1903-04 says that "Fewer hours of labor seem to be more desired by those who work than is more pay." Of the organi- zations replying to his inquiries, 68.7 per cent, showed a decrease in the hours of work without lessening of wages. In San Fran- cisco every organization reported a recent shortening of the working-day. In other cities the percentages showing decreases in the hours of labor were as follows : Sacramento, 75 per cent. ; Eureka, 50 per cent. ; Fresno, 75 per cent. ; Los Angeles, 35 per cent. ; San Diego, 50 per cent. Of those reporting changes 55 per cent, obtained a reduction from nine to eight hours, and the remainder, with one exception, from ten to nine hours. In 60 per cent, of the cases the reduction was due to agreements with the employers or union demands, 8 per cent, were won by strikes, and 10 per cent, were given voluntarily.^^" The report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1905-06 shows that in San Francisco 61 per cent, of the total number of employees of the city have the nine-hour day, and only 14 per cent, work ten hours. The conditions of work in Oakland, Alameda, and Berkeley are similar to those in San Francisco. In Los Angeles, where the employers have been more successful in fighting the trade-unions, 41.4 per cent, work nine hours, and 35.9 per cent, still have the ten-hour day.'^^ It seems probable that in a few years all the wage-workers of California will attain that long- desired blessing — the eight-hour day. 118 Organized Labor, April 20, 1901. ii[> Twelfth Biennial Report, Burea^i Labor Statistics, pp. 99, 109, 115. 120 Eleventh Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 96. 121 Twelfth Biennial Report, Bureau Labor Statistics, pp. 99, 109, 115. ^^^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 229 CHAPTEE VIII. LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WAGES OF LABOR. GENEEAL HISTOEY OP THIS CLASS OP LEGISLATION. A mechanics ' lien law was enacted in 1850 by the first session of the California legislature, and many subsequent sessions have renewed the efforts to render more secure the payment of the wages of labor. Some of these laws were passed at one session only to be repealed at another, but throughout the history of this legislation we find decided progress towards the completest possible protection of the rights of the wage-workers, and no substantial gain of this kind has ever been allowed to slip from their grasp. It is difficult if not impossible to discover the sources of the innumerable measures of this kind that have been presented in the legislature. The laws give protection to material-men and sub-contractors, as well as to laborers, and doubtless many of the amendments were prompted by the former classes of claimants. Other changes are directly traceable to decisions of the Supreme Court, which have always given a strict interpretation of the scope of measures of this kind. Additional clauses or sections have been added when it was found that, with this literal con- struction, the laws failed to give the protection for which they were intended. From the standpoint of the protection afforded the wages of labor, by far the most important of these enactments were the laws passed in 1868. The mechanics' lien law, and the supple- mentary measure for the protection of the wages of labor passed at that time, contain all the more essential features of the laws for the protection of wages now embodied in the California codes. Subsequent additions to this class of legislation have aimed at securing the adequate enforcement of the intent of these earlier laws, rather than the addition of important new features. An adequate mechanics' lien law is said to have been the chief object of the first attempt at a federated labor movement 230 University of California Publications in Economics. ['Vol. 2 in 1863-64.1 While the securing of the eight-hour working-day was the principal aim of the vigorous and extensive organized activities of 1866 to 1869, the two other measures for the pro- tection of wages which were passed at the same time as the eight- hour law received their full share of attention. It has been noted that in 1866 the trade-unions made a well-planned but unsuccessful effort to pass an eight-hour law. A mechanics' lien law was also presented at this session of the legislature, but it was a crude, badly drawn bill, which failed of passage. The defeats of 1866 only served to stimulate the labor organ- izations to greater activities. We have already traced the his- tory of the efforts made in 1867 to initiate the eight-hour day by the actions of different trade-unions, and the first entrance of these organizations into the political activities of the state, together with the campaign of the Workingmen's Convention by which candidates for the legislature were pledged to the support of labor legislation. These activities, which marked the culmination of the first great labor movement of the state, won for future generations of California wage-workers the three important laws of 1868: the eight-hour law, the mechanics' lien law, and the act for the protection of wages. As a part of this state campaign, an address was issued in the name of the .Industrial League, presenting the views of the workingmen on the subject of labor legislation needed in Cali- fornia. One of the resolutions declared that the adoption of a mechanics' lien law, the mode of application of which would be perfectly intelligible to every workingman in the state, was a reform that had been long desired and sorely needed. The eastern lien law was criticized as being "so heavily invested by cumbersome machinery of law, and its principal provisions so clamped, as it were, by legal technicalities, as to render its work- ings of little account save to lawyers and dishonest contractors. ' ' 1 The Alta in an editorial of June 2, 1868, says, "About seven years since a Trades Union was organized in the East which intended to include in its councils representatives from every state. A body was formed in California to take part in this Union, but -it fell to pieces in 1864. It devoted all its energies to the passage of a mechanics' lien law in which it failed." Mechanics' lien laws were passed in 1850, 1853, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1861, 1862, and 1864. But the Act of 1868 was the first one entirely satisfactory to the working people. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 231 They expressed their conviction that "a less expensive article" could be used with the same effect, thereby saving time, money, and trouble. The platform set forth their determination to use that power which, as citizens, they possessed, to secure at the earliest possible period the passage of a law "simple in its workings, honest in its conclusions, equitable in its provisions — in fact, a law which will protect the workingmen from any and all infringements attempted by dishonest men who thrive at the expense of honest labor. "^ The workingmen seem to have considered that the law passed in 1868 fulfilled these requirements in a fairly satisfactory way, for in the following year the pledge presented for the endorse- ment of candidates for political offices had, among other require- ments, this section:^ "The Lien Law is all-important to the best interests of laboring men and persons furnishing materials for building, and we believe the present law a good one. Will you vote against' the repeal of the Lien Law, or anj^ amendment calculated to weaken its present force and effect?" That their fears of a repeal were not unfounded is evident from the fact that several sections of the law were omitted from the codes of 1872, but Avere re-enacted two years later. The Workingmen 's Party of 1877-78 included among its minor aims the demand for "a perfect mechanics' lien law." A section was inserted in the new constitution adopted in 1879 which charged the legislature with the duty of providing by law for the speedy and efficient enforcement of the liens to which mechanics, material men, artisans, and laborers of every class were declared entitled.* While a few changes were made in the laws on this subject in 1880 and 1883, the legislature made no serious efforts to fulfill this obligation until 1885, when a number of important amendments and additions were made. This was a year of great activity on the part of the labor organizations^ The Knights of Labor were then at the height of their popularity and influence. Twenty-five assemblies had been organized in 2 Alta, June 2, 1867. 3 Ibid., August 21, 1869. 4 Constitution of California, Art. XX, See. 15. 232 University- of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 California, and their influence extended to all parts of the state. The passage of an effective mechanics' lien law was one of the aims enumerated in their declaration of principles, and it is probable that their influence helped secure the substantial addi- tions made to the laws at this time. Numerous less important changes have been made in the laws for the protection of wages since 1885, so that at the present time these laws give the com- pletest possible guarantee that the workers of California will receive the wages which they have earned.^ The foregoing brief survey will give a general idea of the history of this important branch of the labor legislation of Cali- fornia. We are now prepared to make a more detailed study of the provisions of these laws, showing at just what periods the sections having the greatest significance for the wage-workers were enacted. We will first consider the mechanics' lien laws, or those giving the wage-worker a claim on the property whose value has been increased by his labor, and will follow this with a summary of other laws which have sought to give further protection to wages. LINES or DEVELOPMENT OF THE MECHANICS' LIEN LAWS. In examining the mechanics' lien laws from the standpoint of their value to the wage-worker, we can trace development along four different lines : 1. Extent in the application of the laws allowing mechanics' liens. 2. Provisions to make secure property or funds which can be depended on to furnish the money necessary for the payment of the wages due. 3. Simplification and lessening of the cost of the legal process by which the lien can be obtained and enforced. 4. Provisions of the laws making wages the preferred claim in tht division of the proceeds of the sale of the property, or of funds available for the satisfaction of the liens. s These sections of the California codes have been amended in 1887, 1889, 1893, 1897, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1905, and 1907. The amendments to the codes of 1901 were declared unconstitutional because of a defect in the enacting clause of the bill. Lewis v. Dunne, 134 Cal. 291, 66 Pao. 478. l^l*^] Eaves: California Lalor Legislation. 233 EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF LIEN LAWS. The first law of this kind enacted in 1850 allowed a me- chanics' lien only for work done on a building or wharf." The law of 1853 added "bridges, ditches, flumes, or aqueducts con- structed to create hydraulic power, or for raining purposes,"^ to the list of properties on which liens could be acquired. This amendment was soon repealed; the law of 1855 allowing such claims on a "building, wharf or other superstructure."^ In this year a section was also added allowing a lien "when any person shall have made an express contract in writing with the owner of any lot or lots, in any incorporated city or town to grade or improve the same, or the street in front of or adjoining the same, and shall go on and complete the said grading or im- proving of the said lot, etc."" In 1857 the bridges, ditches, flumes, and aqueducts were once more subject to liens, ^'' and fences and machinery were added to the list in 1862." Two important lines of work, the construction of wagon roads and railroads, received this protection in 1864,^^ and services on mining claims were included in 1868. In this year the list stood : mining claim, building, wharf, bridge, ditch, flume, tunnel, fence, machinery, wagon road, aqueduct to create hydraulic power for mining or other purposes, or any other structure or superstruc- ture.^^ It would seem that this should have been sufficiently inclusive, but it was found necessary to add "well" in 1899. ^^ The section of the law allowing a lien for improvements on a lot in an incorporated city or town has also had further de- velopments. The law of 1868 provided that "Any person who 6 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 211. I Ibid., 1853, p. 202-3. » Ibid., 1855, p. 156. 9 76 if/., 1855, Sec. 2. 10 Ibid., 1857, p. 84. II Ibid., 1862, p. 384. 12 Ibid., 1864, p. 465. 13 Ibid., 1868, p. 589. This list was embodied in the Code of Civil Pro- cedure of 1872, Sec. 1183, and has been retained ever since. 1* Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1899, p. 33. The courts have held that this applies to wells for oil and also for water. (Farke # L. Co. v. Inter Nos 0. # D. Co., 147 Cal. 493.) 234 University of California Publications in Economics. L^"*- 2 shall at the request of the owner^^ of any lot in any incorporated city or town, grade, fill in, or otherwise improve the same or tho street in front of or adjoining the same, shall have a lien on such lot for his work done and materials furnished in grading, filling in or otherwise improving the same."^'' In 1885 this was amended by the addition of "sidewalk in front of or ad- joining the same, ' ^" and two years later, the law permitted liens for work done in the construction of "any areas, or vaults, or cellars, or rooms, under said sidewalks. ' '^* A further recognition of this principle that the land is chargeable with the improvement made upon it is found in the provision which has been a part of all the mechanics' lien laws, to the effect that the land on which the improvement is situated is also subject to the lien. The law of 1850^" stipulated that it should apply to the land on which the improvement was made and the space around it, not exceeding five hundred square feet. In 1856^" this was changed to apply to the land on which the improvement was situated and such additional space as was necessary for its convenient use.^^' If the person authorizing the improvement was only a part owner, or owned less than a fee simple, then his interest was chargeable with the lien. These provisions have been retained since that time.^^ The theory behind all these lien laws is that such claims 15 The statute of 1862, p. 389, Sec. 21, reads, "When any person shall make an express contract in writing for grading lots or street, etc. ' ' 16 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 591, Sec. 9. 1' Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 145. 18 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1887, p. 155. The law of 1887 read, "Any person who at the request of the reputed owner of any lot, etc.," so a later amendment was necessary to make the law read, "owner or reputed owner." The Supreme Court has decided that this section is unconstitutional in so far as it purports to authorize the creation of a lien upon land by virtue of a contract for improvement of the street adjacent thereto entered into with one who is only the reputed owner of the land, so as to affect the interest of the real owner therein. (Santa Cruz Bock F. Co. v. Lyons, 117 Cal. 213.) 19 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 212, Sec. 6. 20 76,(2., 1856, p. 204, Sec. 4. 21 Tibbatts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208. Green v. Chandler, 54 Cal. 626. Lo- thian V. Woods, 55 Cal. 159. Cowan v. Griffith, 108 Cal. 224. 22 When the lien can be satisfied by the sale of the building apart from the land, the California laws have permitted such sale and removal from the land. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 235 should be enforced because labor or materials actually bestowed upon the property have increased its value. The courts have refused to allow a lien where such was not the case. Thus it has been decided that a watchman who guards the property,^' a cook who prepares food for the men making the improve- ments/* and the teamster who hauls the material to the building^^ are not entitled to mechanics' leins to enforce the payment of their wages. An apparent exception to this rule is the lien allowed for work in mines, as the amendment of 1903 expressly states that the lien shall be allowed for the development by substractive process, as well as for constructive work.-" Liens granted for labor performed on some one section extend to the whole property involved. Thus a carpenter's lien is not on the part of the building that he erected, but on the whole structure ; the labor of the miner gives him a claim on the entire mining property, including the works owned and used by the owners for the reduction of the ores,^'' and the courts have held that the liens of laborers for work on an eighty-acre tract being developed for oil attach to the whole property.^^ It has been found necessary to modify this ruling, however, in some cases of liens for labor on irrigating canals. The claim has been enforced against the section of the canal on which the labor was performed.^" This would seem to establish a precedent for a similar ruling in the case of railroads, though the past decisions have held that the liens apply to the whole road.^" The courts will not enforce mechanics' liens against public property.^^ The laws also limit the application of the lien allowed under certain conditions. Where the work is in charge 23 Williams v. Haivley, 144 Cal. 97, 99. Si McCormicls v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 40 Cal. 185. 25 Wilson V. Nugent, 125 Cal. 280, 284. •i^ Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1903, p. 84-6; Jurgenson v. Diller, 114 Cal. 493; Beese v. Bald Mt. G. M. Co., 133 Cal. 289. 27 Amendments to the Codes of California, 1885, p. 143, Sec. 1183. 28 Berentz v. Belmont Oil Co., 84 Pao. 47. 29 Pac. Moiling Mill Co. v. Bear Valley Tr. Co., 120 Cal., pp. 94, 100-1. 30 Cox V. Western B. B. Co., 44 Cal. 18, 28. Bringham v. Knox' 127 Cal. 40, 43. 31 Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 112. Bates \. Santa Bar- bara, 90 Cal. 543. 236 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 of a contractor the liens for improvements can be enforced only to the extent of the contract price.^^ If the improvements are being made on property that has been leased, or without the authority of the owner, he may prevent the attachment of liens to his land or interest in the property by posting a written notice, or filing and recording such a notice, disclaiming all re- sponsibility, within ten days of the time when he obtains knowl- edge of such improvements.^'' Mining machinery placed in a claim under lease can be protected in the same way. It is not subject to liens for labor in the mines if the lessor files his lease and posts a notice within ten days stating that the property belongs to the lessor and is not subject to liens.^* FUNDS TO PAY LIEN CLAIMS. Having considered the development in the extent of appli- cation of the lien laws, we now turn to the second important topic, — the provisions for securing the property and funds from which the wages due can be paid. In the absence of a valid contract, the law always assumes the simpler, direct relationship between the owner and those who are performing the labor or furnishing the material for the improvement of his property, and charges him with the respon- sibility for meeting the claims that may arise.^^^ Since 1868 the law has provided that the person in charge of the property shall be held to be the agent of the owner, so that a lien on the prop- erty can arise from improvements under his direction unless the owner posts the formal notice disclaiming responsibility.^" In many cases a lien on the property would not be worth much if it were necessary for it to take its chances of payment 32 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1885, t). 143, See. 1183. 33 The earlier laws provided that this notice must be filed in three days. Act of 1867-8, p. 590, See. 4. Amendment to the Codes, 1874, p. 411. This time was extended to the amendments of 1907, p. 577, See. 1192. 34 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 577, Sec. 1192. 35 For what constitutes a valid contract see Statutes and Amendments, 1885, p. -143, 1887, p. 152, Sec. 1183. 36 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 590, See. 4. This provision was con- tained in Sec. 1186 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1872, and appears as Sec. 1192 of later Codes. J Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 237 in competition with many other incumbrances. Beginning with the amendments to the lien laws in 1856, the California legis- lators have sought to give the liens allowed by law preference over all other claims on the property that may accrue after the work on the improvements has commenced. It was evidently somewhat difficult to secure the recognition of this principle. The law of 1856 says that the owner is not bound to answer attachments until the liens against the property are satisfied.^' A year later an amendment provided that liens should be given preference over mortgages or other encumbrances not recorded prior to the commencement of the work,^^ but this was repealed a month after its enactment. The next session of the legislature re-enacted the provisions that ' ' liens created by this act shall be preferred to every other lien or encumbrance which shall have attached upon the said property subsequent to the time at which the work was commenced or the first of the materials were fur- nished ; and also to all mortgaiges and other, /_ fieumbra^aees unre- corded at the time such work was commenced" or the first of such materials were furnished,"^" and this section has remained on the California statute books ever since. In our complex industrial life, the owner is rarely in imme- diate charge of the improvements made on his property; the wage-workers have no direct relations ^vith him, but are em- ployed by contractors and sub-contractors. This has greatly complicated the problem of furnishing legal protection for the wages of labor. An intricate body of regulations has- been de- veloped in the effort to compel these subordinates to meet their obligations, without placing any unjust burdens on the property of their innocent employer. The laws have always recognized the injustice of compelling the owner to pay twice for the same work,^° and so a number of measures have been passed which 37 statutes of California, 1856, p. 203-4 38 Ibid., 1857, pp. 58, 178. 30 Ibid., 1858, p. 226, Sec. 3. 40 The amendment to the code passed in 1880 in response to the de- mand of the Workingmen's Party for a law giving a perfect lien on the property that had received the improvement is the only instance of the requirement that the owner pay the lien claims irrespective of the sum due the contractor. (Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, p. 63. O'Donnell v. Kramer, 65 Cal. 353.) The courts refused to allow any such lien beyond the amount due the contractor. 238 University of Calif prnia Puhlications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 authorize or compel the withholding of a part of the contract price as a fund for the satisfaction of the liens of laborers or material-men. In the earlier lien laws the owner was required to retain the funds necessary to pay the claims of laborers when he received notice that they were due. Laborers, material-men, and sub- contractors were required to file their accounts with the County Recorder within thirty days of the completion of the work, and give notice to the owner of the intention to hold such a lien on the property. It then became the duty of the owner to with- hold from the contractor the money so claimed.*^ This fund was generally left in the hands of the owner until the disputed claims were settled, but the law of 1862 ordered the money deposited with the County Clerk.*^ If the owner were prompt in his payment of the contractor,*^ then there would be no out- standing fund of money due for the work. Since the law never compelled the owner to pay twice, or to pay a larger sum than that for which he had contracted, there would be no way of charging the property with a lien to pay the debts incurred by the contractor, and the defrauded laborer or material-man would have no recourse but a personal action. Thus in cases where there was collusion between dishonest owners and con- tractors, the purpose of the lien laws was easily defeated by an early payment of the entire contract price. Various legal expedients have been tried in the effort to pre- vent the suffering of laborers and material-men due to the promptness of the owner in discharging his obligations to the contractor. In 1862 an amendment to the mechanics' lien law provided that payments made by the employer prior to the time when they were due under the original contract, for the purpose *i statutes of California, 1850, pp. 211-2. Also Statutes of 1855, 1856, 1858, 1862. ■12 Statutes of California, 1862, p. 385, Sec. 5. The laborer or material man must give a written notice prior to the time when the money is due the contractor. If he admits the validity of the claim, then the owner shall pay it. Where the claim is disputed, then the money due the con- tractor is to be deposited with the County Clerk. Where the amount deposited is not suflaeient to pay claims then a pro rata proportion is to be paid. 43 The notice must be given to the owner before he pays the contractor. (McAlpine v. Duncan, 16 Cal. 127, 1860.) 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 239 of defeating any lien of a laborer or material-man, were to be deemed fraudulent and void as against them.** The law of 1868 tried another plan for meeting the difficulty. It provided that when such claims were filed the contractor should defend at his own expense all such suits, and that the judgments and costs of the suits should be paid from the money withheld by the owner, and due by the terms of the original agreement to the contractor. The act also stipulated "If the amount of such judgments and costs shall exceed the amount due by him to the contractor, or if the owner shall have settled with the contractor in full, he shall be entitled to recover back from the contractor any amount so paid by him, the said owner, in excess of the contract price, and for which the contractor was originally the party liable."*^ This section was omitted from the codes of 1872, but was re-enacted in 1874.*° However, it did not meet the difficulty, for the courts continu.ed to enforce the rule that no lien could be collected except from the unpaid balance due the contractor,*' and there was no way to compel the owner to pay and then recover from the contractor. The new constitution declared that "Mechanics, material- men, artisans, and laborers of every class shall have a lien upon the property upon which they have bestowed labor or furnished material, for the value of such labor done and material fur- nished ; and the Ijegislature shall provide by law for the speedy and efficient enforcement of such liens."*' The legislature undertook to fulfill this obligation in 1880 by passing a law to the effect that such liens should not be affected by the fact that no money is due or to become due, on any contract made by the owner with any other party.*'' But, as in previous years, the courts held that, where there was a valid contract, this measured the owner's liability. If no notice of the claim of a 4i Statutes of California, 1862, p. 387, Sec. 10. 45 IMd., 1867-8, p. 592, See. 11. m Amendments to the Codes, 1873-4, p. 411. 47 Whittier v. Wilbur, 48 Cal. 175 (1874). Senton v. Conly, 49 Cal. 185 (1874). Wells V. Cahn, 51 Cal. 423 (1876).. This last decision expressly declares that the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure of 1874 did not change this rule. Ibid., 424. 48 Constitution of California, Art. XX, Sec. 15. 49 Amendments to the Codes, 1880 C. C. P. 63. 240 University of California Pitblications in Economics. U^o^- 2 laborer or sub-contractor had been given him in time to enable him to withhold the amount necessary for its payment, there was no way of compelling him to pay more than the sum that was still due on his contract.^" The legislators again attacked the problem in 1885, ~ and succeeded at last in finding a solution that would insure the retention of a fund to pay the debts of the contractor without working any manifest injustice to the owner of the property. This has been achieved by requiring: (1) The recording of the original contract. (2) The withholding of a part of the pay- ments due. (3) A delay in the final payment. Since the amendments of 1885, the law requires that in all eases where the amount involved exceeds $1000 there shall be a written contract. This contract must conform in its terms to the provisions of the law, and must be subscribed by the parties thereto and recorded before the work commences, other- wise it is void and there can be no recovery on it by either party. In the absence of a valid contract, the labor done and materials furnished by all persons except the original contractor are deemed to have been furnished at the personal instance of the owner, and entitle such Creditors to a lien on the property.''^ As to the terms of the contract, the law provides that no part of the contract price shall be paid in advance, but that it shall be made payable in installments, at specified times, after the commencement of the work, or on the completion of specified portions of the work; provided that twenty-five per cent, of the contract price shall he payable thirty-five days after the com- pletion of the work. Any paj'ment made before it is due by the 50 Whittier v. Eollister, 64 Cal. 283. O'Dminell v. Kramer, 65 Cal. 353. 51 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 143, See. 1183. The law of 1885 required that plans and specifications be filed with the contract, but after the amendment of 1887 it was only necessary to file a memorandum containing the information called for in the law. {Beed v. Norton, 90 Cal. 590. Willamette L. & M. Co. v. Los Angeles C. Co., 94 Cal. 229.) No action to recover damages where contract is void for non-record- ation. (Palmer v. White, 70 Cal. 220.) Mechanics' lien exists only by virtue of compliance with the statute which creates it. Where the contract is void, the contractor can claim no implied right to a lien, which, had the written contract been properly filed, he might have recovered under it. (Morris v. Wilson, 97 Cal. 646-7.) ^910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 241 terms of the contract is not valid to defeat liens on the prop- erty. ^^ Yet another safeguard was provided. In case the laborer or material-man fears that the twenty-five per cent, reserve fund will not be sufficient to meet all the claims, he may give the owner written notice of labor performed or material furnished, and it then becomes the duty of the owner to withhold the money necessary to pay the claims. ^^ One part of the law of 1885 was omitted from the later statutes; probably because it was deemed unnecessary because the same object was attained by the rulings of the courts. It provided that where notice had been given, the owner must withhold the funds to pay the claim of the laborer or material- man until such notice was by writing withdrawn, and in addi- tion stipulated that "all money paid thereafter by the owner to the contractor, or such other person, while such notice is in force, shall for the purpose of all liens of all persons, except that of the contractor, be deemed a payment prior to the time the same was due within the meaning of and subject to the provisions of this section."'"* The mechanics ' lien law of 1885 contained still another section which sought to provide a fund for the payment of debts in- curred by contractors. This required that every contract filed ^'^ Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 144, See. 1184. Merced Lumber Co. v. Bruschi, 152 C'al. 372, .374, is a recent ease where the agreement to pay on completion of the building was held to be a substantial violation of the statute. The payment of the entire contract price did not, in this ease, relieve the owner from the penalty imposed for the benefit of one who was not paid by the contractor. ^^ Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 144, Sec. 1184. Notice to the owner which may be given under this section as amended in 1885 is not a notice of a lien, which is to be recorded. Such a notice to the owner is an extra precaution on the claimant's part, and it is optional with him whether he "give it or not. {Jewell v. McKay, 82 Gal. 149.) Under the mechanics' lien law prior to the amenamont adopted in 1885, service of notice did not affect the rights of the parties, nor impose upon the owner the diity of retaining a portion of the contract price to satisfy anj' lien which the sub-contractor might subsequently file. {Mc- Ciiiits V. Bush, 70 Cal. 125.) Such a notice may be given to the owner of a public building. The right to the claim is not dependent on the legality of the contract. (Bates v. Santa Barbara Co., 90 Cal. 543. Buss L. 4~ M. Co. V. Garrettson, 87 Cal. 749.) SI Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 145. 242 University of Calif orma Publications in Economics. [Vol- 2 under the provisions of the act should be accompanied by a bond in an amount equal to at least twenty-five per cent, of the contract price. By its terms this bond was to inure to the benefit of the persons who performed the labor for, or fur- nished material to the contractor. The failure to require this bond rendered the contractor and owner jointly and severally liable to damages to any and all material-men, laborers, and sub-contractors entitled to liens upon the property afiEected by the contract. ^^ This section of the law was repealed in 1887,^" and reenaeted in 1893.'^^ The Supreme Court has held this * requirement of the law to be unconstitutional, claiming that there is no reason why those who contract to erect buildings should be compelled to secure their contracts by bonds, while those making contracts in innumerable other matters are not sub- jected to this burden. It was also held that this requirement placed an unreasonable restraint upon the owner in the use of property, and that it was an unnecessary and unreasonable restriction upon the power to make contracts. ^^ The law enacted in 1897 for the protection of employees of contractors, persons, companies, or corporations, engaged on public works has a similar requirement. As has been pointed out, no lien can accrue against public property, so it is necessary to furnish some other means of protecting those who are em- ployed on such improvements. By this law those who are awarded contracts for public work are required to furnish for each undertaking of this kind a bond in a sum not less than half the total amount payable by the terms of the contract. The sureties of the bond guarantee the payment of such debts of the contractor as are properly filed.^^ The law passed in 1899 required a similar bond for all contracts for street and sewer work in municipalities. °° The decision of the Supreme Court which refused to sanction s"' statutes of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 147. 66 Ihid., 1887, p. 155. 67 Ibid., 1893, p. 2013. 58 Gibbs V. Tally, 133 Cal. 373, 377. Shaughnessy v. Am. S. Co., 138 Cal. 543, 545. 5» Statutes of California and Amendments, 1897, pp. 201-2. 00 Ibid., 1899, p. 23. -^^■^•^J Eaves: California Labor LegislaUo7i. 243 the section of the law of 1885 making the requirement of a bond obligatory, does not operate to prohibit the taking of a bond, when the owner wishes such additional security. Such bonds are often given and the courts will enforce the bond, even when the contract is void for want of conformity to the statutory requirements. The bond given by contractors on public works is necessary for the protection of their employees, as the law does not allow the customary liens. The right of the legislature to require that public offleials shall take such a bond does not seem to have been questioned by the courts. Another requirement of the law which in an indirect way operates to insure the value of the property against which the lien may accrue, is the one preventing the interruption of the work by attachments on the material intended for use in the building or other improvements. This provision was first en- acted in 1862,"^ and was also a part of the law of 1868.'*^ It was omitted from the code of 1872, but was re-enacted as an amendment in 1874."''' Its object is the prevention of the at- tachment of the materials about to be used in the contemplated improvements, for any debt except that incurred in their pur- chase, so long as in good faith such materials are about to be applied to the construction, alteration, or repair of the building, mining claim, or other property.*^* Our study of these sections of the mechanics' lien laws shows that, as the result of years of effort and development, the laws of California guarantee a fund or property for the payment of any laborer or material-man who complies with the legal re- quirements necessary for the protection of his rights. The claim of the laborer or material-man to a share of this fund, or of the proceeds of the sale of the property, must be established by a definite legal process. Our next topic of discussion is the history of the development of the relatively simple and inex- pensive process by which the claim to a share of the funds re- served for such payments may be established. 01 Statutes of California, 1862, p. 384. 62 nid., 1867-8, p. 589. 63 Amendments to Codes, 1873-4, p. 412, Sec. 1196. 64 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1196. 244 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol. 2 THE LEGAL PROCESS BY WHICH MECHANICS' LIENS ARE OBTAINED AND ENFORCED. The process of enforcing claims under the first mechanics' lien law was so difficult, intricate, and expensive, that the law must have been practically useless for the wage-worker. In cases where he was employed by a contractor, it was necessary that his claim be endorsed by his employer before it was presented to the owner of the property on which the lien was to accrue. If this endorsement were refused, suit must be brought against the contractor within thirty days. The law then provided, "If he obtains judgment against his employer, he shall lose his lien for the amount thereof, unless within thirty days thereafter he shall commence an action against the owner for the amount estab- lished by the judgment, if the money be then due from the owner to the contractor, if not, then he shall file in the Recorder's office of the county in which the building or wharf is situated a notice of said claim and judgment, and shall commence his action against the owner within thirty days after the money is due from the owner to the contractor. "°° As the refusal of the employer or contractor to pay generally implies his unwillingness to endorse such a claim, two law-suits and one formal recorded document were necessary to obtain the redress afforded by this law. There were no provisions whereby the employer was charged with the costs of this expensive process, so it is obvious that wage-workers would rarely seek relief in this way. The require- ment that the employer should endorse the claim was soon dropped from the law; the statute of 1855 merely specifying that the claim be filed and notice given the owner within five days."" It would hardly be profitable to follow through the various statutes all the changes in the legal process by which the right to a mechanics' lien was established. Instead, we shall briefiy outline the more important amendments which have made it easier for laborers and material-men to obtain the protection of 60 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 212, Sec. 4. eo Statutes of California, 1855, p. 157. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 245 the law."'' For this purpose we shall group the provisions of the laws under five heads: (1) Time of filing the claim. (2) Form of the document filed or of the notice given the owner. (3) Time of commencement of the suit. (4) The costs of the legal protection. (5) Forfeiture of the right to the lien. (1) Time of -filing claims. All the California statutes- have provided that the claim of the original contractor must be filed within sixty days of the completion or cessation of the work, and that of sub-contractors, material-men, mechanics, or laborers, within thirty days of sucli completion, or cessation from work.°^ Many liens have been lost because of the failure to file the claim at the right time."" The courts require a strict conformity to the law, and refuse to recognize the validity of a lien recorded before the completion of the work, or after the time allowed by the statutes. It is often difficult to determine jusf when the building is completed. Then, too, there are cases where the structure is left in an unfin- ished condition, or where the contractor abandons his contract leaving the work incomplete and his creditors unpaid. It is necessary that the law clearly define what constitutes completion of the building so that there can be no doubt about the time of filing of the lien. This was attempted in 1887, by an amendment which pro- vided that any trivial imperfections in the work should not be «" The courts have decided that the actual performance of the work entitles a person to such a lien. In Ah Louis v. Earwood, 140 Cal. 500, 504-6, the court ruled, ' ' Of course, the laborer must do the work for which he claims the lien on the property sought to be charged therewith, and when he does this he has complied with the law — he has performed labor upon the premises . . The owner cannot protect it from statu- tory liens, except he give the statutory notice or some notice equivalent thereto. " 88 Since the amendments of 1897, the provisions of this section of the code are somewhat contradictory. The usual thirty and sixty days are specified, and then it is also provided that, "All claims of lien must be filed within ninety days after the completion of said building, improve- ment, or structure, or the alteration, addition to, or repair thereof. ' ' This evidently applies to eases where the owners have not filed the notice of completion. (Buell v. Broivn, 131 Cal. 158.) Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1187. 63 Premature filing confers no rights. (Perry v. Brainard, 8 Pac. 882. Eoylance v. San Luis H. Co., 74 Cal. 273. French v. Powell, 135 Cal. 636. Willamette S. M. L. Co. v. Los Angeles C. Co., 94 Cal. 299.) 246 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 deemed such a lack of completion as to prevent the filing of the lien, and, in case of contracts, the occupation or use of the building or improvement by the owner or his representative, or the acceptance by the owner or his agent of the building or improvement, should be deemed conclusive evidence of comple- tion; or the cessation of labor for thirty days upon any unfin- ished contract or building should be deemed equivalent to its completion for the purposes of filing the claim for a lien.'" Finally in 1897 the entire responsibility of determining just when the work is done, and when the time for filing liens com- mences, was thrown upon the owner of the property on which the labor is performed. Within ten daj-^s after the completion of the improvements, or forty days after the cessation of labor upon any unfinished contract, he must file for record in the office of the County Recorder a notice stating when such building was actually completed, or the date of cessation from labor. The notice must also contain the names and the nature of the title of the person who caused the improvement to be made, and a description of the property sufficient for identification. If the owner neglects to file this notice, he forfeits the right to defend himself from paying any lien by claiming that the lien was not filed in time.'^ As the law now stands, there need be no uncertainty either about the time of filing or the contents of the notice for a lien, since the owner is required to file in the public records all the information necessary to insure a full compliance with the con- ditions prescribed for the establishment of a valid lien on the property, or a claim to payment from the fund which the owner is required to withhold from the contractor. (2) Form of the document filed, or of the notice to the owner. The California legislation also shows development in the direction of a liberal construction of the requirements necessary 70 statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1886-7, p. 155. '1 If the owner fails to file and record the notice of cessation of labor, the time of filing the lien is not indefinitely postponed. It must be filed within 120 days of the cessation of labor; the thirty days that the law counts as equivalent to completion, and the additional ninety days which is the limit of the time allowed for filing the lien. (Buell v. Brown, 131 Cal. 158, 161.) ^^^'^1 Eaves: California Lahor Legislation. 247 to insure the validity of the document filed in support of the lien claim, or of the notice to the owner. This development is observable not only in the actual provisions of the laws, but also in the disposition of the courts to construe liberally such parts of the laws as are intended to furnish relief from any pos- sible injustice. The well-recognized rule is, a strict construction of the parts of the law on which depend the right to the exist- ence of the lien, and a liberal construction of the remedial portions. ■'- The contents of the claim filed in the Recorder's office have been practically the same under all the laws: (1) A statement of the demand, after deducting all just credits and offsets. (2) The name of the owner, or reputed owner, and of the person by whom the claimant was employed. (3) The terms of em- ployment. (4) A description of the property to be charged with the lien, sufficient for identification. (5) The notice to be verified by the oath of the claimant or some other person.'^ In accordance with the principle of liberal construction of these requirements, the courts have not set aside the claim when the description of the property, or other details of the claim, was not full or precise. If the claimant states the name of the reputed owner, he does not lose his lien if some other person is the real owner. The law merely requires such a notice as could be prepared by the claimant without the help of a lawyer.'* These rulings of the courts were given statutory sanction in the amendment of the codes of 1907 which provides, "No mistakes or errors in the statement of the demand, or of the amount of credits and offsets allowed, or of the balance asserted to be due to the claimant, nor in the description of the property against which the claim is filed, shall invalidate the lien, unless the Court finds that such error in statement of the demands, credits, and offsets, or of the balance due, was made with the intent to defraud, or the Court shall find that the innocent third party without notice, direct or constructive, has, since the claim was 72 Corbett v. Chambers, 109 Cal. 178. Macomber v. Bigelow, 126 Cal. 9. 73 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1187. 7* Hotaling v. Cronice, 2 Cal. 60. Tredinnick v. Bed Cloud C. M., 72 Cal. 78. Willamette S. M. Co. v. Kramer, 94 Cal. 205. Ah Louis v. Earwood, 140 Cal. 504. Corbett v. Chambers, 109 Cal. 184. 248 University of California Publications in Economics. \yo^- 2 filed, become the bona fide owner of the property liened upon, and that the notice of claim was so deficient that it did not put the party upon further inquiry in any manner."''^ The law is even less strict about the form of the unrecorded notice that may be given the owner, or his architect, prior to the time of filing the lien. No such notice is invalid by reason of any defect of form, provided it is sufficient to inform the owner of the substantial facts of money due for labor or mate- rials furnished, or to put Mm upon inquiry as to such matters.'"' (3) Time of commencement of suit. After the notice of the intention to hold a lien against the property has been filed, it is necessary to bring suit for its enforcement. The time allowed for bringing this suit has been shortened. The 1850 law permitted the claim to bind the build- ing for one year without suit; in 1855 this period was reduced to six months; and since 1868 no lien will bind a building or other improvement for a longer period than ninety days after the filing of the claim, unless suit is brought to enforce the same. This time may be extended if credit is given, but the law has allowed no lien to be continued in force for a longer period than two years from the time the work is completed, by any agreement to give credit.''' (4) The costs of securing ivages by means of ynechanics' liens. It is evident that as early as 1855 the California laws aimed to charge the costs of the suit to enforce a lien against the prop- 's statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 858, Sec. 1203a. TS lUd., 1887, p. 154. Code of Civil Procedure, See. 1184. "Any of the persons mentioned in See. 1183, except the contractor, may at any time give to the reputed owner a written notice that they have performed labor or furnished material, or both, to the contractor, ... or that they have agreed to do so, stating in general terms the kind of labor and mate- rials, and the name of the person to or for whom the same was done or furnished, or both, and the amount in value as near as may be, of that already done or furnished, or both. Such notice may be given by deliv- ering the same to the reputed owner personally, or by leaving it at his residence or place of business, with some person in charge, or by deliver- ing it to his architects, or by leaving it at their residence or place of business with some person in charge, or by posting it in a conspicuous place upon the mining claim or improvement. No such notice shall be invalid by reason of any defect of form, provided it is sufllcient to inform the reputed owner of the substantial matters herein provided for, or to put him upon inquiry as to such matters." ^<^ Code of Civil Procedure, See. 1190. -^^•^*'] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 249 erty of the defendant. The law of that year and also subsequent amendments in 1858 and 1861 provide that in case of judgment awarding liens on a piece of property, it shall be sold in satis- faction of such liens and the costs of the suit.''^ In the statute of 1868 the provisions for the payment of costs were more ex- plicit. It declared, "In all suits under this Act the Court shall, upon entering judgment for the plaintiff, allow as a part of the costs all moneys paid for filing and recording of the lien, and also a reasonable amount as attorney's fees. '"^ Later laws stipulated that the amount of the attorneys' fees should not exceed one hundred dollars.^" Since 1885 this right to costs and attorneys' fees has been quite definitely stated in the California Code of Civil Procedure. This section reads, "The Court must also allow as a part of the costs, the money paid for filing and recording the lien, and reasonable attorneys ' fees in the Superior and Supreme Courts, siich costs and attorneys' fees to be al- lowed to each lien claimant whose lien is established, whether he be plaintiff or defendant, or whether they all join in one action, or separate actions are consolidated."*'^ By the amend- ment of 1907 this right to the payment of costs is forfeited in cases where a part of the claim is admitted to be due, and never- theless the claimant brings suit and does not recover more than the amount so admitted. **- The earlier California decisions sustained the validity of these provisions charging the costs and attorneys' fees of successful actions for the establishment and execution of liens to the de- fendant,'* but this judgment has been reversed in a recent case in the supreme court.*^ In the decision attention was called to the fact that this section of the code provides for an attorneys' fee to the plaintiff but not to the defendant, even though the latter be successful in the action; and that attorneys' fees are ?8 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 592, See. 10. ■!o Ihid., 1855, p. 156, Sec. 8. 80 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1184. SI Statiites of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 146, See. 1195. Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1195. 82 Ibid., 1907, p. 322, Sec. 1207. 83 Peckham v. Fox, 82 Pac. 92. VeCamp v. Tolhurst, 99 Cal. 635. Bcid V. Clay, 134 Cal. 215. Si Builders' Supply Co. >. O'Connor, 150 Cal. 265. 250 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 alloAved to plaintiffs only in actions under the mechanics' lien law. It was the opinion of the court that such a requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it did not give "the equal protection of the laws to all"; and that it was also in conflict with the provisions of the state constitution which re- quired that general laws should be uniform in action, and with the guarantee of the right to acquire and protect property. The opinion concludes, "A statute which gives an attorney's fee to one party in an action and denies it to the other, and allows such fee in one kind of action and not in other kinds of actions where, as in the statute here in question, the distinction is not founded on constitutional or natural differences, is clearly vio- lative of the constitutional provisions above noticed. "°^ Sub- sequent decisions in mechanics' lien cases have accepted this ruling in the matter of attorneys' fees.*" FOEFEITUEE OF A MECHANICS' LIEN. The right to a lien in payment of a debt for labor or material furnished is forfeited in two ways: (1) by failure to comply with the conditions which the law requires for establishing such claim; (2) by becoming a party to a false record or agreement with intent to defraud. The notice must be given or the claim recorded, and the suit commenced within the prescribed time, failing which the right to this purely statutory remedy is for- feited.*' The forfeiture of the lien of the original contractor does not work a forfeiture of the claims of sub-contractors, material-men, and others contributing labor. If a false notice be given with no intent to defraud through a mistake or want of knowledge, the lien is not forfeited, as the law provides this penalty only for "wilfully" giving a false notice or filing a false claim.** Neither the instituting of procedure to establish a lien, nor the forfeiting of the lien, has any effect on the right of the 85 Builders ' Supply Co. v. 'Connor, pp. 268-9. 86 Morris v. Wilson, 97 Cal. 646. Spinney v. Griffith, 98 Cal. 149. sr Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 858, Sec. 1203a. 88 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1202. Evidence of violation must be clear and convincing. Schallert-Ganahl L. Co. v. Neal, 91 Cal. 365. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 251 person attempting to collect the debt to commence a personal action against the debtor.*' The contractor or owner is not competent to make any contract or agreement waiving or impairing the liens of other persons, unless such persons give their written consent."" Thus an agreement in a lease that the land shall not be subject to liens for improvements is void for the purpose of defeating such claims. The owner can only protect it by giving the usual statutory notice disclaiming responsibility. We see from this review that in order to meet all the eondir tions that may arise in our complex industrial life, it has been necessary to develop a somewhat intricate body of legal regu- lations of the process of establishing a right to this form of relief. Almost every session of the legislature has repealed some part of the old or added new regulations. Yet the re- quirements that must be met in order to invoke the help of these laws in collecting wages are not complex or difficult. It is merely necessary to file the notice of the lien claimed within thirty days of the time when the improvement is completed, and to institute suit within ninety days. Or, in case an extra pre- caution be deemed advisable, a written notice can be given the owner before the work is completed. PEEFBEENCE GIVEN THE LIEN EOE WAGES. A number of the mechanics' lien laws have sought, in the division of funds or settlement of lien claims, to give the pref- erence to wages. As early as 1862 we find provisions stipu- lating that the claims of employees and material-men shall be settled before those of the contractor. The lien created by the act was to inure primarily to their benefit, and the contractor was to receive payment only after their claims had been settled." The statute of 1868 was most explicit in its directions giving 80 Palmer v. White, 70 Cal. 221. Bates v. Santa Barbara Co., 90 Gal. 548. 90 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 146. Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1201. Not applicable where contract price is less than $1000. m Statutes of California, 1862, p. 384. See also the statute of 1858, which provides that sub-contractors, journeymen, laborers, and other per- sons performing labor, shall have a valid lien regardless of the claims of the contractor against the building. 252 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 the preference to claims for wages and materials furnished. Its provisions were as follows : "In case the proceeds of any sale under this Act shall be insufficient to pay all lien holders under it, the liens of all persons other than the original con- tractor and sub-contractor shall first be paid in full, or pro rata, if the proceeds be insufficient to pay them in full; and out of the remainder, if any, the sub-contractors shall then be paid in full, or pro rata, if the remainder be insufficient to pay them in full; and the remainder, if any, shall be paid to the original contractor, and each claimant shall be entitled to execution for any balance due him after such distribution ; such execution to be issued by the clerk of the court upon demand, after the return of the sheriff, or other officer making the sale, showing such balance due. "^^ The amendment of 1885 made a still further division of the claimants in favor of the wage-worker. Between 1868 and 1885 wages and materials had ranked together in the division of the proceeds of the sale, but since 1885 priority has been given to all persons performing manual labor on the building or other improvement."^ The courts have refused, however, to recognize the validity of this attempt to create preferred claimants."* 92 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 591. 93 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1885, p. 145, Sec. 1194. O'l See. 1194, Code of Civil Procedure, is as follows: "In every case in which different liens are asserted against any property, the Court in its judgment must declare the rank of each lien, or class of liens, which shall be in the following order, viz. : (1) All persons performing manual labor in, on, or about the same. (2) Persons furnishing material. (3) Svib-contraetors. (4) Original contractors. And the proceeds of any sale of the property must be applied to each lien or class of liens in the order of its rank; and whenever in the sale of the property subject to the lien, there is a deficiency of proceeds, judg- ment may be docketed for the deficiency in like manner and with like effect as in actions for the foreclosure of mortgages." Judge Belcher of the San Francisco Superior Court filed a decision on December 5, 1900, in which he declared that Sec. 1194 is unconstitutional to the extent that it attempts to create preferred classes of claimants, and is not equitable to all concerned. He quoted the section of the State Constitution which declares that, "Mechanics, material-men, and artisans, and laborers of every class shall have a lien, etc.," and claimed that the legislature was not authorized to declare which of these classes, to the exclusion of others, should be paid. . By the constitution the liens of all classes mentioned stand upon the same plane. (Organised Labor, December 8, 1900.) ^^^"J Eaves: Calif 07'nia Labor Legislation. 253 We find then, as the result of our study of the development of the California mechanics' lien law, that its application has been extended to many lines of productive industry; that there are provisions which insure the retention of a fund for the payment of wages; and that, aside from this fund, the law maintains the property to which the lien may be charged in the same degree of freedom from other encumbrances that it had when the improvements began. The legal process for estab- lishing the claim is as simple as need be, assuming ordinary care and intelligence. The laws have also charged the employer with the costs and attorneys ' fees incurred in establishing claims to liens, and have given the preference to the claims for the payment of wages, though the courts have declared these latter provisions unconstitutional. LAWS ALLOWING LIENS FOR VABIOUS FORMS OF SERVICE. We have in our California codes a number of other measures which are closely akin to the mechanics' lien law, in that they authorize the sale of property in satisfaction of wages for ser- vices rendered. These laws apply to: (1) Various forms of personal property. (2) Logs. (3) Farming machinery, {-i) Vessels and their cargoes. The mechanics' lien law of 1850 provided that "Any me- chanic or artisan who shall make, alter, or repair any article of personal property, at the request of the owner, or legal pos- sessor of such property, shall have a lien on such property . . . for his work done and material furnished." From 1850 to 1907 the law allowed two months for the payment of such debts. If not paid in that time, the person holding the property could, after giving due notice, sell it at auction for the satis- faction of the debt.^^ This section of the civil code was amended in 1907, extending the application of the provision, and decreasing the time allowed for payment.^" The law now provides that "Every person who. 95 statutes of California, 1850, p. 213. This provision is also found in the statutes of 1855, 1856, 1862, and 1868. The law was embodied m the Civil Code, Sec. 3052. 90 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, pp. 85-6, Sec. 3051, 305.!. 254 Uiiirersity of California Publications in Econoniivs. [Vol.2 while lawfully in possession of an article of personal proporty, renders any service to the owner thereof, by labor or skill, em- ployed for the protection, improvement, safe-keepini>', or car- riage thereof, has a special lien thereon, dependent on possession, for the compensation, if any, which is due to him from the owner for such service." The law allows such a lien for the making, altering', or repairing of articles of personal property, for the care of li\'t'stock, for laundry work, and for the services of a veterinary surgeon. If the person entitled to the lien is not paid the debt within twenty days after it has become due, he may sell the property at auction after ten days' notice. Tlie owner is entitled to the remainder of the proceeds of the sale, after the debt and the cost of keeping and selling- the property have been paid. The law which grants a laborer's lien on logs is merely an application of the principle which has been recognized in the laws granting liens on personal property since 1850. This measure for the protection of laborers in the lumber industry' was first enacted in 1878,°^ and has been amended and re-enacted in 1880,"'' ISST,"" 1901,'™ 1!)05."" In accordance with this sec- tion of the civil code, "A person who labors at cutting, hauling, rafting, or drawing logs, bolts or other timber, has a lien thereon for the amount due for his personal services, which takes jirece- deuce of all other claims, to continue for thirty days after the logs, bolts, or other timber arrive at the place of destination for sale or manufacture, wliile such logs, bolts, or timber are in the county in wliicli such labor was pci- formed. " To retain the lien, suit must be brought within twcn1,>' days. A similar law is the on(> granting liens on threshing machines and barley crushers to any p(M'son who performs labor in their operation. This was anollier of the numerous measures for the protection oi' wages enacted in 18S5.'"- To enl'oi-ce this lien, »7 tiliUiiJfs of California, 1S77-8, p. 747. 08 Jhid., 1880, p. 38. «» Sialiilvs of California and Amciidmnih, 1880-7, p. r>;\. 100 Embodied in Iho revised codo of 1901, but dcclnvod unconstitutional because of a defect in tlio oniu'ting cliuiso. ini Slaliilr.s of California and AmciKlmniLi, 1905, p. G19. CivH Cade, See. 30(1.''). 10^ ,S'((i(i(«r,s of California and AmfiidnifiiL't, 188-1-5, p. 109. Ibid.. 1903, p. 618. <:. C. Sec. 3061. '-^^'^^ J^aves: California Labor Legislation. 255 action must be brought within ten days of the time when the work ceases. The California laws also enforce the payment of the wages of mates and seamen by allowing them a lien on the ship where they have served and her freight."^ This lien for wages is superior to all others that may attach to the vessel and her cargo. The law also provides that, "A seaman cannot, by reason of any agreement, be deprived of his lien upon the ship, or of any remedy for the recovery of his wages to which he would other- wise have been entitled. ' '"* LAWS MAKING WAGES PREFEEBED CLAIMS. As we have already pointed out, the first well-organized labor movement in California bore fruit at its culmination in three important laws for the protection of the wage-workers of the State. We have already presented the important features of two of these laws, namely : the eight-hour law, and the mechanics ' lien law. It remains to consider the third law, "An Act for the protection of the wages of labor. ' '^"^ The benefits which this act conferred upon the wage-worker have never been lost, as its provisions were included in the codes of 1872, and have remained a part of the California laws ever since. By this measure the principle that the claim of the wage-earner should be given preference over all others, which had been partially recognized in the mechanics' lien laws, was greatly extended in its application. Since 1868, in all cases of assignment, execution, or attachment, the wages of mechanics, miners, salesmen, clerks, or laborers, for services rendered within sixty days prior, to an amount not exceeding one hundred dollars,^"" constitute preferred claims. In case of the death of the employer, such wages must be paid before any other claim, 103 Civil Code, Sec. 3056. 101 Ibid., See. 2052. 105 Statutes of California, 1867-8, pp. 213-4. 100 The Code of Civil Procedure of 1872 provided that the preferred claim should be for wages for ninety days prior to the attachment, exe- cution, or assignment, not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars. (Stat- utes of California, 1871-2, p. 205.) The amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure in 1873-4, p. 352, returned to the former provisions, which have been retained since then. 256 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 except funeral expenses, the expenses of the last sickness, the allowance to the widow and infant children, and the charges for administering the estate/"' If the claim for wages is disputed, the claimant must com- mence an action within ten days,^°* and the officer must retain in his possession until the determination of such suit enough of the proceeds of the writ to satisfy the claim and costs. By an amendment of 1883 the claimant forfeits the costs if, in a case where the amount of the claim is disputed, he recovers only what was admitted to be due.^"" Where the claims exceed the amount available for their payment, then the money must be divided among the claimants in proportion to the amounts of their claims."" When it can be shown that a man's earnings are necessary for the support of his family, his earnings are exempt from execution.^" A law was passed in 1872 making it a felony for any one employing laborers on the public works of the state or munici- palities to withhold any portion of the wages due such laborers. ^^^ A minimum rate of two dollars per day has been fixed for all such work. The law retjuires that a stipulation to that effect shall be made a requirement of the contracts for state and municipal work.^^^ Our previous discussion of the laws for the protection of wages shows that the California legislators have tried to insure the payment of wages earned, and that in all legal actions they have given the preference to the claims of the wage-earner. They have paid the employees of the state fairly, and seen to it that such laborers received what was due them. They have decided that where necessary a man's wages must be reserved for the support of his family, even though he fail to pay his just lOT Code of Civil Procedure, Sees. 1204, 1205, 1206, as amended by Code Commissioners and adopted in 1907. 108 Statutes of Calif orma, 1867-8, p. 589, See. 3, C. C. P., Sec. 1206. ion Statutes of California and Amendments, 1883, p. 47. 3io7l)i(/., 1901, p. 192. 111 Code of Civil Procedure, 1872, p. 165, See. 690. 112 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1905, p. 667. Pol. Code, Sec. 653d. See also Statutes, 1871-2, p. 951. 113 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1897, p. 90. ^^^'^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 257 debts. They have gone still further, and tried to protect the wages of the laborer from his own folly and weakness, by for- bidding their payment in a saloon or bar-room."* FAILURE TO SECURE PROMPT CASH PAYMENT OF WAGES. In one respect alone have the California laws failed to protect wages. This failure is not due to any lack of effort on the part of the legislators, but to the difficulty of finding a remedy that will stand the test of a Supreme Court decision. The ' ' truck system ' ' and the ' ' time-check ' ' still furnish means where- by the laborer in certain industries of the state is defrauded of a portion of his hard-earned wages. Several attempts have been made to abolish these evils, but as yet the California courts have refused to sanction any law that infringes on the right to contract for any and all forms of payment. This was one of the first evils to attract the attention of the State Labor Commissioner. In his report of the investi- gation of the abuses in connection with the construction of the San Francisco seawall in 1885, Commissioner J. S. Bnos found that only patrons of the company boarding-house could retain their places with a certain firm."^^^ Ten years later the report of Commissioner E. L. Fitzgerald shows that abuses of this kind were most flagrant and wide- spread. The lumber industry seems to afford the best oppor- tunities for such impositions, as it is carried on in' isolated communities where the men are peculiarly dependent on their employers.. If we may judge by the numerous accounts pub- lished in the report of the Labor Bureau,"" some of the lumber compani«s have availed themselves of every possible opportunity to rob their employees systematically. Not satisfied with the profits of the company store, boarding-house, and bar, an even more effective means of extortion was discovered. The monthly wages of the men were paid with time-checks due in thirty, sixty, or even ninety days. Those who had families to support, or ^^i Statutes of California and Amendments, 1901, p. 660. Fen. Code, Sec. 680. 115 The "Truck System," Second Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics, p. 332. 116 Collection of Wages, and Time-Check System, Seventh Biennial Ee- port, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 72, 83. 258 University of Calif onda Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 needed ready money for other purposes, could obtain it only by cashing these checks at a heavy discount. An attempt was made in 1891 to remedy the irregularity and delays in the payment of wages, by the passage of a law requiring that, "Every corporation doing business in the State shall paj' the mechanics and laborers employed by it the wages earned by and due them weekly or monthly, on such day in each week or month as shall be selected by said corporation. "^^^ The time-check was found a convenient expedient by which such cor- porations could comply with the letter of this law, without fulfilling its intent. The State Labor Commissioner in his Report for 1895-96 presented strong evidence of the magnitude of what he characterizes as "the dreadful curse known as the 'Time- Check System.' " He concludes his discussion of the evil with the statement that he has prepared a bill to be presented to the legislature which he hopes will meet with immediate approval."* The legislators fulfilled his expectations, and passed the act compelling corporations to pay their employees monthly, in law- ful money. The failure to make a monthly payment entitles the employee to a lien on the property of the corporation for wages and attorney's fees. No defense for the failure to make such payment is allowed except: (1) the wages not earned, (2) a valid assignment of wages, (3) a set-off or counter-claim, (i) absence at the time of payment. No corporation can require, and no employee can make an agreement for a longer period of payment. The wages are to be paid in lawful money, or in checks nego- tiable at face value on demand. The penalty for violating the act is a fine of $50 to $100 for each offense."" When brought before the Supreme Court the law was de- clared unconstitutional for a number of reasons, the chief of which were the following r^^" (1) It is class legislation, since the law applies only to cor- porations doing business in the state and to laborers in their employ. 117 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1891, p. 195. lis Seventh Biennial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 91. 110 Statutes of California, etc., 1897, pp. 231-2. 1^0 Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co., 127 Cal. 4-17. ■^^^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 259 (2) The rights of corporations are the same as those of indi- viduals ; there can be no reason why a corporation doing business in the state should have its property subjected to a lien unless the property of o.ther persons in the state under like circum- stances is subject to the same kind of a lien, or why corporations should be prohibited from making defenses which all other per- sons in the state may make, or why corporations should pay attorneys ' fees or fines -while all other persons under like circum- stances are exempt from such fees or fines, or why such corpor- ations have not the same rights to create liens and make contracts that all other persons in the state have. (3) It gives a lien to laborers, without requiring a description of the property, or due notice of the lien. The law of 1897 has since been passed upon in the United States Circuit Court of the Northern District of California. ^^ This decision declared that the part of the law requiring corpor- ations to pay what was due on a monthly pay-day was consti- tutional. It was pointed out that a statute affecting all persons of a certain class was a general law, and that since this law merely compelled the corporations to meet just obligations it could not be regarded as an attack on their propert.y. The state legislature has the right to modify by general laws the rights and privileges granted the corporations of the state. The court maintained that,^-- "A classification of corporations im- posing burdens different from those imposed upon the general public may be made without the statute encountering the pro- hibition of the state and Federal constitutions, provided such classification is made upon reasonable grounds, and is not merely an arbitrary selection." The question of the validity of the section of the law requiring money payments was not passed upon in the decision. The California Supreme Court has quite clearly and emphat- ically declared that the laws may not restrict the right to contract for other than monej' payments. The section of the mechanics' lien law^^^ which provides that, "As to all liens, except that of 1-1 Skinner v. Garnett Gold Mining Co., 96 Fed. Eep. 735. 122 Ibid., p. 745-6. 123 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1]S4. 260 University of California Publications in Economics, ['^'ol- 2 the contractor, the whole contract price shall be payable in money, ' ' was held to be an unconstitutional invasion of the right of the owner to the use of his property. This right is invaded if he is not at liberty to contract with others respecting the use to which he may subject his property, or the manner in which he may enjoy it. The legislature could with equal right require that all sales of merchandise be made on these terms. ^'^^ Plans are being made to present in the coming session of the legislature a bill embodying another attempt to do away with the deferred payment of wages, and the time-check evils. It is evident when one considers the past decisions of the Supreme Court that it will be a difficult task to devise legislation eradi- cating the remaining abuses in the payment of wages, and so complete the legislation for the protection of the wages of the working men and women of California. 124 Stimson Mill Co. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 124-5. ^^^^] Eava;: California Labor Legislation. 261 CHAPTER IX. LAWS REGULATING THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. INFLUENCE OF THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND. The relationship of employer and employee, or, to use the good old Anglo-Saxon terms, of master and servant, is one of those fundamental social ties which has been regulated in the United States by that great body of organized common sense and social usage known as the Common Law of England. The California legislature formally declared in 1850 that, "The Common Law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of the State of California, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."' The courts held that this meant the common law as modified by the United States decisions. As these varied somewhat with the different states, the judges had some latitude in the selection of prece- dents to be followed. The statutes of the state were translated into Spanish for the benefit of its. older citizens ; but no efiiort was made to make available information concerning the common law. For over twenty years many of the most fundamental relationships of the people of the state were regulated by this somewhat vaguely defined, unwritten mass of English law and United States decisions. As this caused great inconvenience to the courts and their litigants, a commission was appointed to draw up the California codes which were adopted in 1872. A large part of these codes was copied literally from the New York codes of 1862. With the exception of one section,- this was true of all that part of the Civil Code dealing with the relationship of master and servant. As might be expected, when one considers the ancient origin 1 statutes of California. 1850, p. 219. 2 Civil Code, Sec. 2011. 262 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 of these portions of our legal system, there is evidence of the transition, as yet incomplete, from the earlier personal relation- ship of master and servant, to the modern purely contractual relationship that is sometimes designated by the same terms, and again as employer and employee. As defined in the code, "A servant is one who is employed to render personal service to his employer, and otherwise than in the pursuit of an inde- pendent calling, and who in such service remains entirely under the control and direction of the latter who is called his master, ' '* and, "The contract of employment is a contract by which one, who is called the employer, engages another, who is called the employee, to do something for the benefit of the employer or of a third person."^ The latter includes the former relation- ship, and also those of contractor and agent, which have a some- what different legal status. Both the contractor and the agent perform services, but the former is not under the control and direction of his employer while performing the services," and the latter not only acts for, but may also act in the place of his principal." In this study we are dealing with the more re- stricted relationship, where the employee or servant performs the labor under the control and direction of the employer or master, or of his representative. We will consider our subject under the following general topics : (1) Terms of the labor contract. (2) Lawful termination of the relationship of master and servant. (3) Damages for violation of the labor contract. (i) Obligations of the servant or employee. (5) Obligations of the master, and his liability for the in- jury to his servant. (1) TEEMS OF THE LABOR CONTEACT. At the commencement of the service some agreement is gen- erally made as to its terms. Where no definite period is stipu- 3 Civil Code, See. 2009. •I Ihid., Sec. 1965. -• Bo.ncell v. Laird, 8 Cal. 489. » People V. Treadwtll, 69 Cal. 236. Sumner v. Kevin, 87 Pac. Eep. 1105- 1910] Eaves: Calif orvia Labor Legislation. 263 lated, the law assumes that the hiring is "for such length of time as the parties adopt for the estimation of the wages. A hiring for a yearly rate is presumed to be for one year; a hiring at a daily rate, for one day; a hiring for piece-work for no specified time."' "In the absence of any agreement or custom as to the terms of service, the time of payment, or rate of value of wages, a servant is presumed to be hired by the month, at a monthly rate of reasonable wages, to be paid when the service is performed."* In ease there is a definite contract covering the length of the service, either party is liable for damages for its violation," though the law will not enforce such a contract against the employee for a longer time than two years." Under the pro- visions of the code as amended in 1907,'"^ the law also refuses to recognize any agreement by which the employee forfeits his right to damages for injuries. If, after the expiration of the term of service, the parties continue the relationship of master and servant, they are pre- sumed to have renewed the agreement for the same wages and term of service." When the employee voluntarily continues his services beyond the period of two years, the original contract may be referred to as affording a presumptive measure of the compensation.^^ No compensation beyond that specified in the contract can be recovered by a person employed on a regular salary, unless he proves an agreement to pay extra for extra services.'^ (2) TEBMINATION OF SERVICKS. When the employment is for no specified term, it may be terminated by either party on notice to the other.''' The courts 7 Ctvil Code, Sec. 2010. Bosenherger v. Pac. Coast S. Co., Ill Cal. 3ls. s Civil Code, Sec. 2011. » The employee is liable to damages, though he cannot be forced to fulfill a contract of personal ser\ices. 10 Civil Code, Sec. 1980. loa. Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 120. 11 Civil Code, Sec. 2012. Gabriel v. Banl of Suisun, 145 Cal. 266; Stone V. Bancroft, 139 Cal. 81-2; Hermann v. Littlefield, 109 Cal. 432. 12 Civil Code, Sec. 1980; Stone v. Bancroft, 139 Cal. 81-2. 13 Cany v. Halleck, 9 Cal. 198. 14 Civil Code, Sec. 1999. 264 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 have held that an agreement to employ a person permanently means nothing more than that the employment is to continue indefinitely, and that under such circumstances it may be termi- nated at the will of either party.^'' Where the employment is for a specified term, it may be terminated by the master or employer for the following reasons : (1) Willful breach of duty on the part of the employee.^" (2) Neglect of duty, or continued incapacity to perform it. (3) If the servant is guilty of misconduct in the course of his service, or of gross immorality, though unconnected with the same; or," (4) If, being employed about the person of the master, or in a confidential position, the master discovers that he has been guilty of misconduct, before or after the commencement of his service of such a nature that, if the master had known or con- templated it, he would not have emploj^ed him/* The employee also has a right to terminate the service at any time, if the master commits a willful or permanent breach of his oblTga- tions/^ The code makes the following provisions for compensation in cases of premature severing of the relationship : ' ' An employee, dismissed by his employer for good cause, is not entitled to any compensation for services rendered since the last day upon which a payment became due to him under the contract."^" "An employee who quits the service of his employer for good cause is entitled to such proportion of the compensation which would become due in case of full performance as the services which he has already rendered bear to the services which he was to render as full performance."-' Other ways in which the service may be terminated are:^- (1) By the expiration of its appointed term; 1= Lord V. Goldberger, SI Cal. 596. Davidson v. Luughlin, 138 Cal. 320. 10 Civil Code, Sec. 2000. 17 Ibid., Sec. 2015. 18 Ihid., See. 2015. 19 Ibid., See. 2001. 20 Ibid., Sec. 2002. Bartman v. Sogers, 69 Cal. 646. 21 Civil Code, Sec. 2003. 22 Ibid., Sees. 1996, 1997, 1998. ■'^^"^ Eaves: California Labor Legislatioi 265 (2) By the extinction of its subject; (3) By the death of either party; (4) By the legal incapacity of either party to fulfill his part of the relationship. There are some exceptions to the rule that death terminates the employment. Where the services are rendered by two or more persons .jointly, and one of them dies, the survivor must act alone, if the services to be rendered are such as he can rightly perform withoiit the aid of the deceased person.-^ Also, the law requires an employee to continue his services after the death or incapacity of his employer, where such services are necessary for the protection of the property, or other interests of his employer's successor.^^ On the other hand, it has been held that an unexpired contract of employment between a co- partnership and an employee for a fixed period, at a fixed salary, is dissolved by the death of one of the partners during the term of the hiring.-'' (3) DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CONTRACT. There are two principles which regulate the recovery of damages for violation of the contract of employment :-° (1) It must be shown that damages were actually sustained. (2) The contract furnishes the measure of damages. While the contract price is the prima facie measure of the injury sustained, the damages may be increased or diminished, according as the proof shows that the plaintiff has sustained an actual loss greater or less than the contract price. ^' If the employee violates the contract, and his employer is obliged to pay more than the contract price in order to have the work done, then this extra sum is the amount of the damages sustained.-'* The employer who breaks such a contract is liable to the em- ployee for his actual loss and outlay incurred in making prep- arations for the work, and for the loss due to idleness. It is 23 Civil Code, Sec. 1991. ^ilbid., See. 1998; Weithoff v. Murray, 76 Cal. 508. -= Louis V. Elfelt, 89 Cal. 547. 28 Utter V. Chapman, 38 Cal. 662. 2' Ibid., p. 554. Cedenberg v. Oobison, 100 Cal. 93, 28 TJtter V. Chapman, 38 Cal. 664. 266 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2.- the duty of an employee who is wrongfully discharged to seek other opportunities to work, and thus lessen the amount of dam- ages sustained.-" If he fails to do so, the burden of proving that he could have obtained suitable employment but refused to seek or accept it,, and thus diminish the damages sustained, is on the defendant.''" When the employee remains idle, though willing to do the work contracted for, the employer is liable for the wages of the entire unexpired period of the contract.^' (4) OBLIGATIONS OF THE SERVANT OR EMPLOYEE. The provisions of the code seem to recognize three degrees of care and diligence in the performance of services. First, where one is employed at his own request to do that which is more for his own advantage than for that of his employer. Such a situation demands great care and diligence to protect the interests of the employer.^^ Second, when one agrees to perform a service for a good consideration, such service must be performed with ordinary care and diligence, with the exercise of such skill as the employee possesses."" Third, where the ser- vice is gratuitous, it is provided, "One who, without consider- ation, undertakes to do a service for another, is not bound to perform the same, but if he actually enters upon its perform- ance, he must use at least slight care and diligence therein.""* If the person has undertaken this gratuitous service by his own special request, then he must perform the same fully. "A gratuitous employee who accepts a written power of attorney must act under it so long as it remains in force, or until he gives notice to his employer that he will not do so. ""^ If the servant is guilty of culpable negligence in the performance of his duties, then he is liable to the employer for damages caused ^" Polack V. McGralh, 38 Cal. 666. Soseiiherger v. Fac. Coast By. Co., Ill Cal. 318. Stone v. Bancroft, 139 Cal. 81. Utter v. Cliaiiman, 38 Cal. 659.. so Bosenherger v. Pac. Coast By. Co., Ill Cal. 318. 31 Weister v. Wade, 19 Cal. 291. 3= Civil Code, Sec. 1979. 33 Ibid., Sees. 1978, 1983, 1984. 3-1 Ibid., Sec. 1975. 3-j Ibid., Sec. 1977. ^^^^] Eaves: California Labxir Legislation. 267 by such negligence, and he can recover payment only for such services as are properly rendered.^" In the performance of his services the employee must comply with the directions of his employer, except when such obedience is impossible or unlawful, or would impose new and unreason- able burdens upon the employee.^' In the absence of instruc- tions he must do the work in conformity to the usage of the place, vinless this is manifestly impracticable, or injurious to the employer.^* The law forbids an employee seeking to promote his own private interests in preference to those of his employer by the use of knowledge gained or opportunity discovered in the course of his employment."" All that he acquires by virtue of Iris em- ployment, even though it be an unlawful gain, or is obtained after the expiration of the term of his service, belongs to the employer.*" If the employee has any business transactions on his own account similar to those of his employer, he must give the preference to the interests of the latter.*^ In the matter of rendering an account, the law recognizes a difference in the obligations of "mere servants" and employees. The former "must deliver to his master, as soon as with reas- onable diligence he can find him, everything that he receives for his account, without demand";*- while the latter is onty 30 Civil Code, Sec. 1990. 37 Ibid., Sec. 1981. ■;« Ibid., Sec. 1982. ■"'•' Gower v. Andrews, 59 Cal. 119. *o Civil Code, 1985. In a case where a man engaged in grading on public land found some gold, it was held, "Had the object of the grading been the acquisition of the ores to be extracted, the provision would, no doubt, apply; but the casual finding of gold by an employee in the course of an employment in no way related to such an object, though doubtless, an acquisition made by reason or cause of the employment, cannot with propriety be said to have been by virtue of it." (Burns v. Clark, 133 Cal. 639.) •11 "We understand it to be_ the duty of the employee to devote his entire acts, so far as his acts may affect the business of his employer, to the interests and service of the employer; that he can engage in no busi- ness detrimental to the business of the employer; that he should in no ease be permitted to do for his own benefit that which would have the effect of destroying the business to sustain and carry on which his ser- vices have been secured. ... An agent or sub-agent who uses the information he has obtained in the course of his agency as a means of buying for himself, will be compelled to convey to the principal. (Gower v. Andrew, 59 Cal. 123-4.) 42 Civil Code, Sec. 2014. 268 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 obliged to deliver on demand, though the law provides that he must give prompt notice to his employer of everything which he receives for his account.*^ (5) OBLIGATIONS OF THE MASTER AND HIS LIABILITY FOR THE INJURY OF THE SERVANT. Among all civilized peoples there is a tendency to increase the legal obligations of those who utilize the labor of their fellow- men in business enterprises. AVhile no state in the Union has gone so far as certain nations of Europe in this respect, yet both the decisions of the courts and the statutory enactments indicate an increasing tendency to hold the employer respon- sible for the injuries incurred by those assisting him in his business. In California this tendency is shown by the strict- ness with which the courts have interpreted the legal obligations of the employer, and by the important amendments to the civil code which were secured by the efforts of the labor organizations in 1907. The law charges the employer with certain legal obligations and holds him liable for any injuries that may result from the failure to fulfill these requirements :** (1) He must exercise reasonable care to furnish safe appli- ances and places of work. (2) He must show the same care in the selection of fellow- servants. (3) He must inform his employees of any danger connected/ with the business; giving particular attention to the instruction of youthful and inexperienced employees. (1) Obligation to furnish safe appliances and place of work. More than half of the decisions against the employer ren- dered by the Supreme Court of California are based upon the failure to meet this first requirement of reasonable care to insure safe conditions of work."*" Different degrees of responsibility of the employer for the safety of the implements of work are recognized in the opinions of the courts : 13 Civil Code, Sees. 1986, 1987. ulUd., Sees. 1969, 1971. *!■ Out of fifty-eight decisions for the employee, thirty-four were granted because of this failure. ^910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 269 (1) Where suitable materials have been furnished for con- structing safe appliances a,nd it is the duty of the employee to construct his own implements, he cannot recover for injuries due to his own negligence, or the negligence of a fellow-servant," unless the latter was acting as a vice-principal."" (2) In many occupations it is a part of the duty of the employees to keep the machines in proper condition for work, by oiling them, sharpening certain parts, or adjusting belts. If the employer has furnished the necessary appliances, he cannot be held liable for accidents due to the neglect to perform such duties,** unless the neglect w^as that of an employee acting as a vice-principal. 49 ■i^ In an accident due to the failure of the employee to put in the necessary staples to hold a load on a flat -ear the court ruled: "It is well settled that where certain persons are employed to do certain work, and by the contract of employment, either express or implied, such em- ployees are to construct and adjust the appliances by which the work is to be done, the employer to furnish the proper materials and the em- ployees to construct and adjust such appliances as in their judgment are necessary, the employer is not liable to such employees for any defect in the construction or adjustment of such appliances." (Kerrigan v. Market Street By. Co., 138 Cal. 511. Leishman v. Union Iron Works, 148 Cal. 274. Burns v. Sennett 4- Miller, 99 Cal. 373.) *' By the amendments to the code in 1907, the duty and the neglect must be that of the individual workman in order to exempt the employer from liability, for the law now holds the employer responsible for the neglect of any employee who had the right to direct the injured servant. (Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, Sec. 1970, p. 119.) Prior to these amendments the Supreme Court shows a strong tendency to em- phasize the doctrine of vice-principal. In the ease of an accident due to^the use of an insecure clamp to move iron, the court declared, "In either case [whether furnished by the defendants personally or by their employer] the furnishing of sucli unsafe appliance would be the negli- gence of the defendants, for the reason that the duty of the employer to furnish the employee with safe and suitable appliances is a personal one, and cannot be delegated so as to shift the responsibility to any agent or servant; . . . the defendants cannot avoid the responsibility for such negligence on the ground that it was the negligence of a fellow-servant; for in so far as the duty to furnish reasonably safe and suitable appli- ances is concerned, the employee furnishing said appliance was not under the law a fellow-servant of the plaintiff, although as to the performance of other services he may have been a fellow-servant of the plaintiff. ' ' (Wall V. Marshutz cf- Cantrel, 138 Cal. 526.) ■is " The servants cannot furnish the machines. That is the master's right and duty, but the servant who uses them can and should keep them in order for their proper and safe daily use when furnished with the necessary means of so doing and when perfectly capable of correcting the defect." (Cregan v. Marston, 126 N. Y. 568; quoted with" approval in Hellitig V. Schindler, 145 Cal. 309.) ^^"It must be taken as absolutely settled in this state that it is not the grade of service which fixes the master's responsibility in case of accident. It is the character of the act. That is to say, if it be an act 270 IJniversitij of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2 (3) If the workmen are not charged with the duty of con- structing and caring for their implements, then the employer is held responsible for the character of the appliances and their safe condition. He must not only exercise reasonable care to provide safe machinery, but is also responsible for its inspection and maintenance in a safe condition.''" These requirements of reasonable care to provide safe condi- tions of work do not mean that the master insures his servant against injury."'' The decisions clearly recognize the possibility of unavoidable accidents,"- or of latent defects in the machinery the duty for the performanee of which belongs in law to the master, if the performanee be delegated to the least of his servants or to the great- est, in either case, and in any case, the master is responsible, unless that act be performed with due care." {Skelton v. Pacific Lumber Co., 140 Cal. 511.) •'""The master, whether a corporation or an individual, is bound to furnish its employees safe materials and structures. This includes the obligation to keep in repair. The employee has a right to assume that the master has discharged this obligation." {Beeson v. Green Mt. G. M. Co., 57 Cal. 29.) ' ' The law is settled beyond controversy that it is the duty of an em- ployer to furnish a suitable and safe place for his employee to work, and suitable and safe appliances and machinery for him to work with, and this duty cannot be delegated to another so as to exonerate the employer from liability to an employee who is injured in consequence of the omis- sion to properly perform the act or duty, whether that othei- is a superior officer, agent, or servant, or a subordinate or inferior agent or servant. ' ' (Mullen V. Cal. Borseslioe Co., 105 Cal. 83.) ' ' The duty of inspection is aflSrmative and it must be continuously fulfilled and positively performed. In ascertaining whether this has been done or not, the character of the business should be considered, and any- thing short of this would not be ordinary care. ' ' (Dyas v. So. Pa". Co., 140 Cal. 308-9.) "Again, the master is required to use the same care in inspection and supervision of the appliance, for the purpose of discerning defects that may subsequently occur therein, as is required of him originally in fur- nishing the appliance or instrument. To defeat the servant's right of recovery he must not only be aware of the defect in the appliance, but know and appreciate the risks and dangers resulting or likely to result from such defects." (Alexander v. Central Lumier and Milling Co., 104 Cal. 539.) See also Bowman v. White, 110 Cal. ^3; Jager v. Cal. B. Co., 104 Cal. 546; Pacheco v. Jiidson Mfg. Co., 113 Cal. 545. ■'■1 Malone v. Hawley, 46 Cal. 409. "= In LindeU ^. Bode, 72 Cal. 247, the judgment of the lower court was reversed because of this erroneous instruction to the jury, "Where, in the due exercise of his duties, the employee is injured through any ap- pliances or surroundings of the business, and it does not appear that the employee was in fault, the burden is on the employer to show that he himself was free from fault." This instruction was objected to on the ground that it took from the jury the consideration of whether the acci- dent was unavoidable. See also Stein v. Williamson, 92 Cal. 65. ■'■^-'■°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 271 that could not have been discovered with ordinary care/'"' Nor does the law require that the employer shall adopt every new invention or improvement, even though they might have given greater security to his workmen.""' (2) Care in the sdection of fcttow-servants. As the negligence of fellow-servants is often the cause of injury, the law also requires that the employer shall exercise reasonable care in their selection. In very few cases in the California courts has Avant of care in selecting employees been charged as the ground upon which damages were claimed. The courts have held that one act of negligence will not establish an unreliable character for an employee.'-'' There seems to be no clear rule as to disqualification for employment, or as to what constitutes "reasonable care" in the selection of fellow- servants. Evidently these are questions that must be decided by the jury from the facts of particular cases.'"' (3) Obligation to give instruetions about the dangers. The failure to give proper warning of the dangers connected with the work has frequently been the plea on which California employers have been compelled to pay heavy damages for in- juries to emplo3^ees. Judging from the number of such cases decided in the Supreme Court of the state, it would certainly be prudent for every large establishment to give careful atten- tion to this educational obligation. 53 "When the employer exercises all the care and caution which a prudent man would ordinarily take for the safety and protection of his own person under the same circumstances, he cannot be held liable for the consequences of a defect in the machinery or appliances used. ' ' (Brymer v. Pac. Co., 90 Cal. 498.) Another case where it was held that the defect was not perceptible is McCall v. Pac. M. S. .S. Co., 123 Cal. 42. 54 "The master is not bound to adopt every latest improvement in machinery, nor is he liable for an accident wliieh would not have oc- curred if such improvements had been adopted. If at the time of its selection the appliance in question was the only one in general use, . . . and was reasonably adapted to the purpose for which it was em- ployed, its selection or its subsequent retention would not of itself indi- cate negligence, nor would the fact that better ones were used by others, or that later devices had overcome defects that experience had shown this one possessed, be proof of negligence in the continuance of its use. ' ' (Sappenfield v. Main St. B. I!. Co., 91 Cal. 57.) 55 Holland v. So. Pac. Co., 100 Cal. 240. 51! Gier v. Los Angeles C. S. S. Co., 108 Cal. 240, gives a good discussion of the subject. 272 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2 The servant is entitled to information of all risks knowm to his master." It is the duty of the employer not merely to inform him of such dangers, but also to give him such instruction as will insure an understanding of the risks incurred, and enable him to take the precautions necessary to prevent injury in the discharge of his duties.^* The courts emphasize most strongly this obligation of instruction and warning in cases where minors are exposed to injurj' from dangerous machinery or conditions of labor, as their youth and inexperience render them peculiarly liable to accidents. ^'' • EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY POR INJUEY TO THE EMPLOYEE. When the emploj^er fails to fulfill these obligations of care in providing a safe place and appliances of work, in selecting suitable fellow-servants, and in giving the warning and instruc- tion necessary to enable the workmen to avoid dangers that are 57 ' ' The nature or character of the agency or means through the clanger or injury to the employee is to be apprehended can make no difference in the rule, for the employee is entitled in all cases to such information upon the subject as the employer may possess, and this with a view to enable him to determine for himself if at the proffered compensation he be willing to assume the risk and incur the hazard of the business; and if the employer have such information or knowledge and withhold it from the employee and the latter afterwards be injured in consequence thereof, the employer is liable to him in damages therefor." (Baxter V. Roberts, 44 Cal. 193.) 58 "We think it is now clearly settled that if a master employs a servant to work in a dangerous place, or where the mode of doing the work is dangerous and apparent to a person of capacity and knowledge of the subject, yet if the servant employed to do work of such a dan- gerous character, or in a dangerous place, from youth, inexperience, ignorance, or want of general capacity, may fail to appreciate the dan- gers, it is a breach of duty on the part of the master to expose a servant of such character, even with his own consent, to such dangers unless he first gives him such instructions or cautions as will enable him to comprehend them, and do his work safely with proper care on his part." Quoted with appro\a] from a "Wisconsin case, Mansfield v. Eagle Box, etc., Co., 136 Cal. 625. See also Iiigerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410; Eyan v. Los An- geles Ice LAWS FOE THE EEGULATION OF APPRENTICESHIP. With the conservatism that seems to be of common occur- rence in such bodies, the early California legislators assumed that the personal tie of apprenticeship was the chief relation- ship of the youthful worker in need of regulation. The first apprentice law was passed in 1858,^ though several bills dealing with the subject were presented to the legislature prior to this time.- During the sixties amendments were made to the ap- prentice law authorizing charitable societies and public officials to apprentice dependent children.^ The main features of these 1 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 134. 2 Assembly Journal, 1852, p. 55. Ihid., 1857, p. 898. 3 Statutes of California, 1860, p. 37; 1862, p. 515; 1863, p. 59; 1870, p. 334. 288 University of California Piiblications in Economics. ["Vol.2 early apprentice laws were embodied in the civil code of 1872.* Four years later the apprentice regulations were revised." While the chief provisions of the law of 1858 were retained, several important new sections were added, and the Code Commissioners have recently embodied these in our present civil code." The only section of the law of 1858 which has found no counterpart in our present laws was the one which allowed any white person capable of becoming a citizen of the state to bind himself for one year in paj^ment of the cost of his passage to California. This section was applicable only to minors, but permitted the year of service to extend bej^ond the minority of the person pledging himself to such a bargain. Such an indenture must be acknowledged before a magistrate in a pri- vate examination.' These provisions were contained in the civil code of 1872, bu.t were dropped from the law of 1876. The act of 1858 seems to contemplate a wider application of apprenticeship than the later laws. It permitted a minor to bind himself or herself during minority "to serve as clerk, apprentice, or servant, in any profession, trade or employment."* Subsequent legislation allowed apprenticeship "to any mechan- ical trade or art, or to the occupation of farming."" All the laws provide that the child shall be fourteen years old or over'" before being apprenticed, and fix the termination of service at twenty-one for males and eighteen for females. The apprenticeship laws assume that the minor is capable of making contracts. The earlier laws provide that "a minor may bind himself or herself during minoritv, " with the consent * Civil Code, 1S72, Sees. 2.54-276. o .Statutes of California. 1875-6, p. 842. '• Siatittex of California and Amendments to Hie Codes, 1905, p. 560. Civil Code, 264. ' Statutes of California, ISoS, p. 135, Sec. 11. ^ Ibid., p. 134, See. 1. Tlie disadvantages of a long apprenticeship to some of these occupations were soon recognized. The act of 1860 permit- ting the officers of orphan asylums to bind orphans and half-orphans added a proviso, "unless such binding be for the purpose of learning a mechanical trade, the term of service of males shall expire at the age of eighteen years." Statutes of California, 1860, p. 38. ■■'Statutes of California, 1875-6, p. 842. Civil Code, 1905, Sec. 264. 10 Evidently this restriction did not apply to dependent children, for among the provisions of the act allowing the apprenticing of orphans was a clause stipulating that the consent of children under ten years of age might be assumed. (Statutes of California. 1867-1870, p. 334, Sec. 2.) 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 289 of the parent or guardians ; but the later enactments, with more regard for legal consistency, read, "A minor with his consent may be bound, etc." The minor must sign the indenture, or in some other way signify his consent to the agreement." He is a party to the suit which the master may bring for the viohi- tion of the contract, and may be compelled to pay the costs ot' such a suit after he attains his majority.^^ The law also stipu- lates that money recovered as damages for the master's violation of the contract, and the clothing which the contract or the law requires the master to furnish, shall be delivered to the appren- tice to be held by him as his sole property.^' Of the persons authorized to bind or consent to the binding of apprentices, the father comes first. In case of his death or incompetency, or where he has wilfully abandoned his family for one year without making suitable provision for their sup- port, or is habitually intemperate in the use of intoxicants," or is a vagrant, the child may be bound by the mother or guardian. An executor, who, by the will of the father, is directed to bring up a child to a trade or calling, has power to bind by indenture in like manner as the father might have done. The mother alone has power to apprentice an illegitimate child. When a minor has no parent or guardian competent to act for him, he may, with the consent of the superior court, bind himself. In 1876 a clause was added to the law requiring the consent of the court in cases where a mother who has married after the birth of the child wishes to apprentice him." The early lawmakers regarded the apprentice system as a convenient means of caring for dependent children. In addi- tion to the special acts permitting officers of charitable insti- tutions to apprentice the children in their charge," the super- 1^ Statutes of California, 1858, p. 134, Sec. .3; 1860, p. 37; 1875-6, p. 843; Civil Code, See. 266. 12 Civil Code, See. 274. 13 ma. Sec. 273. 11 This clause for the transfer of the power to the mother was added in 1876. The incapacity of the father must be decided in the Superior Court by a jury, before the indenture can take effect. {Civil Code, Sec. 267.) 15 Civil Code, See. 265. 16 Statutes of California, 1860, p. 37; 1862, p. 515; 1863, 59; 1870, 334-5. 290 University of California Publications in Economics. i^°^- 2 visors of counties," and the trustees of townships also received authority to bind dependent children. The later laws unify all this legislation by allowing the superior court to apprentice such children at the request of any citizen. Where minors are bound in this way, the law requires the master to give the child proper instruction, and, at the termination of the service, he must also pay him fifty dollars in gold, and give him two full suits of clothing worth not less than sixty dollars.^* The indenture must be executed in duplicate, one copy for the use of the master and one for the minor. In cases requiring the approval of the courts, the latter copy must be deposited with the clerk of the court for safe keeping. The courts will not enforce, as against the apprentice, any indenture whose terms are less advantageous than those allowed by the law." The apprentice may be released from further service under the following conditions : (1) In case of the death of the master; (2) Or when he removes from the state. ^" (3) The Superior Court may hear charges of violation of the contract of apprenticeship, or oppressive treatment, and, if they are well-founded, may discharge the apprentice from his obli- gations." (4) If the master gives up the trade to which the minor has 17 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 134, Sec. 4. Civil Code, Sees. 268, 269. 18 "When the minor is poor, homeless, chargeable to the county or state, or an outcast who has no visible means of obtaining an honest livelihood, the superior court may, with his consent, bind him as an ap- prentice during his minority. Proceedings therefor may be instituted by any citizen, and no fee must be charged by any officer for any act in connection therewith. In all indentures by the court for binding out an orjjhan or homeless minor as an apprentice there must be inserted, among other things, a clause to the following effect : that the master to whom such minor is bound must cause him to be taught to read and write and the ground rules of arithmetic, ratio and proportion, and must give him the requisite instruction in the different branches of his trade or calling and, at the expiration of his term of service must give him or her fifty dollars in gold, and two new suits of clothes to be worth in the aggre- gate at least $60 gold." (Statutes of California, 1875-6, p. 843, Sees. 8, 9. Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, pp. 561-2, See. 268 of Civil Code.) in "Every indenture entered into otherwise than as herein provided is, as against the apprentice, absolutely void." (Civil Code, 1905 amend- ment, Sec. 266.) 20 This provision refusing to allow the minor to be removed from the state was added in 1876. (Statutes of California, p. 845, Sec. 20.) 21 Civil Code, Sec. 271-2. -^^■^°] Eaves: Calif ODiia Labor Legislation. 291 been bound, he may ask the coiirt to discharge him from his obligations to the apprentice. ^^ The interests of the master are also protected by law. If the apprentice is guilty of gross misbehavior, or neglect of his duty, the master may bring complaint in the superior court to annul the contract. ^^ The costs of such a suit must be paid by the parents or guardian of the minor, or by the apprentice after he attains his majority. The master may also recover a fine of not more than $100 from any one who is guilty of enticing or persuading the apprentice to run away, or who harbors or conceals him, knowing him to be a runaway.^* Very little use appears to have been made of the state laws for the regulation of apprenticeship. Apparently the early labor organizations were not even aware of the existence of a law permitting the binding of the minor for a definite period. In 1867, at a meeting of the Industrial League, we find the members complaining of the lack of an apprentice law.^^ The carpenters discussed the subject in 1870, and, after denying any restrictive rules in their organization, declared that the boys would stay with their masters only one or two years ; then, when they were just beginning to be of some assistance, they became impatient of control and left.-" That some of the trade-unions adopted rules restricting the number of apprentices at an early date is evident from the fre- quent newspaper criticism of the results of such a policy." Such rules must, at first, have been adopted more because they were accepted traditions of the organization brought from older communities, than because there was any immediate danger of 22 Civil Code, Sec. 276. 23 Ibid., Sec. 274. 2* Ibid., Sec. 275. 25 "We should also have a law to regulate the apprenticing of our young men. At present the law scarcely provides for such an emergency. . . . There are over two thousand young boys running at large in this city and county, who otherwise would be employed, if there were proper laws in existence to regulate the apprentice system." Alta, June 2, 1867. 26 Bulletin, January 15, 1870. 27 The carpenters who asserted in 1873 that their roll had contained 3,000 names, declared that they had never made a rule restricting the number of apprentices, but the other building trades and the iron trades seem to have had such regulations. Bulletin, January 13, 15, 1870; Octo- ber 3, 1871; January 15, 22, 1873. 292 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2 overcrowding in the various trades. In the trade-unions the necessary training is generally secured by the enforcement of the requirement of a certain number of years of experience be- fore admission to the rank of a journeyman, and to membership in the union, rather than by indentures binding the apprentice to a particular master. Thus minors are allowed the same free- dom of contract claimed by the mature workman. As the trade-unions gained in strength, there were frequent disputes over this question of their right to restrict the number of apprentices.^* The Labor Commissioner undertook an in- vestigation of the subject in 1888. He found that fourteen of the forty-eight organizations examined had passed rules regu- lating apprenticeship and restricting the number allowed.-" While the evils due to the crowding out of the mature workers by the cheap boy and girl help are fully recognized, the Com- missioner deplores the fact that American boys are being de- prived of the opportunity to learn good trades, and gives sta- tistics showing that, of the artisans registered as voters in San Francisco, over forty-seven per cent, were foreign-born.^" Both in his chapter on the decay of apprenticeship'^ and in the report of his investigation of the printers of San Francisco and Oakland,''^ Commissioner Tobin points out the need of ap- prentice laws that shall compel the minor to stay with his trade until it is thoroughly learned, and also oblige the master to give more attention to the systematic instruction, rather than mere exploitation of the young people in his employ. The printers were particiilarly concerned about this ten- dency to substitute minors for adult workers, and to confine the 28 ' ' We have in our times trades assemblies and unions, the members of which are striving to obtain control over the number of apprentices to be admitted to learn the trades in various workshops. This has been and will continue to be a fruitful source of difference between employers and employees, and has led to strikes more than once. ' ' (First Biennial Re- port of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1883-4), p. 13.) 20 The trades having such regulations were: bricklayers, bag and satchel makers, ealkers, cigar-makers, cigar-packers, coopers, glass blow- ers, hatters, iron molders, pattern makers, stone cutters, tailors, printers, and wood carvers. Third Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 216-218. 30 Native-born artisans, 6,644; foreign-born, 5,960. (Ibid., p. 211.) 31 Ibid., pp. 193 ff. 32 Ibid., pp. 349-353. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 293 instruction of the j-oung people to a limited field where their services would yield the greatest profits. Abuses of this kind gave rise to several strikes and vigorously conducted boycotts, which prompted the special investigation of the Labor Commis- sioner, and also led the printers to take the initiative in the efforts to pass a stronger apprentice law.^** The proposed law, which had the support of the Labor Com- missioner and was endorsed by the Federated Trades Council, undertook to provide heavier penalties for the failure to fulfill the obligations of both apprentice and master. The minor was to serve at his trade for not less than three or more than five years. If he left his employer without good and sufficient cause, he could be arrested and punished by a fine of not less than three hundred dollars, and by the forfeiture of back pay and all other claims against his master. If the employer failed to discharge his agreement "to teach, or cause to be carefully and skillfully taught to his or their apprentice, every branch of his or their business to which said apprentice may be indentured, ' '^^ he became subject to the penalties of the act.**" As the Legis- lature failed to pass the bill, this measure is interesting chiefly as an indication of what the labor organizations wanted. Not only the trade-unions, but also the employers have at- tempted to frame apprentice regulations which would meet their needs more fully than those of the statutes. Some of these contracts have been quite unfair to the apprentices, as they permitted a discharge with forfeiture of back pay or other bonus whenever the master saw fit, and there were no guarantees of proper instruction. Among some of the provisions quoted from these agreements by the Labor Commissioner were the follow- ing : " I am to make mj'self useful in any department whenever and wherever directed, etc." "I am to be discharged by said whenever in their judgment they deem me incap- able of performing the work as they desire.'"" A firm employ- 33 Union Printer, November, 1888; February, 1889; March, 1889. 34 The bill is published in the Coast Seamen 's Journal of January 30, 1889. 35 A fine not exceeding $500 or less than $100, to be paid to the ap- prentice. sn Third Biennial Meport, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1887-1888), p. 197-8. 294 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 ing fifteen to twenty apprentices required them to sign a eon- tract agreeing to work for a term of years, and allowing the withholding of ten per cent, of the wages to insure the fulfill- ment of this agreement. At the same time the master claimed the right to break the contract and confiscate the sum reserved from the wages, if the apprentice failed, neglected, or refused to conform to the rules and regulations, or to perform diligently all lawful work required of him.^' The Labor Commissioner gave the apprentice regulations of the Union Iron Works as typical of the better class of agree- ments. The fact that hundreds of San Francisco mechanics have learned their trades under such contracts gives its terms particular interest.^* 37 ' ' The said parties of the second part hereby agree to instruct the party of the third part in the business of , through their employees and not individually or personally; and reserve the right to discharge said from their employment, under this indenture, and avoid this instrument at any time during said term, on account of any of the causes hereinafter specified; in which case the sum reserved from said wages, as hereinafter specified, shall be forfeited. . "It is further stipulated ana agreed, that the wages as hereinbefore expressed are so fixed upon the express condition and consideration that the said shall remain and continue in said service and employment for and during the term of years next ensuing from the date here- of; . . . and it is stipulated and agreed that said party of the second part shall reserve and keep back from and out of the monthly wages to be paid, . . . the sum of ten per cent, thereof." Ibid., p. 198. 38 ' ' Boys will be received either as ordinary apprentices to serve four years in one department, or as engineer apprentices, to serve six years — two years on machines, one year in the pattern shop, one year erecting, and two years in the drafting room. Ordinary apprentices will be received in the following departments: As machinists, including erecting; as pattern makers; as blacksmiths; as molders; and as boiler and plate workers. No boy will be received under sixteen years or over eighteen years in the machine, pattern maker, blacksmith, or molder departments; nor under fifteen or over seventeen years of age in the boiler and plate works, including shipwork. Boys in all departments will be taken on thirty days' trial, in order to satisfy themselves that they have made a proper choice, after which they will be required to register themselves as regular apprentices, by their parents or guardians in their behalf, and by themselves in their own behalf, all of which signatures will be considered as evidence that all the conditions herein named are understood and accepted by all parties interested. For machinist and pattern maker apprentices the parent or guardian will be required to deposit $.50 with the company, as a guarantee of good behavior by the boy. The company will also deposit $50 to the credit of the boy, said $100 to be given to the boy on the completion of his apprenticeship. For molders, blacksmiths, and plate workers, the company will make 1910] Eaves: California Lahor Legislation. 295 LAWS REGULATING THE CONDITIONS UNDBE WHICH MINORS MAY BE EMPLOYED. Notwithstanding the repeated efforts to secure adequate ap- prentice laws, this relationship has not been the typical or extensively accepted method by which the young people of Cali- fornia have entered upon their industrial careers. The census of 1870 shows 2,214 young people between 10 and 15 years of age engaged in gainful occupations in California; of this num- ber only 393 were apprenticed. It is evident from the reports of the Labor Commissioner, and comments in the labor papers, that the apprenticing of minors with the full acceptation of the relationship has not been extensively practiced since that date. Like the older workers, the child has freely contracted with one employer or another, and accepted such terms as the conditions of the labor market made possible. If "collective bargaining" is necessary to enable the adult worker to sell his labor advantageously, some means of pro- tecting the children from the cupidity of their employers is even more indispensable. It is greatly to the credit of the trade- unionists that the needs of the children have never been for- gotten. Demands for the thorough education and protection of the young have always received particular emphasis in the platforms and declarations of principles of the California labor movement. The eight-hour movement was the first organized effort to secure better conditions of labor through legislation. It cul- minated in the law of 1868, which placed the first limitation on the deposit of $50 to the credit of the boy, to be paid to him on the completion of his apprenticeship. Ordinary apprentices' wages shall be: First year, $4 per week; second year, $5 per week; third year, $6 per week; fourth year, $8 per week; three hundred full days must be worked to complete any one year. Engineer apprentices will be received between the ages of fifteen and seventeen years, for a term of six j^ears as already set forth. The parent or guardian will be required to deposit $100 as a guarantee of good faith. The company will also deposit $100 to the credit of said boy. Said $200 to be paid to the boy on the completion of his apprenticeship. Engineer apprentices' wages shall be: First year, $4 per week; sec- ond year, $5 per week; third year, $6 per week; fourth year, $7 per week; fifth year, $8 per week; sixth year, $9 per week; three hundred full days must be worked to complete any one year." (Third BieiDiial Eeport, Bu- reau of Labor Statistics (1887-1888), p. 198.) 296 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2 the length of the working-day of the children of the state. Though often forgotten and never enforced, this law has re- mained on the statute books ever since. The provision of the section applying to minors reads : ' ' Any person or persons having in his, her or their employ, or under their control, any minor, either as wards or apprentices, who shall require of them more than eight hours' labor in any one day, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable J)y a fine of not less than ten or more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not less than ten or' more than twenty days."^" There was no part of the eight-hour law whose passage was so vigorously contested as this. The vote in the senate on the motion to strike out this section stood 15 to 15, and it was retained only by the deciding vote of the presiding officer.'"' The force of this law was greatly lessened by the construction which even its supporters allowed it to receive. It appears clearly to prohibit the emploj^ment of the minors to whom it applies for more than eight hours in one day. But a preceding section had stipulated that eight hours should be a legal day's work unless the parties concerned agreed on some other time. We are surprised to find the very person who did most to secure the passage of the law conceding that the child might also agree to forego the protection which the measure appeared to give him." This provision limiting the hours of labor of minors was embodied in the penal code of 1872, where it has remained ever since.*- It is hard to understand whv the law has been so 39 Statutes of California, 1868, p. 03, Sec. 3. AUa, Jamiary 23, 1868. *o Sacramento Daily Union, February 14, 1868. *i The original eight-hour bill was prepared by A. M. Kenaday, a printer. The apprentice regulations were important in his trade. The carpenters who led in the eight-hour movement of 1867-8 seem to have been less strict in their regulations. The AUa of April 22, 1868, publishes a card from A. M. Winn, the President of the Mechanics' State Council from which we quote: "Par- ents and masters may require their children and apprentices to labor eight hours for a day's work and no more, but they have a right to 'stipulate between the parties concerned' that they shall work more time for a day's work. That is, the boy may consent, but cannot 'be required' or, what is the same, forced to work more than eight hours for a day's work. The law was intended to protect children against the tyranny of thoughtless and cruel masters some of whom are known to work their boys as much as fourteen hours in the twenty-four." Of course, when so constructed, the law at once lost its force. *- Penal Code, Sec. 651. '^^^'^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 297 completely ignored. Apprentices have been required to work as long or even longer than the adults in the same trades. Com- missioner Stafford reported in 1906 that of all the requirements of the present child-labor law, the nine-hour day was the most difficult of enforcement. No further attempts were made to regulate the employment of minors until 1889. The apprentice rules of the trade-unions were then under discussion, and particular attention had been attracted to the conditions of employment of minors by the printers' controversies over the number of children at work in certain shops, and by the discussion of the investigation made by the Labor Commissioner. At the meeting of the legislature following this agitation of the subject, the Federated Trades Council presented, in addition to the apprentice law already noticed, a bill regulating the employment of children and females.*^ This bill was finally passed, though in an amended and weakened form. The proposed age limit at which children might be employed was changed from thirteen to ten years.** Even this tender age did not satisfy all the members, as one senator who voted against the bill explained that he did so be- cause "many boys under the age specified in the act are com- pelled to work. ' ' The law required the registration of all minors under sixteen, and stipulated that a certificate duly verified by the parents or guardian should be kept on file, though it did not specify the nature of this certificate. It also provided that a printed notice stating the hours of labor expected of each person, and the names and ages of minors under sixteen, must be kept posted in the work rooms. The failure to comply with the law was punishable by a fine of from $50 to $200 for each and every offense. The Labor Commissioner was charged with the duty of enforcing the law.*^ 43 The original bill is given in the Minutes of the Federated Trades Council published in the Coast Seamen 's Journal of December 12, 1888. It required that the maximum time for females under eighteen and males under sixteen be fifty hours per week. This was changed to apply to all minors under eighteen. The original bill also prohibited the employment of illiterate children under sixteen years of age. 44 Senate Journal, 28th Session, pp. 121-2. 45 Statutes of California, 1889, p. 4. 298 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2: We have been unable to find any evidence of an attempt to put this law into operation. Three years later a member of the Retail Clerks' Association denounced the employment of boys, under twelve years of age in the dry goods stores .of San Fran- cisco. He declared that the children worked from eight to six every day, and until ten on Saturday, and that they were fre- quently dragged from under the counters where they had fallen asleep from sheer exhaustion.*" The Labor Commissioner in his Report for 1901-02 says of this measure: "This law was in existence in this State for something like ten j'ears, during which it is not of record that it received any particular attention from any source; in fact, when recently, in the City and County of San Francisco, the law in its amended form was brought to the attention of the- employers, fully ninety per cent, of them declared that they had never heard of it and were not aware that such a law was in existence."*' A bill amending the child-labor law was presented by the State Federation of Labor in 1901. The age limit was raised from ten to twelve years, and the nine was substituted for the ten-hour day. An additional penalty of imprisonment for not more than sixty daj's was also added.** This act passed both branches of the Legislature by a unanimous vote,*" and received the Governor's approval. For the first time in the history of the state a serious effort was made to enforce the law. The limited number of assist- ants of the Labor Commissioner compelled him to confine his efforts to San Francisco. He reported that during the eleven months' canvass 6,479 establishments were visited. In these were employed 3,633 minors under eighteen years of age. Of this number, 1,495 were working in violation of the law; 26 being under twelve years of age, and 1,495 were working more than nine hours a day or 54 hours in one week.'"' Notices were 4n Pacific Union Printer, Jxilj, 1892, p. 2. <" Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Lahor Statistics, p. 40. *^ Statutes of California, 1901, p. 631. As originally drafted for the Labor CoimGil, the age limit of employment was placed at fourteen years_ 40 Senate Journal, Sess., p. 829. Assemtly Journal, p. 1121. 50 Tenth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 42-3. ^^1'^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 299 sent to firms violating the law, and, with a few exceptions, the proprietors of the delinquent establishments modified their regu- lations so that they would conform to the law.^^ In 1903 an effort was made to raise the age limit of employ- ment from twelve to fourteen years, and to add more definite requirements about the age and schooling certificate.'^^ The bill was again presented as a measure of the San Francisco Labor Council, though the San Francisco Settlement Association and other civic societies joined in the efforts to secure its passage. The San Francisco fruit canners stirred up a vigorous oppo- sition to the proposed amendments. From early days the can- neries have employed large numbers of minors ;'^^ or rather, in most cases, the children are permitted to assist adult workers, who are paid on a piece-work basis. Formerly many young children were kept out of school for a month or six weeks during August and September to engage in this work under conditions that were quite demoralizing. Some of the large canners feared that the withdrawal of these children would lessen their profits, hence their opposition to any further legislation on the subject. An attempt was made to arouse the residents of the- fruit districts to assist in the defeat of the bill. Hundreds of postals, which grossly misrepresented its terms were sent to the rural communities. It is often impossible to enlist a sufficient labor force to save the fruit crop, so that these districts would be unwilling to dispense with the help of the children. The out- door work with the members of the family and neighbors is not likely to prove injurious. The trustees, who fix the school terms, generally exercise their power to declare vacations at the times when the assistance of the young people is necessary. The section of the bill which provided that it should not be construed to prevent the employment of minors at domestic, agricultural, or horticultural work during the time the public schools were not in session, or during other than school hours, amply protected the fruit industries. But many persons to SI Tenth Biennial Seport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 44-5. s2 Labor Clarion, January 23, 1903, p. 12. 53 Fourth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1889-1890), gives a table of the number of employees in California canneries showing the- large percentage of children. 300 University of California Publications in Economics. ["V'ol. 2 whom the alarming postals were sent did not investigate the truth of the assertion that the passage of the bill would deprive them of the assistance of their children in saving the crops, and complied with the request to sign the postals and mail them to their representatives in the Legislature. Hundreds of these ready-made protests were received by the members of the legis- lature, though an occasional more intelligent constituent reversed the terms of the printed opinion dictated from San Francisco, and returned an endorsement of the bill. The merits of the measure were fully argued in separate and joint meetings of the senate and assembly committees,"^ and the bill was finally returned to both branches of the legislature with recommendations that it pass. But the contest was vigorously renewed on the floor of the legislature, and its enemies succeeded in defeating it in the senate, and so weakening it by amend- ments in the assembly^^ that its friends finally withdrew it, rather than forfeit advantages already granted in the earlier law.^o During the next two years the settlement workers interested in securing better protection for the children tried to reach the evil in an indirect way by helping in the enforcement of the compulsory education law.''^ By serving for a month as special agent of the State Labor Bureau, the head worker of the settle- ment was able to gather authoritative information about the conditions under which the children in San Francisco and Oak- land were working.^* When the next session of the legislature convened, the settlement workers were prepared to make a deter- mined effort to bring California up to the standard of more 54 The writer was, at this time, head worker of the San Francisco Settlement Association. The account of the efforts to pass the child- labor law are matters of personal experience, as she presented the subject in the committees of the legislature, and assisted in lobbying for the bill at both the 1903 and the 1905 sessions of the legislature. 55 Senate Journal, 35th Session, pp. 150, 827. 56 Assembly Journal, 35th Session, pp. 113, 1285. 57 They made an exhaustive investigation of school attendance in the dis- trict in which the settlement was located. The results were published in the Western Journal of Education, October, 1904, p. 717. 58 For the report of this work, see the article on Women and Children Wage Workers, in Eleventh Biennial Seport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 11 ff. ^^'^'^] Eaves: California Laior Legislation. 301 progressive communities in the matter of the protection of the children. As a result of the experiences of 1903, and after discussing the terms of the new bill with representatives of prominent civic societies, two concessions were agreed upon in drafting the bill to be presented in 1905. These provisions have been se- verely criticized by eastern promoters of such legislation, and it is hoped that some explanation of the reasons for accepting them may lead to a better understanding of California con- ditions. First, it was agreed that children over twelve years of age might work in the school vacation, if they had a certificate show- ing that they had attended school during the previous term.^** As yet the children of California are not extensively emploj-ed in manufacturing or other confining occupations except in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. In these places the sum- mer vacation of the schools usually lasts but six weeks to two months. The permission to do summer work helped allay the fears of the fruit canners. In older communities, where the demand for the labor of children is greater, this concession might obstruct the enforcement of the law, but in California, where but few children are employed and the conditions of work are rarely severe, it would be hard to convince the public that there is any valid reason for refusing them this opportunity to earn a little extra money. The second of these concessions permits a child over twelve years of age to work temporarily when, owing to the illness of his parent or parents, his assistance becomes necessary for the support of the family. The permit to work under such circum- stances must be granted by the judge of a juvenile court, or, where there is no juvenile court, a judge of the superior court. The law also requires that such cases be investigated by a probation or truant officer, or such other person as the judge may designate, and that the certificate specify the kind of work and length of time for which it is issued.''" It was felt that. so statutes of California, etc., 190o, p. 12, Sec. 2. CO This section reads: "Provided that the judge of the juvenile court of the county, or city and county, or in any county or city and county m 302 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 in the absence of anj^ public fund pensioning children in such cases, this temporary assumption of the burden of assisting in the support of the family was a lesser evil than the breaking up of the family, or even a resort to charitable agencies for assist- ance. The same right to begin work two years earlier is not granted to orphans, becaiise with them it would mean a perma- nent retirement from school. Those interested in securing a stronger child-labor law were willing to make these concessions because they knew that they would be inviting another defeat, or insuring a lax enforcement of the law, if they insisted upon conditions that, under existing circumstances, would not receive the support of the best public opinion of the state. While in these two classes of cases the 1905 law permitted children to work at as early an age as the law of 1901, in other respects it is a substantial improvement. Not only is the age limit raised from twelve to fourteen years, but also the appli- cation of the restriction is greatly extended. The 1901 statute provided that "No child under twelve years of age shall be employed in any factory, workshop, or mercantile establish- ment";"^ while the law of 1905 reads, "No child under fourteen shall be employed in any mercantile institution, office, laundry, manufacturing establishment, workshop, restaurant, hotel, apart- ment house, or in the distribution or transmission of merchandise or messages."''^ Among the other new features are the prohi- which there is no juvenile court, then any judge of the superior court of the county or city and county in which such child resides, shall have authority to issue a permit to work to any such child over the age of twelve years, upon a sworn statement being made to him by the parent of such child that such child is past the age of twelve years, that the parents or parent of such child are incapacitated for labor, through ill- ness, and after investigation by a probation officer or truant of&cer of the city, or city and county, in which such child resides, or in cities and counties where there are no probation or truant officers, then by such other competent person as the judge may designate for this purpose. The permit so issued shall specify the kind of labor and the time for which it is issued, and shall in no case be issued for a longer period than shall seem necessary to the judge issuing such permit. Such permit shall be kept on file by the person, firm, or corporation employing the child therein designated, during the term of said employment, and shall be given up to such child upon his quitting such employment. Such certifi- cate shall be open to the inspection of the truant and probation officers, etc." (Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 12.) f'^ Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1901, p. 631, See. 2. «2 Ibid., 1905, p. 11, Sec. 2. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 303 bition of night work"" for children under sixteen; the require- ment of an ■ educational test or night-school work for all under this age, and also a number of provisions intended to insure a stricter enforcement of the law."* A systematic effort was made to secure an extensive endorse- ment of the law before it was presented to the legislature. The State Federation of Labor and the San Francisco Labor Council heartily supported the bill, and the papers of these organizations, and also of the Building Trades Councils, gave it extensive notice. The settlement workers were able to obtain the endorse- ment of the San Francisco Merchants' Association, and of the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara chambers of commerce. They prepared attractive material, and by personal interviews with the editors obtained editorials in the chief San Franqiseo news- papers. Governor Pardee was also interviewed and his consent given to quote him as being "heartily in sympathy with such legislation." Civic societies and individuals were requested to write letters to members of the legislature asking them to assist in the passage of the act. Copies of the bill and liter- ature furnishing information about similar legislation in other sections of the country, and arguments in support of the measure, were sent to nearly every paper in the state. Many papers complied with the request to print the bill and write editorials in its support."" Nor were the efforts relaxed after the introduction of the bill. Every member of the legislature was interviewed by workers from the Settlement Association, and a careful record prepared of how each would vote on the measure. As many members 63 Statutes of California, etc., 190.5, p. 11, See. 2. «i Ibid.. See. 3. 65 Much of the credit for the passage of the present California child- labor law is due to Mr. J. P. Chamberlain, a San Francisco lawyer and settlement worker. He assisted in drafting the bill, attended to securing the endorsement of the San Francisco Merchants' Association, and the Santa Barbara and Los Angeles chambers of commerce. He also made an able argument for the measure before the joint senate and assembly committee, and interviewed many members of the legislature on its be- half. The passage of the act in the senate was facilitated by the fact that E. I. Wolf, the president of the senate, consented to introduce the bill. Assemblyman J. B. Dorsey, who was sponsor for the bill in the assembly of both the 1903 and 1905 sessions of the legislature, also ren- dered much valuable assistance. 304 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 were away at different times visiting the state institutions, or on other business, it was necessary to watch carefully in order to prevent the act coming to a vote when its friends were absent. As all opposition to the bill had been thus carefully forestalled, its final passage was assured. Fortunately at the time of the enactment of this law, the State Labor Bureau was under able and energetic management. The school superintendents or principals were required to issue the age and schooling certificates, and to file a duplicate copy with the county superintendent of schools. Over nine thousand copies of the law were distributed by the Labor Commissioner to all parts of the state, and the school authorities were sup- plied with the blank forms for the certificates, so that by the time the law went into effect its terms were familiar to the public. The Labor Commissioner reports that both the public and parochial school principals, with but few exceptions, have cheerfully assisted in the enforcement of the law, and that about fifty newspapers published the law, many of them with favorable comments. The officers of the Labor Bureau also visited some 2,000 establishments where 11,000 minors under eighteen were em- ployed. Of these, 2,500 were boys, and nearly 3,000 were girls between fourteen and sixteen years of age. They found that over eleven per cent, of the employees of the stores and factories of the state were minors under eighteen years of age. The provision of the law most difficult to enforce has been that re- quiring the nine-hour day. Excluding the children under four- teen from employment has resulted in an increased demand for older boys and girls, so that they have been able to command better wages."" After about six months of these efforts to give publicity to the law, and to enable the careless but well-disposed employer to conform to its reqiiirements, it became evident that the residue of violations could only be reached by prosecutions in the courts. The officers of the Labor Bureau swore out complaints in both 66 A full account of the efforts to enforce the child-labor law is given in a paper prepared by Commissioner Stafford for the Commonwealth Club. It is published in the Labor Clarion of April 13, 1906. l^l"] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 305 San Francisco and Los Angeles. But the police courts seem to have been very reluctant to enforce the law. The Labor Commissioner reports, "In one instance a case was continued thirteen times before the defendant was found guilty, and after this there were two continixances for sentence, at which time fines of $100 on one count and $50 in the other were imposed by the court, and the defendant's counsel gave notice of appeal. This happened six months ago, and at this writing the bill of exceptions has not been settled.""'' J. M. Spencer, one of these employers who was charged in four different cases Mdth violating the provisions forbidding the employment of children under fourteen years of age, ap- pealed his case to the Supreme Court. The chief ground for attacking the constitutionality of the law was the claim that it was special legislation showing unfair discrimination. The de- cision, which was written by Justice Shaw and concurred in by the other judges of the court, fully sustained the law. The argument begins with the establishment of a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the law,"* and then proceeds to a consideration of the more positive reasons for recognizing its validity. Children were held to be fit subjects for the exercise of the special police power of the state. "From their tender years, immature growth, and lack of experience and knowledge, minors are more subject to injury from excessive exertion and less cap- able of self-protection than adults. They are therefore pecu- liarly entitled to legislative protection and form a class to which legislation may be exclusively directed without falling under the constitutional prohibitions of special legislation and unfair discrimination. ' '°° It was charged that the law set aside the trades in which the employment of children is forbidden and subjected them to special restrictions, and that it unduly and without reasonable 0' Labor Clarion, April 13, 1906. «8 "The presumption always is that an act of the legislature is consti- tutional, and when this depends on the existence, or non-existence, of some facts, or state of facts, the determination thereof is primarily for the legislature, and the courts will acquiesce in its decision, unless the error clearly appears." {In re Spencer, 149 C'al. 400.) «» /)! re Spencer, 149 Cal. 400. 306 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 cause restrained minors in their right to work in any and every occupation in which they may wish to engage. The court held that the law appeared to have been framed in good faith for the protection of the children, and that the power to forbid their employment in certain occupations and not in all depends on the question of whether any appreciable number of children are ejnployed in the callings not forbidden. There could be no serious doubt that, if certain occupations are more harmful than others, the legislature had a right to forbid the employ- ment of children in them. It was pointed out that the specifi- cations of the forbidden callings are broad and comprehensive. The argument on this point concludes, "The decision of the legislature, that the specified occupations are- more injurious to children than others not mentioned and hence the subject of special legislation, and that they constitute practically all the injurious occupations in which children are employed at all, and therefore the only eases in which regulation is needed, is not so manifestly incorrect, nor so clouded with doubt concerning its accuracy, as to justify the court in declaring it unfounded and the law, consequently, invalid. ' '"" It was held that the section permitting a judge of a juvenile court to grant permits allowing children over twelve to ■ work in cases where the parents are incapacitated through illness does not discriminate against orphan and abandoned children, since the provision is for the benefit of the parent, and in these latter cases there are no parents whose necessities the child's labor could alleviate. The court also failed to sustain the charge that the issuing of vacation permits gave exclusive power to principals of the public schools, as the same right is given to officers of private schools. The extent of the permit is measured in all cases by the vacation of the public schools. This requirement is in keep- ing with the compulsory education law passed at the same time ; l\v these enactments all children under fourteen are required to attend some school for a period corresponding with the session of the public schools.'^ -0 In re Spencer, 149 Cal. 402-404. 71 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 388. ^^-^^] Eaves: Calif orvia Labor Legislation. 307 Finally it was declared, "The proviso concerning illiterate children is a reasonable regulation to prevent those having con- trol of such children from working them to such an extent as to hinder them from acquiring, or endeavoring to acquire, at least the beginning of an education before arriving at the age of sixteen years. The exemption of domestic labor and the several kinds of farming from the operation of the act is not an unreasonable discrimination. Such work is generally carried on at the home and as a part of that general home industry which should not be too much discouraged, and it is usually under the immediate care and supervision of the parents or those occupying the place of parents, and hence is not liable to cause so much injury. These circumstances distinguish them from the prohibited industries and is a sufficient reason for the exemption. ' "^ The larger part of the ^vork of prosecuting the violations of the child-labor law fell to J. M. Eshleman, the deputy Labor Commissioner.'^ In 1907, he was elected a member of the legis- lature, where he assisted in securing the passage of two amend- ments to the law. By these, the school attendance officers are given the right to enter places of employment to see whether children are working in violation of the law; and horticultural labor is defined as including the curing and drying, but not the canning of fruit.''"' COMPULSOEY EDUCATION LAWS. In an indirect way the compulsory education laws correct some of the same evils combatted in the child-labor legislation. The California code of 1872 copied the section of the New York code which required the parents to give a child "support and education suitable to his circumstances."" The first compul- sory education law was passed in 1874."= This provided that. 7- In re Spencer, 149 Cal. 404. 73 See resolutions of appreciation of the S. ¥. Labor Council, Labor Clarion, July 27, 1906. " Statutes of California, etc., 1907, p. 598. T5 Cii-il Code, 1872, Sec. 196, N. Y. C. C, 1862, Sec. 77. TO Statutes of California, 1873-4, pp. 751-2. 808 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 unless excused by the board of education or school trustees, children between eight and fourteen years of age must attend school for at least two-thirds of the school term in the place where they lived, twelve weeks of the attendance to be consec- utive. In 1903 a new compulsory education law was enacted, by which the minimum time required was extended to five months. The law also made provisions for the appointment of truant officers and the establishment of parental schools. After the passage of the child-labor law of 1905, the compulsory edu- cation statute was amended so that the children are now re- quired to attend during the entire school term." EFFECTS OF THE ENFOECEMENT OF THESE LAWS. The efforts to educate the public to an appreciation of the significance of these laws and to secure their enforcement im- mediately bore fruit in the return to the schools of many children who would otherwise have been at work. Commissioner Stafford estimates that in San Francisco alone 2,000 children under fourteen years of age were thus permitted a better opportunity to obtain an education, and that 3,000 more of these little workers were relieved in other sections of the state.'* A part of this decrease is also shown in the United States Census report of the development of manufactures in California between 1900 and 1905. While the average number of wage-earners engaged in such industries increased thirty per cent., the number of chil- dren employed decreased 14.1 per cent.'" LAWS PROTECTING WORKING CHHjDREN FROM IMMORAL INFLUENCES. In addition to the laws regulating the hours of labor and age limit of employment of minors, there are several statutes which aim to prevent the exposure of children to immoral influ- ences. A law was passed in 1860 which imposed a fine of $500 or imprisonment for three months, on any one who employed a '''• Statutes of California, etc., 1905, p. 388. 7s Lahor Clarion, April 13, 1903. '" Twelfth Census, Manufactures, Part II, p. 51. 1^1''] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 309 female under seventeen years of age to dance, play on a musical instrument, or otherwise exhibit herself in any drinking saloon, public garden, ball room, or other place of public assembly.*" Since 1876 it has been a misdemeanor for any one having the custody of a child under sixteen years of age to apprentice, give away, let out, or otherwise dispose of such child, or use or employ him for singing, playing on musical instruments, rope- walking, dancing, begging, or peddling in any public street or highway, or in any mendicant or wandering business whatso- ever.*^ Two years later this law was strengthened by the ad- dition of other forms of prohibited amusements, and by pro- visions forbidding such employment in all obscene, indecent, or immoral exhibitions, or in any mendicant or wandering business, or in any business injurious to the health or dangerous to the life and limb of such a child. *^ Minors are also protected from immoral influences by laws forbidding parents, guardians, employers, or any other persons sending them to saloons, gambling houses, houses of prostitution, variety theaters, or other places of ill-repute.'"' It is not only a misdemeanor to send messenger boys to such places, or to persons connected with such places, but also any one who per- mits a minor to enter one of these houses where he may become acquainted with vice, is guilty of a misdemeanor.** NEED OF BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN. The great need in California is not more legislation for the protection of children, but a better enforcement of such laws as we already have on the statute books. Just because the child- labor problems have not assumed the distressing proportions of so statutes of California, 1860, pp. 86-7. Theaters were excepted from this prohibition. 81 Acts Amendatory to the Codes of California, 1875-6, p. 110. Fenal Code, See. 272. 82 Ihid., 1877-8, p. 813. This law was declared constitutional in In re Weher, 149 Cal. 392. S3 Enacted in 1887, Sec. 1389, of Penal Code, Statutes of California, etc., 1905, p. 760-1. 84 For the re-codification of all these measures see Statutes of Califor- nia, etc., 1905, p. 759. Penal Code, Sees. 273, 273e. 310 University of Calif oriiia Publications in Economics. ["V'ol. 2 other sections of the country, there has been much indifference about the enforcement of the measures that might protect the relatively small number among us whose unfortunate circum- stances have forced them to become bread-winners at an early age. The -appropriation allowed the Labor Commissioner is entirely inadequate to secure the factory inspectors necessary for the enforcement of the laws. Even with an increased number of officials, there would still be need of the active co-operation of all good citizens who have the welfare of the coming generation at heart. '^^^'^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 311 CHAPTER XI. LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WOMEN WORKERS OF CALIFORNIA. RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS. Owing to the presence of the Chinese and Japanese, women's labor has contributed less to the economic development of Cali- fornia than it has to that of other states of the Union. Because of this relative lack of importance, comparatively little attention has been given to legislation for the protection of the women workers. Indeed, the labor organizations, as well as the laws of the state, have sought to insure equal opportunities rather than any special protective legislation. When the Chinese first came to California, they were em- ployed chiefly in the mines and in building railroads ; it was only at a later period that they entered extensively into domestic service. Apparently their entrance into the homes of the state was due to the impossibility of securing an adequate supply of women workers. The reports of the California Labor Ex- change show that throughout the time that it was in operation (1868-1871), the demand for women servants was nearly twice as great as the supply. Even when the secretary reported a decrease of fifty per cent, in the orders for men workers, he added that the demand for women who would work in families was unabated. Nearly all these early domestic workers were Irish. During the first six months of the operation of the Labor Exchange,^ fourteen hundred women were furnished positions; of this number over a thousand were born in Ireland. If we may judge by one of the earliest decisions dealing with the rights of women workers, the California courts were disposed to give ample protection to these women who were earn- ing their living in other people's homes. In 1869 a claim of lAlta, November 12, 1868, report of Labor Exchange: 1402 females given employment; the chief nationalities were Irish, 1073; American, 121; German, 93 ; Scotch, 57. 312 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 a servant girl for extra pay came before a San Francisco court. When she was engaged, her mistress had stipulated that she wait upon a family of live and receive thirty dollars per month. The girl worked five months, during which time the family was swelled by visitors, so that it averaged nine instead of five. The girl's demand for an increase of wages was refused. Where- upon, she left and employed a lawyer to bring suit for additional pay covering the time she had been at work. After carefully consulting the formidable array of authorities cited, the judge decided that the girl was entitled to $100 additional wages. In publishing the report of the case the editor of the paper remarks, "This decision is evidently a just and equitable one. "^ The women workers do not seem to have participated in the labor movement of the sixties. Printing was the only organ- ized trade in which they were occupied. They were not ad- mitted to membership in the Typographical Union until some time after the strike on the newspapers in 1883. In this strike, and also in that of 1870, women compositors were engaged to do the work of the strikers. Before 1870 they were not em- ployed on the newspapers, but were successful in job-printing work. The Women's Co-operative Printing Union was able to compete successfully for this class of work, employing in 1870 as many as sixteen persons, ten of whom were women. The Pioneer, a paper devoted to women's rights, was also printed by women. The small papers in interior towns sometimes em- ployed women compositors.^ The public school teachers were the first women workers in California to receive legal protection.* In 1874 a law was passed to prevent discrimination against female teachers. It provided that, when doing the same grade of work, women teachers should receive the same pay as men.^ 2 Call, December 1, 1869, p. 3. 3 "Women at the ease," Bulletin, November 15, 1870, p. 3. * The sections of the Penal Code prohibiting the employment of female minors in theaters, dance-halls, etc., have been treated in the chapter on the child-labor laws. They were police measures rather than laws regulating the labor of women workers. These sections (303 and 306) were repealed iu 1905, as under the decision Ex parte Maguire, they were held to be uncon- stitutional. {Statutes of California and Amendments, 1905, 658, 657.) 5 Statutes of California, 1873-1874, p. .938. '^^'^'^J Eaves: Calif 0)'nia Lahor Legislation. 313 EFFORTS TO SECXJEE CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OP WOMEN'S EIGHTS. Several members of the Constitutional Convention of 1878-9 seem to have been ardent advocates of women's rights. A number of resolutions were introduced which aimed to extend the right of suffrage to women." It was also proposed by one of the representatives of the Workingmen's Party that the Con- stitution require that one-half of the employees of the State Printing Office, and one-half of the clerical force in the public offices of the state, be women.'' However, these more radical measures failed of adoption, the constitution-makers contenting themselves with a section which provides that, "No person shall, on account of sex, be disqualified from entering upon or pur- suing any lawful business, vocation, or profession."* It is difficult to see just what prompted this declaration of women's right to work. Certainly we have found no evidence indicating that the women of California had ever been refused the privilege of engaging in any occupation they wished to enter. Probably it was inserted as a compromise measure to satisfy the members of the Convention who had advocated the more radical pro- visions on women's rights. This section of the Constitution has been of very doubtful value to the women workers of the state. It will probably stand in the way of any special protective legislation, and, as yet, has been invoked only in defense of the right of women to dispense liquors in saloons. Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, a woman was arrested for the violation of a San Francisco ordinance making it a misdemeanor for any woman to act as an attendant in any dance-cellar, bar-room, or other place where intoxicating liquors were sold. The woman was discharged from custody, on the ground that the ordinance was unconstitutional, because it disqualified a woman from pursuing a business lawful for men." 6 California Constitutional Convention, pp. 97 and 104. ' Debates and Proceedings of the California Constitutional Convention, 1878-1879, p. 120. s Constitution of California, Art. XX, Sec. 18. 9 Ex parte Maguire, 57 Cal. 604 (1881). The case was tried "in bank." Pour judges concurred in the decision and two dissented. The section (303) of the Penal Code similar to the ordinance was also declared unconstitu- tional, and has since been repealed. 314 University of California Publications in Economics. 1^°^- 2 It was contended that the inhibition of the ordinance wa& not on account of sex, but because of its tendency to immorality. While granting that such was the design of the ordinance, it was held that this object must not be accomplished by excluding a woman from a lawful business, as the law would not coun- tenance an attempt to do by indirection what could not be done directly. As to the claim that this was but an exercise of the police power granted by the Constitution, it was pointed out that the section in question imposed a restraint on every law- making power in the state. The court declared, "This power to make police regulations is as much restrained by the section just referred to as is the legislative power vested in the Senate- and Assembly. Both grants of power are alike made by the Constitution, and both are alike restricted by this section of article XK."^" WOMEN IN THE TRADE-UNIONS. By the time we reach the second great period of trade-union activity, between 1886 and 1891, the conditions in California. with reference to the employment of women had changed. The reluctance to take positions as domestic servants, which is com- mon to all sections of the country, was increased here by tha fact that the Chinese were largely employed in that capacity. The women workers found employment in the fruit canneries, in the shoe and glove factories, at cigar making, in the various, sewing trades, in the laundries and in all sorts of clerical posi- tions. In many of these occupations they came into competition with Chinese, and in cigar making they sometimes worked at. the same bench. ^^ The records of the Federated Trades Council show that the women workers in many of these trades were organized, and took part in the activities characteristic of the labor movement at this time.'^ We find the girl shirt makers sending a dele- ■ 1" Ex parte Maguire, 57 Gal., p. 607-8. 11 Fourth Annual Report of the U. S. Com. of Labor., p. 25-6. 12 The Coast Seamen 's Journal publishes items about women workers in. the following issues: November 2, 1887; March 12, 1888; July 23, 1890;. January 29, 1891; April 29, October 9. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 315 gation to the men's unions to call attention to their label/* The girl workers in the shoe factories were well organized, and had a representative in the Federated Trades Council. The glove workers were also unionized. The printers were among the first to admit women to full trade-union membership. We have been unable to find the date when this occurred, but the Union Printer for November, 1886, contains the following notice, "For some time past the lady members of the Union have been agitating the idea of attending the meetings, and the culmination was the appearance of some twenty-five at the last meeting."" The Knights of Labor interested themselves in the condition of the women workers of San Francisco, and organized an As- sembly composed entirely of women. In March, 1888, a mass meeting was held under the auspices of this Assembly for the purpose of considering ways of bettering the condition of the working women of the city, particularly those engaged in the sewing trades. This meeting was presided over by Mayor Pond, and a number of prominent speakers gave advice and commended the efforts being made.^" Attention was also attracted to the condition of the women workers by investigations which were being made at this time by both the United States Labor Bureau and the State Bureau of Labor Statistics.^" PASSAGE OF THE LAWS PEOTECTING WOMEN WORKERS, ]889. In response to this general public interest, the State Labor Commissioner undertook in 1889 to secure the passage of two measures for the protection of the women wage-earners of the State. One of these has already been noticed in the account of the legislation for the protection of minors. The child-labor law of 1889, as originally drafted, provided that no minor under isMinixtes of the Coast Seamen's Union for March 12, 1888, and July 21, 1890. 14 Two of the women were promptly appointed members of one of the committees. 1-. Alta, March 16, 1888, p. 4. 10 Fourth Annual Report of the XJ. S. Com. of Labor, Working Women in Large Cities. Third Bienuiul Report of the Bureau of Labor Stathtic. OF EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES. An interval of over twenty-five years elapsed before another attempt was made to run a free public employment agency. Thfe records of the San Francisco auditors and license collectors show great fluctuations in the numbers of licenses issued during this period. The fee was $50 a quarter until 1872, when the charge was lowered to $15 per quarter. The accompanying table shows the number of licenses and the amounts collected between 1862 and 1902 : Year No. Am't. Year No. Am't. Year No. Am't. 1862 24 $1,200 1875 86 $1,290 1890 61 $915 1863 25 1,230 1876 70 1,050 1891 67 1,005 1864 24 1,150 1877 52 780 1892 75 1,125 1865 19 9.50 1878 39 585 1893 82 1,230 1866 21 1,150 1879 31 465 1894 92 1,380 1867 25 1,350 1880 35 525 1895 80 1,200 1868 18 900 1883 53 795 1896 92 1,380 1869 27 1,350 1884 58 870 1897 94 1,410 1870 52 2,300 1885 64 960 1898 100 1,500 1871 36 1,800 1886 69 1,035 1899 82 1,230 1872 41 1,560 1887 65 975 1900 97 1,507 1873 68 1,020 1888 53 795 1901 128 2,048 1874 73 1,095 1889 63 945 1902 131 2,096 18 These were quarterlj' licenses, so there were from four to six private offices in operation. The license statistics are taken from the San Fran- cisco Municipal Reports, 1862-1902. 19 Bulletin, October 6, 1869. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 3-4] The earlier reports do not show the variations in the proprie- torship of these ofSees, but this information is given in the Police Reports of 1904-5. If these years are typical of the pre- ceding ones, then a very high percentage of the enterprises of this kind are extremely short-lived. In June, 1903, there were thirty licensed offices. During the succeeding year sixteen re- tired from business and two had their licenses revoked; but during the same period twenty-five new offices were opened, so that in June, 1904, there were thirty-seven places in operation. In the following year fourteen retired from business, and four had their licenses revoked, while thirty-four new offices were opened, leaving a net gain of fifteen. It is probable that this continuous shifting of the proprietorship of these offices has helped make possible many of the abuses that have been charac- teristic of the business. EFF0BT8 TO COEEECT THE ABUSES OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, 1890. Beginning about 1890, the labor organizations, assisted by the State Labor Commissioner, have waged almost continuous warfare against the abuses of the employment agencies. The complaints are no longer confined to San Francisco; Los An- geles, Sacramento, and Stockton have developed evils similar to those which have given rise to such bitter criticism of the San Francisco agencies. As the same evils have been continually recurring in all the different agencies, we will give a summary of the chief causes of dissatisfaction, and then outline the at- tempts to secure legislation regulating the business. The investigation before the Senate and Assembly committees in 1891, the Reports of the State Labor Commissioners,™ and the articles in the labor papers show the following causes of complaint against the employment agencies : (1) Accepting a registration fee for which no services are rendered. (2) Extortionate charges for positions furnished. 20 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics. See also the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twelfth Biennial Reports. The evidence taken be- fore the committees in 1891 was published in the Appendix to the Journals, 29th Sess., Vol. 7, Doc. 8. 342 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 (3) Refusal to return fees where no positions are furnished. (4) Sending men to distant places to take fictitious positions. (5) Collusion between foremen or employers, and the em- ployment agent, who divide the profits from fees paid for a few days' employment. (6) Misrepresenting the conditions of employment. (7) Furnishing strike-breakers. (1) The better class of unorganized workers are generally the victim of the first abuse. Book-keepers, clerks, and teachers have frequently been fleeced by the registration system. At- tractive advertisements are put in the papers or sent through the mails, and large numbers of persons are induced to pay a fee for the privilege of registering, and waiting for notice of a possible position. A few of those registering are informed of openings, but usually a very high percentage get no return for the fee. Sometimes other devices are added to increase the amount of money extorted, as when the "Business Women's Club" required the purchase of stock as a prerequisite to ob- taining a position, or when extra charges are made for printing the name and address of the applicant in a "Reference Book," for circulation among possible employers.^^ ■ (2) Extortionate charges seem to have been a continuous and common form of imposition. Commissioner Fitzgerald, who made a thorough investigation of tl^e abuses connected with this business, declared, ' * The positions are sold for all they will bring. If it is laboring work at $1 per day, $1 to $2 is charged. If lighter employment, from $15 to $50 a month, from $1 to any amount obtainable ; if for a higher class of employment, the sale of the positions then assumes the shape of an auction and is sold to the highest bidder, and in instances has brought as high as $100."^^ (3) Prior to the state legislation regulating employment agencies, the San Francisco Supervisors attempted to remedy this evil of retaining the fees when no position was furnished. They passed an ordinance which prescribed a form of receipt 21 Ninth Siennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 74-5. See also the Twelfth Biennial Beport, p. 182. 22 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Lahor Statistics, pp. 54, 62. ■^^■^*'] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 343 required of all employment agents. This stated the amount paid, the position which the information given was expected to secure, the wages offered in the position, and also the following agreement which was signed by the agent : ' 'Failing to do which we promise to refund the said sum on return of this receipt within two days, together with a written statement from the employer that the applicant could not get the situation. But the undersigned do not hold themselves responsible for any ex- penses incurred by the said should he fail to obtain the situation above stated unless the information given at this office upon which he acted and applied for said situation should have been found to have been incorrect." In cases where the situation sought was outside of San Francisco, ten days, instead of two weeks, were allowed for the return of the receipt.^^ But this failed to remedy the matter, as the agents fre- quently refused to return the fees on presentation of the receipt, and when foremen were in alliance with the employment agent they would retain the receipt, or would not certify to the failure to obtain work. Commissioner Fitzgerald collected 458 of these fees amounting to $1040 in one year,^^ and other commissioners testify to frequent complaints of violation of this law.^^ (4) in 1861 the San Francisco Chief of Police found him- self distressed by the daily complaints from poor strangers who had spent their last dollar in pursuit of fictitious positions offered by swindling intelligence offices, and the last report of the Labor Commissioner assures us that "Cases in abundance have been brought to the attention of this office where innocent workmen have been sent even as far as Arizona and Nevada in search of jobs that never existed."^" Apparently the employment agents hope that their victims will be unable to return from these dis- tant places to make known their wrongs, — or at least that they 23 Resolution 3640 (3d Series), passed in 1890. Re-enacted December 1, 1904. Ordinance No. 1336, p. 660, Ordinances of the City and County of San Francisco. 2* Seventh Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 55. 25 Ninth Biennial Seport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 73. 26 Twelfth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 182. Organ- ized Labor, February 14, 1903, p. 3. See also the testimony of Alexander and Smith in Appendix to Journals, 29th Sess., Vol. 7, Doc. 8, where sixty men were sent to Oregon. For cases in southern California, see the account in the Chronicle of June 12, 1908. 344 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°^- 2 cannot get back before the agents have fleeced a goodly number and retired from the business. (5) It is difficult to prove conclusively secret agreements between the employers and the intelligence-office keepers, but the investigation of the committees of the legislature and also the reports of the Labor Bureau show that the workingmen have believed this to be one of the most flagrant and common forms of the abuses charged to this disreputable business. Of course an agreement to employ only men sent by a particular firm implies some division of fees between the employer and the agent.-^ When both parties are interested in the accumulation of fees, it is inevitable that the unscrupulous employers or fore- men will find occasions for frequent changes in their working force. The testimony of the victims of these disgraceful bar- gains shows that, in many instances, men were sent to distant places, only to be discharged without apparent cause after a few days' work. In some cases, they did not earn enough to cover their expenses. In one instance it was claimed that the foreman's share of the spoils amounted to sixty dollars per month.^* (6) We are hardly surprised to find that, in addition to his other crimes, the employment agent is charged with a wholesale misrepresentation of the conditions of employment in the posi- tions which he offers. It is to be expected that the advantages of the opportunities for employment offered would be exagger- ated in order to induce men to take them and pay the fees, but the form of misrepresentation which has aroused the wrath of organized labor is that which has resulted in men coming from the East to take the places of strikers, under assurances that there were no labor difficulties connected with the employment offered. This has led to the custom of sending out the warning "stay-away" letters and circulars from the unions involved and from the Labor Council, whenever a strike is in progress. (7) The employment agencies . have sometimes furnished a ready means of supplying strike-breakers in times of industrial 27 See aflada^it of Murray, Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 66. Also pp. 57-64. 28 Evidence on Employment Agencies, Appendix to Journals, 29th Sess., Vol. 7, Doc. 8. ■^^■^°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 345 warfare.^" But for this conflict with the powerful forces of organized labor, it is probable that the dishonest employment agent might have continued to ply his trade with much greater impunity. His victims are rarely found among the more skilled workers, as these depend on the employment offices that are con- ducted as a part of the regular activities of their unions. Such workers resort to the public offices only in times of great de- pression in their trades, when they are forced to fall back into the class of common laborers. The usual patrons of the employ- ment offices are the farm hands and common laborers who do the seasonal and other forms of temporary work.^" These classes are generally too poor and friendless to defend themselves. The second^^ active campaign against the evils of the employ- ment agencies in 1890-1 bore fruit in the San^ Francisco ordi- nance**^ regulating the business, but failed to secure the state legislation proposed. We have been unable to find a copy of the bill presented at this time, but it is probable that it embodied the recommendations of the Labor Commissioner contained in his report for 1891-2. He proposed that free employment agen- cies under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Statistics should be established in all cities within the State having a population of more than 25,000. He maintained that "This Bureau would serve as a sort of clearing house, where the wants of all classes, employers and employees, in all parts of the state, reported through the different offices, could be compared, and the balances of supply and demand between the various labor districts of the state could be adjusted. ' '^^ The plan for conducting this business under the supervision of the State Labor Bureau was not carried out until 1895-6, when Commissioner Fitzgerald undertook to demonstrate the usefulness of such an enterprise by establishing a free employ- ment agency in connection with his San Francisco office, using i« uryanised Labor, August 13, 1904; June 30, 1900. 30 This is shown not only in the statistics of the California Labor Ex- change already cited, but also in the Eeports of the Labor Bureau. See "Employment Agencies" in the Ninth and Twelfth Biennial Reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 31 The first was that of 1861. 32Eesolution 3640 (3d Series), quoted on p. 343. 33 Fifth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1891-2, p. 12. 346 University of California Publications in Economics. ['Vol. ^ only his regular appropriation and about a thousand dollars collected from business men interested in the undertaking. He was able to find positions for 5,800 of the 18,920 persons who applied to him for work. In his report of the experiment he declared that "The result of the work shows the absolute need of its enlargement to the different labor centers of the State, and I sincerely hope that the wisdom of the Legislature will provide for the establishment of different offices with sufficient appropriation to prove their efiSciency. "^* The next Labor Commissioner was not in sympathy with the plan by which the Bureau would be turned into a vast free employment agency. He argued that such an agency never created work for the unemployed, and that being free made it attractive to the shiftless and unreliable, who would not be care- ful in fulfilling engagements for which they had paid no fee. Since the income of those in charge did not depend on its suc- cess, they would be apt to lack in zeal, so that the state office would be less efficient than the private enterprises.^^ In his second biennial message, Governor Gage returned to this plan of establishing a free employment office under the supervision of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics. He thought that the Bureau should be made of more practical benefit to the laboring people, and that stringent provisions could be inserted in the law that would insure the Labor Commissioner and his assistants discharging their duties with appropriate energy.^" But the legislature has continued to ignore all pleas for an appropriation for this purpose. To establish offices in a number of the cities of the state would require a large expenditure of the public money, and the past history of the Labor Bureau justifies a doubt as to whether it would discharge these extended duties with sufficient ability to insure a fair return for the money expended. The labor organizations have turned their attention to the regulation of the private agencies, rather than to securing a free state administration of the business. Among the numerous-. 34 Seventh Biennial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 8. 35 Ninth Biennial Beport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 73. 36 Second Biennial Message, January 5, 1903, Appendix to Journals,. 35th Sess., Vol. 1. ■^^■^°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 347 ^labor measures which became laws in 1903 were two bills for the regulation of the employment agencies. The Law and Leg- islative Committee of the San Francisco Labor Council seems to have given this subject careful study, for as early as March, 1902, progress was reported on the employment agency bill. The laws enacted at this time, if fully enforced, would check many of the abuses complained of in the past.^^ ^T statutes of California, 1903, pp. 14-6. "See. 1. Any person, firm, corporation, or association pursuing for profit the business of furnisliing directly, or indirectly, to pejsons seeking employment, information enab- ling or tending to enable sucli person to secure such employment, or registering for any fee, charge, or commission the names of any person seeking employment as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be an employment agent within the meaning of this act. I ' Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for an employment agent in the State of California to receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable consideration from any person seeliing employment, for any information or assistance furnished or to be furnished by said agent to such person, enabling or tending to enable said person to secure such employment, prior to the time at which said information or assistance is actually thus furnished. See. 3. [Amended by the Act of 1905.] It shall be unlawful for an employment agent in the State of California to retain, directly or indi- rectly, any money or other valuable consideration received for any regis- tration made or for information or assistance such as is described in Section two hereof, if the person for whom such registration is made or to whom such information or assistance is furnished fails, through no neglect or laches of his own, to secure the employment regarding which registration such information or assistance is furnished, and said money or consideration shall be by said agent forthwith returned to the payor of the same, upon demand therefor, by the latter or his agent. See. 4. [Declared unconstitutional in Ex parte DicTcey, 144 Cal. 234, and repealed by the Act of 1905.] It shall be unlawful for an employ- ment agent in the State of California "to receive, directly or indirectly, for registration made or for information or assistance such as is described in section two hereof, any money or other consideration which is in value in excess of ten per cent, of the amount earned, or prospectively to be earned, by the person for whom such registration is made or to whom such information is furnished, through the medium of the employment regarding which such registration, information, or assistance is given, during the first month of such employment; provided that said value shall not be in excess of ten per cent, of the amount actually prospectively to be earned in such employment when it is mutually understood by the agent and person in this section mentioned, at the time when said infor- mation or assistance is furnished, that said employment is to be for a period of less than one month." Sec. 5. (Tax collector to furnish list of agencies to Labor Commis- sioner.) Sec. 6. (Written records to be kept showing: (1) Name of appli- cant. (2) Name of person furnishing the information. (3) Amount of cash received for the information. (4) Names of persons failing to se- cure positions and reasons therefor. (5) Names of persons receiving return cash. (6) Amount of money returned.) Sec. 7. (The records to be open to the Labor Commissioner.) Sec. 8. (Penalties.) 348 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 The first of these laws begins by defining employment agencies in such a way as to make the law applicable to all registration oiBces or similar establishments charging fees for assistance in obtaining employment. Sections 2 and 3 provide that no fees can be collected prior to the time that the infor- mation of a possible position is actually furnished, and require the return of fees in cases where no employment is obtained. The fourth section of the law, which has since been declared unconstitutional, provided that the fee should not exceed ten per cent, of the first month's pay, or, when the employment is for a shorter period, ten per cent, of the prospective amount actually earned. The tax-collectors are required to furnish the Labor Commissioner with lists of all agencies receiving licenses, in order to enable him to inspect the careful records which the law requires them to keep. Violations of the law are punishable by a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The second law affecting this business, passed in 1903, de- clares it unlawful for any person, partnership, company, cor- poration, or organization of any kind to induce persons to come to the state, or move from one part of it to another, in search of employment, by misrepresenting the conditions of work, par- ticularly in matters relating to labor disputes. The penalties for such misrepresentation are much more severe than those for the violation of the previously reviewed employment agency law; the fine may amount to $2000 and the imprisonment to one year, or both may be imposed. ^^ 38 " It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company, corpor- ation, association, or organization of any kind, doing business in this State directly or through any agent or attorney, to induce, influence, per- suade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this State or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country tb any place in this State, to work in any branch of labor, through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning the kind or character of the work, the compensation therefor, the sanitary conditions relating to or sur- rounding it, or the existence or non-existence of any strike, lockout, or other labor dispute affecting it and pending between the proposed em- ployer or employers and the persons then or last theretofore engaged in the performance of the labor for which the employee is sought." {Stat- utes of California, 1903 pp. 269-270.) When the employment agency law was amended in 1905, a part of this act was substituted for the provisions that had been declared unconsti- tutional in Sec. 3 of that law. 191"] Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 349 Several changes were made in the employment agency law by the 1905 session of the legislature. The section of the law which sought to limit the fee charged for assistance in securing a position to ten per cent, of the first month's wages, or of the amount actually earned, was declared unconstitutional because of its undue interference with the freedom of contract. The court maintained that such a restriction could not be defended on the ground that it was an exercise of police power, as this power can only be used for the preservation of the public health, safety, or morals. It was claimed that the business in question was one beneficial to the public, and that there was no more reason for regulating the prices charged for such services than in any other legitimate occupation.^" Section 4 of the act in question arbitrarily deprived the employment agent of his right of contract and circumscribed him in the pursuit of his live- lihood by a law not applicable to his fellow-men in other occu- pations, and was therefore unconstitutional. Section 3 of the law was also amended. Instead of requir- ing the return of the fee in all cases where the person fails to secure the position, the provision making it unlawful to misrep- resent the conditions of employment was inserted. The return of the fee, and also the payment of the expenses incurred in seeking the position is required, when the information given is at variance with the facts.*" 39 "And where, it may be asked, could the line be drawn, if the Legis- lature, under guise of the exercise of the police power, should thus be permitted to encroach upon the rights of one class of citizens? Why should not the butcher and the baker dealing in the necessaries of life be restricted in their right of contract, and, consequently, in their profits, to ten, five, or one per cent.? Why should not the contractor, the mer- chant, the professional man, be likewise subjected to such paternal laws and why might not the Legislature fix the price and value of the services of labor?" (Ex parte Diclce%, 144 Cal. 238-9.) *o ' ' Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any employment agent in the State of California, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country, to any place in this State to work in any branch of labor, through or by means of any representations what- soever, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, unless such employment agent shall have assured himself beyond a reasonable doubt that such representations are true and cover all material facts affecting the employment in question. Whenever such representation, whereby any person is induced, influenced, persuaded, or engaged to change from one place to another in this State, or from any place in any state, territory, or country, to any place in this State to work in any 350 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- ^ If these laws were strictly enforced, they would correct some of the more flagrant evils of the employment agencies. But the class who suffer most from their abuses are generally poor and ignorant, — often friendless strangers. Only miich greater care in issuing the licenses and a more systematic inspection of the business will prevent unscrupulous agents from continuing to take every possible advantage of their helplessness.""^ branch of labor, shall prove to be in any material degree at variance with, or short of the truth, the employment agent responsible for such representations shall immediately return to any person who shall have been influenced by such representations, any and all fees paid by such person to said employment agent on the strength of such representations, together with an amount of money sufficient to cover all expenses in- curred by such person influenced by such representations in going to and returning from any place he shall have been influenced by such repre- sentations to visit in the hope of such employment." (Statutes of Cali- fornia, 1905, pp. 143-4.) *i An attempt is being made at the present (1909) session of the legis- lature to amend the law so that these conditions will be fulfilled. The bill requires a stricter examination of those applying for licenses, and a more thorough inspection of the business. ^^^0] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 351 CHAPTER XV. LAWS FOR REGULATION OF CONVICT LABOR. The problems connected with the employment of the convicts of the state have, from the outset, been peculiarly difficult of solution in California. Owing to the situation, the attractions of the climate, and other more complex causes, the percentage of the criminal population has been higher than in other parts of the country, thus imposing an unusually heavy burden upon the taxpayers. At the same time, there has been from early days a most persistent and vigorous opposition to the profitable employment of prison labor in manufacturing industries. Until recent years the comparative isolation of the state has limited the market for her manufactured goods, so that any competition was. quickly felt and its effects jealously watched. The manu- facturing interests have centered about San Francisco, where the menace of Chinese labor led, at any early date, to organized efforts in defense of the good working conditions that have gen- erally been characteristic of the state. To find steady and profitable employment for a large number of convicts, without in any way coming into competition with the free wage-workers of the state, has been a most difficult undertaking. THE LEASING SYSTEM. The first plan adopted for the regulation of the state prison had nothing to recommend it but its cheapness. The whole responsibility of caring for the prisoners, and finding them employment was turned over to lessees. Two men, M. G. Val- lejo and J. M. Estell, undertook to guard and maintain the convicts of the state without other compensation than what they hoped to make from their labor.^ Vallejo quickly realized that he had made a bad bargain, and hastened to secure his release,^ but Estell took over the ten-year contract and persisted in his i Statutes of California, 1851, pp. 427-8. 2 lUd., 1852, p. 157. 352 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 efforts to make money out of the care of the convicts of the state. By the original agreement, Vallejo also undertook to furnish money for the prison building.^" After his withdrawal,^ bonds were issued for the amount needed to erect buildings. In the meantime, the prisoners were confined in the county jails, or the "prison brig," one of the many abandoned vessels in San Francisco Bay which had been equipped for their safe-keeping. As might be expected, this plan under which the state sought to shirk its responsibilities for the management of the state prison, worked very badly. Estell claimed that his contract permitted him to employ the convicts wherever, and at whatever labor he found profitable.* The prisoners were worked in large gangs away from the prison grounds. Some of them were sent out without guards to serve as domestic servants, or to work on ranches. The "trusties" went on errands either with or with- out their guards. Of course many of the prisoners escaped. It is evident that the privations of their prison life would tempt them to take desperate chances in order to regain their freedom. While the Prison Inspectors were not explicit in their report of conditions, the distressing details that must have called forth their general remarks are easily imagined. They declared, ' ' The state prison of California, as it now exists, is no paradise for scoundrels. It is a real penitentiary — a place of suffering and expiation. Of work there is abundance, with privations and corporal punishment." This early period when the state prison was managed by a lessee was interrupted by a brief and disastrous interval of full state control. Estell had not found his contract profitable and relinquished it in 1855.^ Up to this time the state prison had cost the public nothing but the salary of a few officials appointed for inspection, but now over $55,000 a month was required for its maintenance. In addition to a warden and a complete list 2a Statutes of California, 1851, p. 540. slbid., 1882, pp. 132-4; 1853, pp. 155-158. * Eeport of Prison Inspectors, Appendix to Senate Journal, 1855. Re- port of committee relative to the condition and management of the state prison, Appendix to Senate Journal, 6th Sess., 1855. 5 Correspondence between Governor Bigler and Estell, Assembly Jour- nal, 7th Sess. (1856), pp. 46-51. ^^^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 353 of assistants, three directors at a salary of $3500 each were appointed." The latter were to reside at the prison and have a general oversight — if we may judge by the results — of the looting of the public treasury. This was the period when it was felt that nothing short of a vigilance committee could purify the political corruption of San Francisco. Unfortunately this committee did not extend its operations to the state adminis- tration. The officials of the state prison were second to none in their ability to make away with the public funds. During the seven months of state control, $388,278 was spent for the maintenance of the prison. The wall was erected, not by prison labor, but by contractors who collected over $65,000 more than was due for a most unsatisfactory piece of work.' The pris- oners were employed chiefly in making bricks, but even this oc- cupation proved a source of graft, for under the able manage- ment of the directors it required $17,168 worth of wood to burn $20,000 worth of bricks. The committee that reported these facts recommended a re- turn to the leasing system. The legislature hastily authorized the Lieutenant Governor, Controller, and Treasurer to act as a Board of Commissioners to lease the state prison grounds and property for five years, the lessee to erect additional buildings, and bear all expenses, including those of the recapture of escaped convicts.^ Estell was able to renew his contract with a promise of $120,000 a year of state funds, to be paid in monthly install- ments of $10,000 each.^ It was agreed that he should "be at full liberty to work said prison convicts at any and all mechan- ical branches of business that he may choose, provided that the said convicts shall not be employed in any kind or description of labor that shall greatly endanger their lives, health, limbs, or safe-keeping."^" Under this new arrangement the prisoners were employed u Statutes of California, 1855, p. 292-6. 7 Report of Committee, A-ppendix to Senate Journal, 7tli Sess., 1856. 8 Statutes of California, 1856, pp. 48-9. Beport of Committee on State Prison {Appendix to Assembly Journal, 1857). 10 Supplementary agreement to contract of March 26, 1856 (Alta, Feb- ruary 3, 1858). 354 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 chiefly in improving the prison grounds and in making brick.^^ But the contractor was anxious to find more profitable occu- pation for his charges, and his advertisements offering contrac- tors the labor of the many skilled meehanics^^ that he declared were to be found among the five hundred prisoners, soon led to the establishment of more varied prison industries, and also called forth the first protest against the competition between convict and free labor. An article presented before the Mechanics' Institute in Feb- ruary, 1857, attacked the California state prison system as "a blight upon the mechanical labor of the state." The writer claimed that the manufacture of hats, furniture, casks, and stone-work for buildings was already or soon would be absorbed or greatly injured by convict labor, and that the immigration of a desirable class of free mechanics was being greatly retarded by this threatened competition of the large number of prison laborers in the state. He pointed out that the support of the prisoners, whose labor was being utilized for private gain, to the detriment of the free mechanics, was costing the public $120,000 a year, or $240 for each convict. It was suggested that the prison labor should be utilized to improve the rivers and tule lands, and that the profits of such labor be given to the convicts. ^^ The mechanics of the state were urged to make a vigorous organized protest against the growing menace. A year later we find a correspondent of the San Francisco Bulletin arguing that the labor of the convicts should be con- fined within certain well-defined limits. He claimed that, though this labor was limited in amount, it could be brought to bear against any one who demonstrated by experiment that a par- ticular manufacturing business could be carried on successfully in the state. He declared that, to his certain knowledge, the fear of this competition had retarded the establishment of many manufacturing enterprises.^^ 11 Eeport of Committee, February 25, 1857 {A-gpendix to ^t^ssembly Jour- nal, 1867). The convicts made 7,000,000 bricks during the year. 12 Quoted in the article in the Baily California Chronicle, February 14, 1857. 13 There are several references to this article in the newspapers of the time, but none of them gives the author's name. See Daily California Chronicle, February 14, 1857. ^*^ Bulletin, February 2, 1858. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 355 The administration of the state prison was attacked at this time not only because of this growing competition with the free laborers of the state, but also because it was so badly managed that the people living in its vicinity were in constant fear of an outbreak of desperate criminals. The newspaper articles and the complaints from the neighborhood led to the appointment of a joint committee of investigation by the state legislature. On maldng an unexpected visit to San Quentin, this committee found a most deplorable state of affairs. '^^ The greater profits of the new contract had not secured a more humane treatment of the prisoners. One hundred and twenty of the prisoners were barefooted, and others had sought to protect themselves from the cold by tying pieces of sacks or blankets about their feet. The bedding was filthy and quite insufficient, and the food so bad that the hogs actually declined to eat it. At night young^" and old were crowded into the large dormitory or inadequate cells, with a resulting immorality that was indescribable. Ninety- four prisoners had escaped during the previous year. The special committee appointed to recommend action on this report declared Estell's contract forfeited, and presented a bill which required the Governor to take immediate possession of the state prison, and make suitable provisions for its admin- istration. This bill was passed by a unanimous vote with record- breaking speed.'^' Governor Johnson hastened to execute the order, and succeeded in obtaining forcible possession of the prison keys and seal twenty minutes before the arrival of a restraining injunction.^^ A new plan for the government of the prison was now de- vised. The extravagant and corrupt board of prison directors had been abolished." The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State were appointed prison directors.^" Under the 15 The committee report is published in the Appendix to the Assembly Journal of 1858, and also in the daily papers of February 2-4. (See Alta and Bulletin.) 16 At this time there were 82 boys under 21 confined at San Quentin. Boys who arrived at the prison in knee breeches were confined with hard- ened criminals from all parts of the world. 17 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 32. 18 Bulletin, February 26, 1858. 19 Statutes of California, 1857, p. 74. 20 Ibid., 1858, p. 259. 356 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol- 2 new regime the condition of the prisoners was greatly improved, and they were employed chiefly in improving the prison grounds and in making bricks. But Estell, who had carried his case to the courts, regained control of the prison, and he and his heirs or agents held it until the expiration of the term of his contract in 1861." THE CONTEACT SYSTEM OE PEISON LABOE. From 1861 to 1880 the state prison was under the control of Boards of Directors made up of the chief state officials, the Governor or Lieutenant Governor acting as chairman. The members of the board were allowed a moderate additional com- pensation for their work in administering prison affairs. The chief disadvantage of this system was the fact that the directors were continually changing, thus preventing any continuity of policy in the management of the prison. It was even possible for an incoming board to repudiate the contracts of their pre- decessors.^^ The labor of the prisoners was either utilized in the improve- ment of the prison property, or sold to contractors who em- ployed it in various manufacturing industries. With the ex- ception of the brick-making, all of these industries were carried on in shops built within the prison walls, thus lessening the difficulties of guarding the convicts. The contractors were al- lowed the use of shops and store-rooms rent free, but installed their own machinery and paid the foreman who instructed and superintended the prisoners while in the shops. The prices paid for the labor of the prisoners ranged from 30 to 75 cents per day. The maximum price of 75 cents was paid for selected skilled mechanics by a contractor in 1861. The usual prices were 40 to 50 cents a day for the more capable workers, and 30 cents for those who were less desirable. Attempts to raise the amount paid, or to enforce the uniform 50 cents charge always resulted in the withdrawal of the contractors, and the enforced idleness of a large percentage of the prisoners. ^^ 21 Statutes of California, 1860, pp. 249, 348. 22 Eeport of the Eesident Director {Appendix to Journals of the Senate and Assembly, 18th Sess., 1st Vol.). 23 Eeport of the Eesident Director {Appendix to Journals, 18th Sess., Vol. I). Eeport of the Board of Directors {Appendix to Journals, 23rd Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 11, p. 17). •^^^°J Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 357 Every stage in the early development of the manufactures of the state was reflected in the work-shops of San Quentin. While brick-making was the most continuous and profitable of the in- dustries carried on under the contract system, there were many other attempts at a profitable utilization of convict labor. The making of hats and clothing, boots and shoes, coopering, foundry and blacksmith work, the making of agricultural implements and wagons, the tanning of leather, and its manufacture into saddles and harness, the making of furniture, sashes and doors, were all, at one time or another, carried on in the prison work-shops. The making of furniture, sashes and doors, and the leather work seemed best adapted to the profitable employment of the pris- oners. EAELY EFFORTS TO SECUEE LEGISLATION PREVENTING THE COMPETITION OF CONVICT AND FREE LABOR. This extensive development of prison industries took place notwithstanding repeated vigorous protests from the free me- chanics of the state. The cigar makers were among the first to suffer both from the competition of the Chinese and of prison labor. They seem to have been back of the attempt made in 1862 to pass a bill restricting the convict labor to certain occu- pations. It was declared that the mechanics of the state only asked for some such restriction, so that it would be possible to choose a business "free from this state prison curse. "^'' In the debate it was charged that the author was not disinterested, as the profits of his business were imperiled by the fact that several hundred prisoners were then engaged in making cigars. At this time the members of the legislature were not at all in sympathy with such protective legislation. One opponent of the bill characterized, "the hobby of all this anti-state prison and anti-cooley talk for the Benefit of free white labor, " as a " mag- nificent humbug. ' '^^ The author of the bill was unable to obtain a reconsideration of the vote indefinitely postponing the measure. A somewhat different method of dealing with the problem was proposed in 1866. A bill was introduced prohibiting the 24 Senate bill 79,361 (Journal of Senate, 1862). 25 Debate on Prison Labor, Sacramento Daily Union, April 24, 1862. 358 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 employment of convicts in the manufacture of clothing, harness, cabinet-ware, cutlery, tin, glass, leather, or iron, or in any me- chanical trade, art, or business,- a knowledge of which is usually acquired by apprenticeship, except in the production of manu- factured articles for the use of the convicts.^" On the recom- mendation of the state prison committee to which it was referred, the bill was indefinitely postponed. In 1867 the Workingmen 's Convention continued the agita- tion on the subject of the evils of competition with convict labor. While the eight-hour law, Chinese exclusion, and the mechanics' lien law were given priority in their resolutions advocating labor legislation, they did not neglect to add a section declaring,^^ ' ' That the present system of farming out the labor of state prison convicts in mechanical occupations, works great injury to parties engaged in legitimate trades, while the state derives but little benefit from the system, and we earnestly recommend a revision of the existing laws relating to convict labor. ' ' "When the workingmen sought to discover causes to which they could charge the enforced idleness, lowering of wages, and universal suffering of the seventies, the competition of Chinese and convict labor seemed the most obvious local factors contrib- uting to the depression. In 1873, after the great crowds of unemployed men had collected in San Francisco and had begun holding their meetings on the sand lots, a vigorous effort was made to prevent the lowering of wages and prices through the competition of the cheap convict labor. Furniture making was one of the chief industries carried on in the state prison at this time, and the Cabinet Makers' Protective Union took the initi- ative in this new effort to restrict the competition with prison labor. After holding a mass meeting to arouse public senti- ment, the matter of devising suitable legislation was turned over to the JMechanics' State Council. ^^ The Committee on Prison Labor of the Council prepared a report, which was presented to the state legislature, suggesting another solution of the vexed question. It was recommended 28 Letter from Sacramento, Alta, February 24, 1866. ^■! Bulletin, April 3, 1867; Alta, June 2, 1867. 28 Alta, September 30, 1873. 1^1*^] Eaves: Calif or)iia Labor Legislation. 359 that the prisoners be allowed to work only in the trades monopo- lized by Chinese labor. The making of doors, blinds, sashes, cigars, cigar-boxes, coarse clothing, carpets, and heavy bagging were enumerated as suitable occupations. These mechanics were convinced that, with proper management, the state prison could be made self-supporting.^" A number of bills dealing with the subject were presented to the state legislature in 1873-4. One of these which provided that no contract should be made for less than $1.50 a day for skilled and 50 cents for unskilled convict labor passed both Assembly and Senate. This bill also authorized the officers of the prison to manufacture articles which could be sold for the benefit of the state. ^^ Governor Booth vetoed the bill; his reas- ons for doing so are made evident in the following extract from his message : ' ' The employment of convict labor by contract has been the subject of just criticism. There is no choice be- tween this and idleness, until the prison is placed under the control of a permanent board by whom the business of the institution could be managed upon a policy fixed for a longer term than four years. The price paid by contractors of convict labor — 40 cents per day inside the wall — seems to be much under its value, but no administration has been able to get more. The last advanced the price to 50 cents, but were compelled to recede to 40, or allow the prisoners to be unemployed. ' '^^ This subject of the competition between convict and free labor often found a place in the bitter harangues of the sand-lot meetings of 1877-8. The suffering unemployed were reminded that only in the state prison could they be sure of regular occu- pation and maintenance. This was one of the wrongs which the representatives of the "Workingmen 's Party elected to the Constitutional Convention of 1878 were expected to remedy. 20 Report of Committee on Prison Labor, Appendix to Journals, 20th Sess., Vol. VI, Doe. 6. 30 Assembly bill, No. 246. Alta, March 19, 29; Call, March 19, 1874. 31 Message of Governor Booth, Senate Journal, 1873-4, p. 75. 360 University of California Puhlications in Economics. \yo^- 2 CHANGES OF POLICY INAUGUEATED BY THE NEW CONSTITUTION. The provisions adopted in the new Constitution which the legislature embodied in the statute of 1880, contemplated a com- plete change in the prison system. The article of the Consti- tution dealing with this subject was prepared by Governor Haight with the intention of presenting it to the convention. On his death, it was left with the Prison Commissioners, whose secretary forwarded it to the convention, where it was adopted without alteration.''^ Instead of the temporary board of direc- tors, composed of state officials, the new plan provided for a board of five members who were to be appointed by the G-ov- ernor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members were to serve ten years, but were classified so that one member would retire every two years, thus securing greater continuity in the policy of the board.'' The Prison Commissioners receive no compensation other than their reasonable traveling expenses. It was hoped that this provision would insure the appointment of members who had a disinterested desire to improve the ad- ministration of the prisons. The Constitution'* and the statute of 1880'^^ also met fully the wishes of the workingmen of the state in the matter of the restriction of convict labor so that there would be no compe- tition with the free wage-workers of the state. After the first of January, 1882, the labor of the convicts was not to be let out by contract, but was to be employed for the benefit of the state. This involved a complete change of policy in the management of the labor of the convicts. Before taking up the history of the period of state control of the prison industries, we will sum up some of the advantages and disadvantages of the contract system. 32 Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, p. 158. 33 Constitution of California, Art. X. 34 Hid., Art. X, Sec. 6. 35 Statutes of California, 1880, pp. 67-75. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 361 SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTKACT SYSTEM OF PEISON LABOE. The claims of the advocates of the contract system that it was a more profitable way of employing the convicts were un- doubtedly well-founded. The prison officials could not be ex- pected to master the intricate details connected with the success- ful management of a varied, modern, manufacturing business. The payment of a fixed sum by contractors who were alread.\' familiar with the business was a far simpler plan which insured a definite and reliable income. But the amount earned was often comparatively small because of the difficulty of findint.' employment for a large percentage of the convicts. In only one year (1862)^" did the prisoners earn their support. The directors of that year succeeded in finding work for a high per- centage of the convicts, but for the larger part of the period when the contract system was enforced, less than half of the prisoners were profitably employed. It was impossible to occupy all the idle convicts in the improvement of the prison property, so the officials frequently reported their inability to find employment for many of the convicts. **' Of course this great irregularity or total lack of employment had a very demoralizing effect on the prisoners. There were; also other ways in which the contract system tended to destroy the prison discipline. The foreman of the contractors, who had control of the men while they were in the shops, were interested in the amount of work the convicts could produce, rather than in the enforcement of prison regulations. The extra pay allowed the prisoners as an inducement to diligent work was not under the control of the prison officials, and was frequently used for gambling, or to purchase drink or opium. The contract system of prison labor was objected to, not on the ground of injury to the convicts, but because it was claimed that it tended to lower the wages of free laborers, and to prevent 36 The directors of this year were Leland Stanford, J. F. Chellis, and Wm. H. Weelcs. 37 Notice the Report of the Prison Directors in the Appendices to the Journals of the 16th, 18th, and 21st sessions of the legislature. 362 University of California Publications in Economics. \yo\. 2 the industrial development of the state. Undoubtedly the in- fluence of this factor was greatly exaggerated, as it was inevit- able that, with the establishment of more perfect means of communication with other parts of the world, and the decline in the output of gold, it would be found impossible to maintain the high prices and wages of the early period. The unusual and long-continued depression of the seventies was due to wide- spread and complex causes which affected California in common with other sections of the country. Yet, after making due allow- ance for all such mistaken ideas, we must admit that there was, a substantial f6undation for the charges that the contract system of prison labor was a menace to the industrial welfare of the state. As has been pointed out, the market for California manu- factured goods was limited. The employment of two or three hundred convicts could make a substantial difference in prices and wages in any particular trade. It tended to prevent the more wholesome development of industries operated solely by free labor. A manufacturer who was trying to build up a normal business was never secure from competition with some rival, who, with more capital, could establish a plant at the state prison, and, with the advantage of cheap labor, reduce the cost of production below what was possible for an employer who must pay the high wages then demanded by free mechanics. DEVELOPMENT OP PRISON INDUSTRIES UNDER STATE CONTROL. The controversies over the employment of the prison labor were by no means ended with the constitutional and statutory enactments of 1879 and 1880. In their First Annual Report^^ the new Board of Prison Directors expressed doubts about the wisdom of abandoning the contract system, claiming that in other states it had been found more profitable and less difficult of administration than any other plan. However, they were pre- paring to establish the prison factory for the manufacture of jute bags which had been suggested by Governor Perkins in his, inaugural message. The Governor had pointed out that twenty- 38 First Annual Report of the Board of Prison Directors, June 30, 1880,, Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 24th Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 8. 1^^*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 363 five million of these bags were required every year for the grain crop alone. Their chief cost was for labor, and, as yet, only one jute factory operated largely by Chinese had been established in the state. He thought the jute might be grown here, thus affording a new industry for the farmers. ''^ In accordance with the Constitution and the law of 1880, the agreements with the contractors expired January 1, 1882, and the convicts should then have been employed under state control in "the manufacture of any article or articles which, in the opinion of the Board, may inure to the best interests of the state."*" As the time set for the change approached, it was learned that the new Prison Directors proposed to continue the manufactures that were then being carried on at San Quentin. Immediately the San Francisco Trades Assembly and the unions whose members believed themselves injured by competition with prison labor, called mass meetings for the discussion of the sub- ject. The newspapers were filled with interviews in which pro- prietors and their employees expressed their indignation at this disregard of the law.*^ These protests had very little effect on the Prison Directors. They were ambitious to make the prison self-sustaining, and were proud of the fact that, when the state assumed control, there was not a single day's stoppage of the work in the various industries carried on at San Quentin.*- The new arrangement under which the prison industries were operated was a direct evasion of the spirit and intent, if not of the letter of the law. Instead of selling the labor of the pris- oners at so much per day, it was agreed that the same contractors who had formerly operated the shops should furnish the material, appoint and pay the foremen, and then buy the finished product, which was supposed to be made under the control of the state. At the same time, the Prison Directors made an effort to find new industries that would not conflict with those already estab- lished in the state. It was proposed to confine the work in the 39 Inaugural Message of Gov. G. G. Perkins, Appendix to JournaJs, 23r(]' Sess., Vol. V, Doe. 19, pp. 4-5. 40 Statutes of California, 1880, p. 71. *i AUa, December 3, 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 1881. ■12 Third Annual Eeport of the Board of Prison Directors, Appendix to- Journals, 25th Sess., Vol. VI. 364 University of California Publications in Economics. \.^°^- ^ furniture factory to the making of chairs, and a committee was appointed to investigate the advisability of manufacturing woolen hats at the prison.*^ From the outset, the jute mill was a success. The Governor and Directors felt confident that they would soon be able to fulfill their promises to make San Quentin self-supporting.** When the State Bureau of Labor Statistics was created, among other duties, the Commissioner was charged with the investigation of, "The number, condition, and nature of the employment of the inmates of the state prison, county jails, and reformatory institutions, and to what extent their employment comes into competition with the labor of mechanics, artisans, and laborers outside these institutions."*^ In his first biennial report. Commissioner Bnos gives the results of such an investi- gation made in March, 1884. There were complaints from per- sons engaged in the tanning and manufacture of leather goods, and also from those who were making furniture, sashes and doors. It was claimed that, as a result of the prison competition, wages had been lowered in these trades twenty-five to fifty, per cent.*" The Labor Commissioner recommended that the new contracts or "propositions" be annulled, or if continued, the proposals for such contracts should be advertised and let to the highest bidder. Those entering into such agreements should pay rent for the shops and furnish their own machinery and raw materials. They should agree to make monthly settlements and to sell the articles made at a fair price. The number of convicts employed in a particular trade and the amount produced should be restricted to five per cent, of the number of free mechanics employed, and of the amount produced in the state. He thought that the labor of the prisoners could be profitably utilized in the manufacture of supplies used in the state offices and institutions, or in the erection and maintenance of public improvements.*^ 43 Report of Prison Directors, Alta, December 16. a Biennial Message, Appendix to Journals, 25tli Sess., Vol. I, p. 12. 45 Statutes of California, 1883, pp. 28-9, Sec. 3, Div. 11. 46 First Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 144-165. 4T lUd., p. 165. 1^^°] Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 365 The Prison Directors continued to ignore these complaints. As the granite quarries at Folsom were now being operated by the prisoners, the stone-cutters were added to the list of workers who felt that they were injured by prison competition.** The unions whose members were complaining and the San Francisco Federated Trades Council entered upon a vigorous campaign to compel the enforcement of the law. That they succeeded at last in making some impression on the Prison Directors is evident from the fact that in their report for 1886 they remark, "A labor agitation of unusual proportions swept the state. It was largely directed against the alleged competition of convict with free labor."*" As a result of all this agitation the Attorney General filed charges against the Prison Directors, and Governor Stoneman undertook an investigation. After an exhaustive hearing of the evidence and arguments, the Governor rendered his decision. While he declined to re- move the Prison Directors, or to declare them guilty of a vio- lation of the law, he instructed them to give thirty days' notice to the contractors of the termination of their agreements.^" This action resulted in the permanent closing of the furniture factory, the tannery, and the harness-making shops, and the temporary suspension of the sale of dressed stone from Folsom. ^^ *8 Second Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 134. •»» Eeport of the Prison Directors, November 1, 1886, Appendix to Jour- nals, 27tli Sess., Vol. II, p. 8. 50 An account of the investigation is published in the Second Biennial Eeport of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 129 ff. The Committee from the Federated Trades Council reported the Governor's decision as follows: "Governor Stoneman has decided the question, and, at last, so far as California is concerned, we have government for the people, not for the contractors who wax fat upon the products of convict labor and at the state expense. After thirty days no more stone will be dressed at Folsom to compete with the labor of the free stone-cutters, no more leather or leather-work, wood or wood-work, be turned out at San Quentin to impoverish the free workmen at those industries. . . . On Wednes- day morning Governor Stoneman informed your committee that he had decided to instruct the Prison Directors to give thirty days' notice to the contractors of the termination of their contracts with the prisons." The Committee thanked various Assemblies of the Knights of Labor, trade- unions, labor societies, and anti-Chinese organizations throughout the state for prompt and valuable aid. See also Eeport of the Prison Direc- tors, November, 1886. 51 The Warden's Eeport of August, 1888, says that they continued the sash and door factory, and that they were selling granite again, but that they were careful to sell it at the market price. (Appendix to Journals, 28th Sess., Vol. II.) A year later the Warden says, "By order of your 366 University of California PuMications in Economics, [^ol- 2 Further agitation on the part of the labor organizations was necessary to secure the closing of the highly profitable sash and door factory on March 1, 1889. After ten years of agitation by the labor organizations, the provisions of the State Consti- tution and statutes were at last enforced.^^ Aside from the desirability of making the prison at least largely self-supporting, regular employment was necessary to the welfare of the prisoners. The Directors were confronted with a perplexing problem, as it would cost $150,000 and take some time to install another jute factory. The Governor proposed to meet the difficulty in the same way that a practical manu- facturer goes about filling an excess of orders ; he suggested that they work a night-shift in the jute mill. New lights were in- stalled, extra precautions taken to guard the men, and then the plan was put into execution. For about three years two shifts of prisoners worked in this way. The Warden declared that the experiment was an entire success.''^ As the prison was badly crowded, there was the additional advantage of being able to have two shifts of men in the sleeping quarters. In 1891 the night-work was given up, as with the installing of additional machinery it was possible to occupy all the prisoners in the daytime. honorable Board, the manufacture of doors, sashes, and blinds was per- emptorily and finally discontinued on the first of March, and by that act an income of $25,000 to $30,000 a year was at once cut off. The action was taken to satisfy those who claimed that the labor of free citizens was interfered with and injured by the employment of our convict force. ' ' (Appendix to Journals, 29th Sess., "Vol. II. Tenth Annual Eeport of the State Board of Prison Directors.) 52 A new act to regulate and govern the State Prisons was passed in 1889. Sec. 18, p. 408, deals with the labor of convicts, and is as follows: "All convicts may be employed by authority of the Board of Directors, under charge of the Wardens respectively, and such skilled foreman as he may deem necessary in the performance of work for the State or in the manufacture of any article or articles for the State, or the manufac- ture of which is sanctioned by law. At San Quentin no articles shall be manufactured for sale except jute fabrics. At Folsom after the com- pletion of the dam and canal the Board may commence the erection of structures for jute manufacturing purposes. The Board of Directors are hereby authorized to purchase from time to time such tools, machinery, and materials, and to direct the employment of such skilled foremen, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, and to dis- pose of the articles manufactured, and not needed by the State, for cash, at private sale, in such manner as provided by law. ' ' 03 Eeports of the Prison Directors, Appendices to the Journals of the- Senate and Assembly, 28th Sess., Vol. II; 20th Sess., Vol. VIT. ^^-^''] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 367 The sale of the product of the jute factories has been regu- lated by laws passed in 1893 and 1905. The first of these stat- utes authorized the Directors to fix a price for bags which was not to be more than one cent per bag in excess of the net cost of production, exclusive of prison labor. The demands for the jute goods were to be registered and filled in the order of appli- cation. No more than 5000 bags were to be sold to one person ■except by request of the Warden and the unanimous endorse- ment of the Directors, unless all other orders had been filled The sales were allowed only to actual consumers; an affidavit to the effect that .the goods were for the individual and personal use of the applicant must accompany each order.^* The present law passed in 1905 retains the main provisions of the law of 1893, but does not require their enforcement throughout the year. It was passed for the purpose of permit- ting the Prison Directors to dispose of any surplus stock after the farmers of the state have obtained all the bags they need The regulations as to the number of bags sold to one persoji and the price are suspended between May 15 and October 15, «o that the Directors may then dispose of an accumulated stock to the best possible advantage.^^ This careful regulation of the •sale of the bags is for the purpose of preventing any combination to raise the price, such as had victimized the farmers prior to the enactment of this law. Some further discussion and legislation has been necessary to settle the question of what use should be made of the fine granite quarries at Polsom. For some years the labor of the convicts was utilized in the construction of the prison buildings, and the dam and canal which furnish water power to the prison. In 1905 it was decided to install a rock-crusher and prepare road-metal for the public highways.^"' "With abundant water power, the granite could be profitably quarried for paving and building stone, but, through the efforts of the trade-unions, a law was passed in 1901 prohibiting the employment of convicts on cut-stone work except for use in the prison improvements '^' 64 Statutes of California, 1893, pp. 54-5. 5= Ibid., 1905, pp. 532-3. 58 Ibid., 1897, 99-101. 57 Ibid., 1901, pp. 272-3. 368 University of California Publicaiions in Economics, [^ol- ^ An attempt was made to repeal this law in 1905, to the great indignation of the members of the Building Trades Council whose representatives promptly set to work to prevent its success. Thus the vexed question of how the convicts shall be em- ployed has been solved to the comparative satisfaction of both the mechanics and the farmers of the state. There is no longer cause for complaint of the competition with prison labor in any of the skilled trades, and the farmers are sure of a good supply of the sacks which are necessary for the handling of their grain crops. There are, however, some disadvantages connected with the California plan for dealing with the subject of prison labor. The convicts do not acquire any useful knowledge that will help them live a life of honest industry when they leave prison. The jute industries have not proved very profitable because of the low price charged for the bags, and because the raw material must be purchased in India, as it has been found impossible to grow it in California.''^ The trade-unionists are still vigilant in their efforts to guard against any possible future development of prison industries that may come into competition with free labor. The repre- sentatives of the San Francisco Labor CounciP^ and the State Federation of Labor"" reported the defeat of an attempt in 1907 to repeal the law prohibiting the employment of convicts in manufacturing certain articles. Having done away with convict labor in the skilled trades in the California prisons, the trade- unionists are now bending their energies to the task of prevent- ing the sale within the state of convict-made goods from other parts of the country."^ 58 In 1903 the Prison Directors were authorized to purchase California- grown hemp as a substitute for jute. {Statutes of California, 1901, p. 515.) =9 Report of L. C. Benham, Labor Clarion, April 5, 1907. eo Report of L. B. Leavitt, Proceedings of Eighth Annual Convention, State Federation of Labor, p. 95. 61 Senate Joint Resolution, Statutes of California, 1901, p. 938. ^^l*'] Eaves: Calif oritia Laior Legislation. 369 CHAPTEE XVI. THE STATE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. ATTEMPTS TO ESTABLISH A LABOE BUEEAXJ IN 1878-9. The first attempt to establish a State Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics was made in 1878, at the time when the sand-lot meetings of the unemployed were attracting the attention of the state. It is evident that, as originally introduced, the bill contemplated the creation of a bureau whose chief functions should be the collection and dissemination of statistics or other information about the conditions of labor in the state.^ This bill was re- ferred to a joint committee on labor affairs, where the character of the proposed bureau underwent a complete transformation. The measure reported provided for the establishment of a State Labor Bureau, which, in its functions and form of organization, was similar to the Labor Exchange of 1868-1871.^ It passed both branches of the legislature but failed to receive the approval of the Governor.'' In the convention of 1878-1879, an attempt was made to add 1 The Alta, January 22, 1878, gives the following summary of the bill introduced by Senator Donovan: The Bureau is practically instructed to inquire into the wages of labor, cost of living, amount of work required, the amount of labor-saving machinery, the number and condition of the Chinese, the amount of state and United States land in California, the manner in which people can procure enough for homes, and the manner in which speculators procure it; the system of taxation, especially as re- gards the difference of assessing large and small holdings, water, gas, railroads, etc. This information was to be presented to the legislature in biennial reports. The officers were to be a chief and a deputy ap- pointed by the Governor. 2 The Governor was to appoint a board of five commissioners, who would select a secretary. The Bureau was to prepare lists of those need- ing labor, together with information about the character of the worli offered, the sanitary conditions of the locality where the labor was to be done, the provisions for the comfort of the workmen, and the probable term of employment. Applicants for positions were also to be registered. In all cases when practicable situations were to be filled in the order of the applications. The board was also to establish a land department, where a record would be kept of lands for sale or lease, or government land subject to location. The services of the Bureau were to be free to all except aliens. (Sacramento Becord-Unioii, February 27, 1878.) 3 Senate Journal, 138, 285, 459. Assemlly Journal, 521. A pocket veto. 370 University of California Publications in Economics, l^"^- 2 a section to the much overloaded new Constitution, requiring the establishment of a Bureau of Labor and Labor Statistics.* C. J. Beerstecker, the champion of this measure, was a lawyer and a socialist, who had come to San Francisco in 1877. He immediately found favor with the Workingmen's Party and was one of their representatives in the Constitutional Convention. His speeches in defense of his proposed amendments to the Constitution show a somewhat exaggerated conception of the possible good which the proposed bureau might accomplish. It was claimed that the condition of the working classes in Massa- chusetts had been "vastly bettered" since the establishment of such a bureau, and that, among other benefits, it had brought about an absence of strikes and destructive riots. In addition to the publication of weekly and annual reports giving infor- mation about labor conditions, this Bureau was to undertake a paternalistic supervision of the laboring classes, and to recom- mend legislation in their behalf.^ The two superintendents were to be elected, and to have offices in Sacramento and San Fran- cisco." The members of the committee to whom Beerstecker 's plan was referred were unanimously of the opinion that it was inex- pedient to establish such a bureau by constitutional enactment, but were persuaded bj^ the author of the measure to report it back without recommendation for discussion on the floor of the convention. In defending the measure, Beerstecker declared that it had been introduced at the request of a large number of the citizens of the state, and that a similar bill had passed the legislature.' The opponents of the measure pointed to the history of the Labor Exchange, claiming that it had soon fallen into the hands of politicians, and that it had failed to benefit labor to any great extent. It was declared that the laboring men had no use for * Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, 1878-9, pp. 86, 92. 5 Ibid., p. 370, Sec. 2. ' ' The duty of this department shall be to col- lect and publish statistical details concerning every class of labor in the State; also to have general supervision of the commercial, industrial, educational, social, and sanitary condition of the laboring classes. ' ' 6 Ibid., Sec. 4. ■ Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, 1878-9, p. 1163. 191*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 371 statistics, or learned discussions of economic questions, but needed only to know where they could find employment. Finally, it was pointed out that the legislature had power to establish such a bureau at any time, and that it was unwise to give the more permanent constitutional sanction to a bureau which might prove worthless. The amendment was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 48 to 34.^ CEEATON OF THE BUEEAU OF LABOR STATISTICS IN 1883. The efforts to establish a Bureau of Labor Statistics were renewed in 1883, when two bills for its creation were presented. These were referred to a committee which brought in with a favorable recommendation the bill whose passage resulted in the final establishment of the Bureau." Each newly appointed Labor Commissioner has contemplated with dismay the vast amount of work which the act creating the Bureau of Labor Statistics laid upon him and his small force of assistants. Not only did the original act map out an extensive field of investigation, but since then the legislature has from time to time charged the State Labor Commissioner with new duties of the inost arduous character. Section 3 of the original act provides: "The duties of the Commissioner shall be to collect, assort, systematize, and present, in biennial reports to the legislature, statistical details relating to all departments of labor in the state, such as the hours and wages of labor, cost of living, amount of labor required, esti- mated number of persons depending on daily labor for their support, the probable chances of all being employed, the oper- ation of labor-saving machinery in its relation to hand labor, etc." This general summary of duties was amplified in the more specific statement of the twelve groups in which the facts collected might be classified.^" 8 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, pp. 1163-4. Assembly bill No. 30 (AssemUy Journal, 25tli Sess., pp. 18, 213, Senate Journal, p. 300. Sacramento Daily Becord-Union, February 3, 1883.) The bill passed with Uttle opposition; Assembly vote, 52-11; Senate, 30-1. 10 Said statistics may be classified as follows: 1. In agriculture. 2. In mechanical and manufacturing industries. 3. In mining. 372 University of California Publications in Economics. V^ol. 2 SUMMARY OF THE WOEK OF THE BUREAU. The passage in 1889 of the first child-labor law, and of the statute requiring sanitary conditions of work and the provision of seats for female employees, laid upon the Labor Commissioner the duties of factory inspector for the rapidly developing indus- tries of the state. Two years later the Chinese registration law directed this Bureau to issue certificates to some seventy-two thousand Chinamen.^' In 1901 the carpenters secured the pas- sage of a measure which made it the duty of the State Labor Commissioner to inspect and pronounce upon the safety of scaf- folding.^^ This much overburdened public official was loaded with extensive new obligations in 1905, when a law was passed charging him with the collection of the state statistics of mar- riage, divorce, and crime. ^^ 4. In transportation on land and water. 5. In clerical and other skilled and unskilled labor not above enumer- ated. 6. The amount of cash capital invested in lands, buildings, machinery, materials, and means of production and distribution generally. 7. The number, age, sex, and condition of persons employed; the nature of their employment; the extent to which the apprentice system prevails in the various skilled industries; the number of hours of labor per day; the average length of time employed per annum, and the net wages received in each of the industries and employments enumerated. 8. The number and condition of the unemployed, their age, sex, and nationality, together with the causes of their idleness. 9. The sanitary conditions of lands, workshops, dwellings, the number and size of rooms occupied by the poor, etc.; the cost of rent, fuel, food, clothing, and water in each locality of the state; also the extent to which labor-saving processes are employed to the displacement of hand labor. 10. The number and condition of the Chinese in the state; the social and sanitary habits;. number of married and single; the number employed, and the nature of their employment; the average wages per day at each employment, and the gross amount yearly; the amounts expended by them in rent, food, and clothing, and in what proportions such amounts are expended for foreign and home productions, respectively; to what extent their employment comes in competition with the white industrial classes of the state. 11. The number, condition, and nature of the employment of the in- mates of the state prison, county jails, and reformatory institutions, and to what extent their employment comes into competition with the labor of mechanics, artisans, and laborers outside these institutions. 12. All such other information in relation to labor as the Commissioner may deem essential to further the objects sought to be obtained by the statute, together with such strictures on the condition of labor and the probable future of the same as he may deem good and salutary to insert in his biennial reports. {Statutes of California, 1883, p. 27-29.) 11 Statutes of California, 1891, p. 192, Sec. 24. 12 Ihid., 1901, p. 12. ^^Ibid., 1905, p. 109. ^^^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 373 The appropriations for the maintenance of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics have never been commensurate with the ex- tensive labors with which it has been charged. In addition to the salaries of the Commissioner and his deputy, office rent and printing, the law-makers have, since 1889, appropriated an addi- tional sum of from $2,500 to $4,500 per annum for assistants and traveling expenses.^* Deduct from these sums the amount necessary to pay a secretary or stenographer, and the traveling expenses of the Commissioner and deputy, and it will be seen that only one or two assistants would be available for the exten- sive work of inspection and collection of information required of the Bureau. The collection and interpretation of statistics is now fully recognized as work which requires careful preparation, but not one of the men who have been appointed to carry on the difficult work of the California Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever had the slightest special training for the services which he under- took. The office has always been regarded as a purely political appointment. The labor organizations have made several unsuc- cessful attempts to secure the position for some prominent leader whom they considered particularly well qualified to protect their interests. Two of the commissioners seem to have obtained the position as a reward for political activities, two more had ren- dered long and faithful services to the Southern Pacific Com- pany, and it was generally believed that this powerful influence in the politics of the state secured their appointment. Even when the men appointed to the position had fair ability and might have learned something of the duties of the office, the state has never profited by their expensive education through experience, for no Labor Commissioner has ever been reap- pointed at the expiration of his four-year term of office. When we contemplate this combination of an amount of work impossible of achievement, inadequate appropriations, and in- competent, frequently changing commissioners, we are prepared 14 These appropriations were as follows: 1889, $9000; 1891, $9000; 1893, $8000; 1897, $7500; 1899, $5000; 1900, $5000; 1903, $5000; 1905, $7000; 1907, $9000. Prior to 1899, the printing came out of this contingent fund'. The law appropriating $9000 "in 1907 passed, but by some miscal- culation the money was not appropriated. 374 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 for the unsatisfactory results achieved by this branch of the state government. The first Labor Commissioner, J. S. Enos,^° made a brave effort to collect the varied information which he was required to report. The act creating the Bureau provides that it shall be the duty of the officers of state departments and the assessors of counties, upon written application of the Commissioner, to assist in carrying out the provisions of the act by furnishing such information as they can command. The newly appointed Commissioner studied over the many subjects on which infor- mation was required, and then drew up elaborate forms which contained some 325 questions of the most exhaustive and com- prehensive character. The busy county assessors would certainly have required an extra clerk had they undertaken to produce the array of statistics demanded. Naturally very few of the assessors responded enthusiastically to this heavy addition to their labors. Commissioner Enos makes the following report of the very unsatisfactory results of his attempt to meet the full requirements of his office : "Out of 52 counties, answers indeed were received but from 41. Of this number, 10 reports only were passable, 4 only were good, and 27 so bad that to reprint them would not only be encumbering of the State Printers ' office, . . . but would be filling this report with waste paper, and inviting your attention to a series of fiaseoes from which nothing could be learned except a lesson of incapacity."^' Notwithstanding these discouraging results, another attempt was made to obtain general information from the assessors. The responses which were received from thirty-five counties are pub- lished without any attempt at tabulation in the Second Biennial Report. Later Labor Commissioners have made no attempts to cover the whole field of investigation suggested when the Bureau was 15 First Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 103. 16 J. S. Enos was a State Senator from San Praneiseo from 1879 to 1882. He stumped the state for Governor Stoneman, spealiing in over thirty counties. He interested himself in the early labor movement of San Francisco. The newspapers charged him with being something of a demagogue. ■^^■^°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 375 created, but have selected special topics which they felt to be of particular interest. Among the more important subjects treated in the various reports are the following: "Wages and Hours of Labor ;" The Eight-hour Law ;^^ Chinese Labor 5^" Jap- anese Labor ;^° Women Workers;-^ Strikes ;^^ Convict Labor ;^^ Apprenticeship;^*' Child Labor ;2° Industrial Education;^*' Em- ployment Agencies;" Trades Unions ;^^ and Indxistries of the State.^'' The statistics collected under these various headings have been classified and interpreted in the simplest, most obvious ways. In many instances no attempt whatever is made at tab- ulation; individual questions and answers which might have been classified in a few significant tables stretch through many pages of the reports.^" No attempts are made at systematic comparisons of conditions in different periods of the states' development. Strange to say, each Commissioner either carried away or destroyed the records of his investigations, so that his 17 First B. E. 211-225; Second B. E. 139-144; 588-629; 3d B. E. 132- 148; 5th B. E., 190-465; 9th B. E. 57-63; 10th B. E. 63-66; 16-24; 12th B. E. 82-165. 18 1st B. E. 196-204; 7th B. R. 92-101. 19 1st B. E. 166-169; 2d B. E. 80-117; 3d B. E. 182-185. 207th B. E. 101-126; 9th B. E. 15-35; 10th B. E. 29-31; 11th B. E. 72- 78; 12th B. E. 61-71. 21 3d B. E. 14-108; 9th B. E. 35-46; 11th B. E. 11-17. 22 3d B. E. 149-181; 7th B. E. 149-160; 12th B. E. 183-214. 23 1st B. E. 144-165; 2d B. E. 118-138; 9th B. E. 8-13. 24 3d B. E. 193-205; 4th B. E. 18-29. 20 11th B. E. 11-17; 12th B. E. 174-5. 20 3d B. E. 227-291. 27 7th B. E. 11-51; 52-71; 9th B. E. 73-83; 12th B. E. 177-182. 28 3d B. E. 109-192; 7th B. E. 136-149; 9th B. E. 84-122; 10th B. E. 67- 79; 11th B. E. 30-72. 20 4th B. E. 11-101; 5th B. E. 15-31. This is not an exhaustive list of the subjects treated in the Eeports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but merely a summary of the more im- portant investigations. The reports of the efforts to enforce the labor laws give additional items about child labor. The Eeports were published in separate volumes and also bound in the appendices of the Legislative Journals. The sixth and eighth biennial reports were never published. 30 An example of this is found in the Fifth Eeport (pp. 246-465), where 3493 individual records are printed without any attempt at classi- fication. Other instances showing the absence of the most rudimentary knowledge of the method of handling statistics are of frequent occurrence in the Eeports. 376 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 successor entered upon a bare office, and had no information of previous actions except that contained in the printed reports. ^^ This failure to preserve records of the individual investiga- tions may have been partly due to the amendment to the law which imposed a heavy penalty upon persons disclosing the information obtained about particular individuals or firms. When the agents of the Bureau commenced the collection of statistics, they frequently found both the employer and em- ployee reluctant to answer questions. There was a general dis- position to regard the inquiries as an impertinent interference with private business. To remedy this evil, two amendments were made to the stat- ute creating the Bureau. One of these imposes a fine of not less than fifty or more than two hundred dollars upon any one who refuses to admit the Labor Commissioner or his representative to any workshop or place of business, or who neglects or refuses to furnish any statistics or information pertaining to the lawful business of the Bureau.'^ The second amendment protected the employer by forbidding the use of the names of the individuals, firms or corporations supplying information to the Bureau. Any agent or employee of the Bureau who discloses the information obtained in this way is subject to a fine of not more than $500.'' The collection of statistics by mail has never proved satis- factory, so there is a tendency to give more attention to condi- tions in the vicinity of San Francisco, where the Bureau has been located since its creation, than to other portions of the state. The earlier Labor Commissioners tried to make their office a sort of bureau of publicity in labor controversies by under- taking a number of special investigations. The first of these, which dealt with the complaints about the conditions of work on the seawall being constructed at San Francisco, was under- taken by order of the state legislature, and several of the later ones were made at the special request of the labor organizations 31 W. V. Stafford, who was appointed in 1902, commenced an admir- able card record of the work of the office. Unfortunately it was de- stroyed in the fire following the earthquake of 1906, and was only par- tially replaced before he left the office. 32 Statutes of California, 1889, pp. 6-7, Sec. 7. 33 Ibid., Sec. 8. 1^10] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 377 interested.^"* In some of these investigations witnesses repre- senting both sides of the controversies were summoned and a formal trial conducted. The printed testimony gives much val- uable information about the labor conditions of this period. One of the Commissioners, E. L. Fitzgerald, was quite skep- tical about the value of such statistics as he could collect with his limited office force, ^^ and without any special authority, an- nounced a radical change in the policy of the Bureau. He deter- mined to transform it into a department of practical usefulness by the establishment of a free employment agency, and by undertaking to give advice and assistance in remedying the grievances of the working classes. This new policy was pursued quite energetically. The Com- missioner not only conducted a thriving employment business, but also investigated the other agencies and registration bureaus of the state.^" In addition, he did an extensive business in col- lecting unpaid wages for workingmen. Bills were drafted for the establishment of branch employment agencies in other parts of the state. But Fitzgerald was soon succeeded by a new Com- missioner, who did not believe in state employment agencies, so the whole matter was dropped. The last three Labor Commissioners have given an increasing amount of time to the enforcement of the laws regulating the labor of children, and providing for safe and sanitary conditions of work. On the whole, the best work of this kind done by the Bureau was that for the enforcement of the child-labor law, under the supervision of Commissioner W. V. Stafford. He 3* The chief subjects investigated were as follows: Seawall, Second Biennial Eeport, 325-442; Coast Seamen, City Front Workers, Sweatshops, San Pedro Strike, Printers, Third Biennial Eeport, 339-354; San Fran- cisco and Oakland Laundries, Chinese Laundries, Napa "Woolen Mill, Stone-cutters' Strike, Fourth Biennial Eeport, 314-327; Labor and Cap- ital, Shoe Trade, Breweries, Coast Seamen, Sweatshops, Fifth Biennial Eeport, 27, 54, 101, 166, 133; Bakeshops, Time-check System, Collection of wages, Seventh Biennial Eeport, 126, 83, 72. 35 "I am free to say that a department created solely for the collection of statistics, in this or any other state, restricted to a small appropriation with which to maintain a headquarters, pay salaries, and traveling ex- penses incident to investigation, is a useless and extravagant waste of public funds, by reason of the fact that to achieve any success m the work a staff of eflScient agents, with sufficient funds to accomplish the work, is absolutely essential." (Seventh Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 6.) 36 Ibid., p. 52 ff. 378 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- ^ not only published the law throughout the state, but also made extensive personal investigations, and last, but by no means least important, he caused the arrest and prosecution of obstinate offenders.^' While there have been a few such instances of commendable zeal, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has not, on the whole, been an effective branch of the state government. It is obvious that the first step towards increasing its efficiency must be the en- forcement of some sort of civil service regulations. So long as the office is simply a means of paying political debts, the securing of a competent Commissioner will be but a happy accident. If we are ever to have any continuous policy in the Bureau, or a careful study of the development of the labor interests of the state, it is absolutely necessary to have a more stable tenure of office. The fine work which has been done by the Massachu- setts and United States Bureaus of Labor was largely due to the experienced services of Carroll D. Wright. The knowledge that the Commissioner's term of office will soon expire and that his work may then be overthrown by a successor of differing views, must often prove discouraging to his efforts for thorough work or permanent results. It is evident to all that the force of assistants allowed the Labor Commissioner is absurdly inadequate to perform the work of the office. If California is to do its duty in enforcing the laws for the protection of the health and safety of the rapidly increasing army of workers in the industries of the state, a well-organized system of factory inspection is absolutely neces- sary. Six or eight inspectors could be kept busy by an efficient Labor Commissioner. In Eastern states it has been found that women inspectors often do more effective work for the enforce- ment of the laws protecting women and children. When we make the necessary increase in the number of factory inspectors, we should profit by their experience, and enlist energetic women inspectors, who can devote themselves to promoting the welfare of the many women and children now found among the wage- workers of the state. 3' This has already been more fully discussed in the chapter on child- labor. 1910] Eaves: Calif ODiia Labor Legislation. 379 CHAPTEE XVII. THE STATE BOARD OF ARBITRATION. The statute establishing the State Board of Arbitration, un- like the other California labor laws, was not passed at the solicitation of the labor organizations. They have refused to endorse, or actively opposed all legislation of this kind. The law was passed by the efforts of the State Labor Commissioners, and is one of the few measures for which they failed to secure the active co-operation of the trade-unions. It undertook to create a new institution rather than to embody or regulate what already existed as the natural outgrowth of actual experiences, and, as is often the case with such theoretical legislation, it has failed to meet the actual social need for which it was designed. J. S. Enos, the first California Labor Commissioner, pointed out in his Second Biennial Report that the arbitration laws of the state were general in their application, and not adapted to the settlement of labor disputes. He published a copy of the New York law creating a State Board of Arbitration, and recommended the passage of a similar law in California.^ A bill providing for the appointment of such a board was drafted by his successor, J. J. Tobin. It was to consist of three mem- bers, one chosen from the ranks of labor, a representative of the employers, and the Labor Commissioner. This bill was presented for endorsement to the Federated Trades Council and the Labor Convention then in session in San Francisco. A full discussion brought forth many objections, among the most serious of which were the following :^ (1) The political obligations incurred by the Governor would prevent him appointing arbitrators entirely unbiased with regard to labor disputes.^ 1 Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 14 (Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 27th Sess., Vol. 7, Doc. 3). 2 Coast Seamen 's Journal, December 5, 12, 19, 1888. 3 Ibid., December 19, 1888. 380 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 (2) The Labor Commissioner as the third member of the Board would hold the balance of power. The great interests at stake would make him subject to corrupt influence. It was not safe to put so much power in the hands of one man.* (3) There was no way to enforce the decisions of the Board. (4) It was declared that the provision requiring both parties to wait three weeks for the decision of the Board would result disastrously to the working men, as it would enable the employer to prepare himself for the strike that might follow the refusal to sign the agreement.^ The Labor Convention embodied the conclusions of its debate in a motion declaring that, "state arbitration, under existing conditions when a state is not yet what it ought to be, would be, if anything, detrimental to the best interests of the workers."" The Federated Trades Council also declined to endorse the measure. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOARD IN 1891. Two j^ears later the efforts to secure state arbitration of labor disputes were renewed, and in March, 1891, the present law was finally enacted. It provides for the appointment of a state board to consist of three members, a representative of the employers, one chosen by the employees, and a third disinterested member, who is to act as the chairman of the board. The G-overnor is authorized to make appointments and fill vacancies. In ease the parties to the dispute do not desire to submit the controversy to the state board, the law authorizes them to select represent- atives for each side, who are to choose a third as chairman, the three to constitute a special board with powers similar to those of the state board.' The state- board is to take action only upon formal appli- cation of one or both parties to the dispute. The law requires that this application shall contain a concise statement of the grievances to be arbitrated, and also a promise to continue in * Criticisms by the editor of the Sa)i Francisco Daily Report, December 3, ]888. ^ Coast Seamen's Journal, December 12, 1888. 6 md., December 19, 1888. See also December 5. 7 Statutes of California, 1891, pp. 49-50, Sec. 1. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 381 business or at work until the decision of the board is rendered. If possible, this must be given within three weeks of the date of filing the application.' The section in regard to the enforcement of the decision of the Board is very weak. It provides that the parties making application for the assistance of the Board shall be bound by the decision for six months, unless either party wishes to abro- gate the agreement after giving due notice. The time allowed by this notice is to be sixty days, or such other period as may have been specified in the agreement. No penalty attaches to the violation of the requirements of this section." The Board is also authorized to conduct public investigations of complaints or grievances between employers and employees, and to publish the results.^" Only one board of arbitration has been appointed for the execution of this law." Two very trivial controversies were "(Statutes of Calif.ornia, 1891, pp. 49-50. "See. 2. Whenever any con- troversy or difference exists between an employer, whether an individual, copartnership, or corporation, which, if not arbitrated, would involve a strike or lockout, and his employees, the Board shall, upon application, as herein- after provided, and as soon as practicable thereafter, visit, if necessary, the locality of the dispute and make careful inquiry into the cause thereof, hear all persons interested therein who may come before them, advise the respective parties what, if anything,, ought to be done or submitted to by either, or both, to adjust said dispute, and make a written decision thereof. This decision shall at once be made public, and shall be re- corded upon proper books of record to be kept by the Board. "See. 3. Said application shall be signed by said employer or by a majority of his employees in the department of the business in which the controversy or difference exists, or their duly authorized agent, or by both parties, and shall contain a concise statement of the grievance com- plaine.d of, and a promise to continue on in the business or at work, with- out any lockout or strike, until the decision of said Board, which must, if possible, be made within three weeks of the date of filing the appli- cation. Immediately upon receipt of said application the' Chairman of said Board shall cause public notice to be given of the time and place for hearing. Should the petitioners fail to keep the promise made therein, the Board shall proceed no further thereupon without the written consent of the adverse party. And the party violating the contract shall pay the extra cost of the Board entailed thereby. The Board may then re- open the case and proceed to the final arbitrament thereof as provided in section two hereof." 3 76 if?., Sec. 4. 10 Ihid., Sec. 5. 11 Oscar Lewis representing the emploji^rs, Charles Granibarth for the employees, and Oliver Eldridge for the third member and chairman. The Board organized on May 20, 1891, and elected Albert May secretary. The members of the Board were paid five dollars a day for the actual time of service. . $2500 was appropriated for the expenses of the Board, but only a small part of the sum was ever expended. 382 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^ol. 2 presented to it for investigation. The members of the Granite Cutters' Union of San Francisco and Oakland went on strike because of an order prohibiting smoking during working hours. The contractors claimed that they had recently granted the men the eight-hour day, and that as the working hours were shorter, they could not afford the loss of time due to smoking. The representatives of the union argued that, "a man should not be judged by the number of pipes he smoked, but by the amount of work he accomplished during the day," and also claimed that, when the eight-hour day was granted to the Union, no condition to stop smoking was imposed. The Board decided unanimously that the notices prohibiting smoking should be re- moved, and that the men should return to their work.^^ The second controversy was even more trivial than the first. The Boot and Shoe Makers' Labor League wanted the manu- facturers to agree that they would not employ a certain man, who had made himself objectionable by his practice of the ' ' sweating system. ' ' As the man had left the city, the case was dismissed.'^'* FAILUEE OF THIS PLAN FOE SETTLING LABOR DISPUTES. In submitting the first annual Report of the State Board of Arbitration, its members agreed that, "Arbitration, as a means of settling differences between employers and employees, and preventing, to some extent, strikes and lockouts, is almost impos- sible under the provisions of the present laws governing this Board, and we therefore respectfully recommend that the Act of March 10, 1891, providing for a State Board of Arbitration, be either repealed or amended so as to become effective."^* They suggested that the work of the Board would be more efiScient if a permanent office with a paid secretary could be maintained. It would be the duty of this secretary to conduct the correspondence, and keep the records, and also to watch 12 Appendix to Journal of Senate and Assembly, 30th Sess., Vol. 1, Doc. 16. Proceedings and Report of the State Board of Arbitration. 13 lUd. 1* md. Amendments suggested. ^^10] Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 383 closely for any threatened or actual difference between employers and employees. On discovering such possible causes of contro- versy, the secretary would visit the parties concerned and try to persuade them to submit their disagreements to arbitration before resorting to a strike or lockout. They thought that many labor troubles which sometimes arose from trivial misunder- standings, might be averted in this way.^^ It was also recommended that the Board of Arbitration be given power to summon witnesses and examine them under oath, and that its decisions be given some judicial standing. It was declared that the Board as then organized was entirely without force or use, and that unless it could be strengthened in this way, it should be altogether abolished. The second and last Report of the State Board of Arbitration was submitted in September, 1894.^" The Commissioners said that, though there had been occasions in which their mediation might have been beneficial, they had not been called upon to settle any controversies, and that there was nothing of impor- tance to report. Since then, the arbitration law has continued to encumber the statute books, not even attracting sufficient at- tention to secure its repeal. The great strike of the San Francisco teamsters in 1901, which proved so disastrous to the business interests of the state, as well as the widespread suffering due to the strike of the Pennsylvania coal miners, renewed the discussion of the need of some means of protecting the public from prolonged industrial disputes. Governor Gage, whose intervention had forced the settlement of the teamsters ' strike, urged, in his second biennial message, the passage of a more effective arbitration law. He thought the Governor and Labor Commissioner should be added to the Board, and believed that, with some fair measure, public opinion would induce the disputing parties to refer their dif- ferences to this Board, whose decision should be binding." As 15 Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 30th Sess., Vol. 1, Doc. 16, p. 6. 16 Appendix to Journal of Senate and Assembly, 31st Sess., Vol. 6, Doc. 13. 17 Second Biennial Message of Governor Gage, Appendix to Journal of Senate and Assembly, 35tli Sess., Vol. 1, p. 58. 384 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°^- 2 neither the employers or employees have had much faith in the effectiveness of such a method of settling disputes, propositions of this kind have received but little support/^ However, there have been many instances where impending strikes or lockouts have been averted by arbitration of the dis- puted points. But the negotiations were carried on between the officers or representatives of the organizations of employers and employees directly interested. They are more competent to discuss the questions raised, which often requires a knowledge of the technical details of the various trades involved. The fact that,- before resorting to a strike, the individual unions nearly always seek the endorsement of the central body, fre- quently results in an arbitration of the difficulties. The Secre- tary and Executive Committee of the Labor Council investigate and seek to adjust the difficulties before recommending the en- dorsement of the strike, and many disputes are settled in this waJ^ There is no lack of recognition of the principle of arbi- tration in the California labor movement, though the attempt to secure State intervention has proved a complete failure. 18 A bill of this kind was introduced in 1907. 6. B. Benham, the legis- lative representative of the San Francisco Labor Council in his report on the labor measures before the legislature says: "Assembly bill 174 pro- posed an arbitration board for the settlement of labor disputes. It was a mass of incongruities, impossibilities, indefiniteness, and delay, furnish- ing only a somewhat systematic method of obtaining facts and testimony in labor difficulties, without set time for discussion, which might or might not be retroactive, and with no definite means for, or real likelihood of the decision being accepted as final when given." As a, result of the opposition ot the labor organizations, the bill never even came to a vote in the legislature. 1910 J Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 385 CHAPTER XVIII. THE UNION LABEL. The union label, which is now recognized as one of the most effective means of securing patronage for goods produced under fair conditions of labor, was one of the products of the long struggle against Oriental labor in California. The cigarmakers, who were among the first workers to come into competition with the Chinese, are generally credited with being the originators of this device for identifying goods made under union conditions. The Chinese have seemed peculiarly adapted to the cigar- making trade. As early as 1862,^ we find the white workmen attempting to drive the Chinese from this business by inducing the public to withhold its patronage from their products. At the time of the adoption of the cigarmakers' white label, the trade was almost entirely monopolized by the Chinese. The label was a devise for advertising and creating an artificial de- mand for the relatively small product of the few remaining white men in the business.^ FIRST USE OF MEANS OF IDENTIFYING PRODUCTS OF UNION LABOR IN 1869-1874 The idea of using some means of identifying goods produced under fair conditions of labor was not entirely original with the cigarmakers. In 1869 when the Carpenters' Eight-hour League was engaged in a contest with the California Mills, resolutions were adopted as follows : ' ' Res. That the members shall not put up work gotten out at the California Mills from and after . the day they commence working their men ten hours per day. "Res. That the League will furnish a stamp to all eight-hour 1 Tuthill, History of California, p. 638 ; Bancroft, Essays and Miscellany, p. 347. ^ April 29, 1876, two years after the adoption of the label, the Alta contains the following notice in regard to the Cigarmakers' Association: ' ' This association has sixty members enrolled. It is said there are not over a hundred white cigarmakers in the State of California, while in the city of San Francisco alone, from eight thousand to ten thousand Chinamen are employed in the various branches of the business. ' ' 386 University of California Publications in Economics. [^°1- 2 mills, that they may stamp their work so that we may know what material to put up and may avoid using the work got out by the ten-hour mills. ' '^ The California Cigarmakers' Union adopted a white label in 1874 to indicate that only white labor was employed in the production of goods bearing the label. A year later, the St. Louis cigarmakers adopted a red label to designate goods made by union members. In 1880, at a general convention of cigar- makers held in Chicago, a dispute arose between members from the California unions and from St. Louis about the color to be adopted for a general label. At the suggestion of one of the Eastern delegates, the matter was compromised by adopting the third color of the flag, since which time we have the blue label for cigars made under union conditions.* In the turmoil of the seventies, it was hardly possible to use this peaceful weapon of trade-unionism effectively, but with the growth of strong unified organizations in the eighties, its value was recognized by all the trades that felt the need of defense from Oriental competition. The Knights of Labor, and after 1886 the Federated Trades Council, helped prepare large groups of workers for effective co-operation, and so made possible a demand for goods produced under what were regarded as fair conditions of labor. We find not only the Cigarmakers, but also the Shoemakers White Labor League, and the women en- gaged in shirt making vigorously appealing to their fellow trade- unionists for the support of the various labels. EFPOETS TO PREVENT FRAUDULENT USE OF THE LABEL. Apparently the demand for products marked in this way soon became of sufficient importance to stimulate the use of fraudulent labels," for in 1887 three bills for the protection of s Bulletin, August 3, 1869. * Brooks, J. G., Bulletin of the Department of Labor, No. 15, March, 1898, "Origin of the Union Label." The Daily Report of March 12, 1887, in its account of the Clunie bill for the protection of the label says, ' ' The Clunie bill was formulated at the instigation of the cigarmakers of San Francisco, who have been' mate- rially affected by the use of bogus white-labor labels. Several San Fran- cisco cigar manufacturers employing Chinese have got out spurious labels, and it has extended even to the Chinese manufacturers." ^^^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 387 trade-union labels were presented in the California legislature. One of these bills which was intended for the protection of the shoemakers' label did not pass, but its object was fully attained by the two more general bills which were passed by the unani- mous vote of both the senate and assembly." The first of these laws added two sections to the Political Code authorizing trade-unions or labor organizations to adopt trade-marks or labels, providing for the recording of such labels, and for their protection by the general laws applicable to trade- marks. The president or presiding officer of such labor organi- zation is authorized to bring suit for the protection of the rights granted.'' The second law makes it a misdemeanor to misrep- resent, by the use of any imprint, label, stamp, or inscription, the character of the labor employed in the manufacture of any article.* <; Senate bill 291, Senate Journal, 27tli Sess., pp. 161, 336. Assembly Journal, p. 439. 7 Senate bill 343, Senate Journal, 27th Sess., p. 336. Assembly Journal, p. 805. 8 Sec. 3200. Any trade-union, labor association, or labor organization, organized and existing in this State, whether incorporated or not, may adopt and use a trade-mark and affix the same to any goods made, pro- duced or manufactured by the members of such trade-union, labor asso- ciation, or labor organization, or to the box, cask, case, or package con- taining such goods, and may record such trade-mark by filing or causing to be filed with the Secretary of State its claim to the same, and a copy or description of such trade-mark, with the affidavit of the President of such trade-union, labor association, or labor organization, certified to by any officer authorized to take acknowledgments or conveyances, setting fortn that the trade-union, labor association, or labor organization of which he is the President is the exclusive owner, or agent of the owner, of such trade-mark; and all the provisions of article three, chapter seven, title seven, part three, of the Political Code are hereby made applicable to such trade-mark. Sec. 3201. The President or other presiding officer of any trade- union, labor association, or labor organization, organized and existing in this State, which shall have complied with the provisions of the preceding section, is hereby authorized and empowered to commence and prosecute in his own name any action or proceedings he may deem necessary for the protection of any trade-mark adopted or in use under the provisions of the preceding section, or for the protection or enforcement of any rights or powers which may accrue to such trade-union, labor association, or labor organization by the use or adoption of such trade-mark." (Stat- utes of California, 1887, pp. 167-8.) An Act to prevent fraud and imposition in the matter of stamping and labeling produce and manufactured goods. Statutes of California, 1887, p. 17. This was embodied in Sec. 349a of the Penal Code in 1901, was declared unconstitutional on account of a defect in the enacting clause, and re-enacted in 1905. Sec. 349a. Any person engaged in the production, manufacture, or sale of any article of merchandise made in whole or in part in this State, 388 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol- 2 The minutes of the Federated Trades Council in the period between 1887 and 1890 contain frequent reports showing the efforts of the unions interested to advertise their labels and to enlist the purchasing public, particularly their fellow-workers, in the promotion of the demand for goods made by the members of the unions. The cigarmakers were having the hardest struggle for existence. For the third time, they started a paper in 1889 to help educate the public to a demand for goods made by white labor." In a report to the Federated Trades Council in August, 1890, we are told that the union had only 320 members. The expenses of advertising their label were heavy, and it was claimed that members of this trade paid higher dues, were more heavily assessed, and earned less wages than any other trade. All the unions represented in the Council were requested to adopt measures to have the cigarmakers' union label placed in each member's hat, so that he would be reminded of his obliga- tion to assist his fellow trade-unionist, when purchasing cigars." The Shoemakers' White Labor League directed their energies to the preparation of public exhibitions of goods made by their members, and to inducing public institutions to withhold pa- who, by any imprint, label, trade-mark, tag, stamp, or other inscription or device, placed or impressed upon such article, or upon the cask, box, case, or package containing the same, misrepresents or falsely states the kind, character, or nature of the labor employed or used, or the extent of the labor employed or used, or the number or kind of persons exclusively employed or used, or that a particular or distinctive class or character of laborers was wholly and exclusively employed, when in fact another class, or character, or distinction of laborers was used or employed either jointly or in any way wise supplementary to such exclusive class, character, or distinction of laborers, in the production or manufacture of the article to which such imprint, label, trade-mark, tag, stamp, or other inscription or device is atiixed, or upon the cask, box, case, or package containing the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable with a fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than twenty nor more than ninety days, or both. {Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 669.) We have found one copy of The CigarmaVers' Appeal published in 1880. It gives a long list of retail grocers who have agreed to handle only white-labor goods. It publishes the minutes of the meeting of the Cigarmakers' Union and also of the Trades Assembly. 5940 labels had been issued by the committee since the previous meeting of the Union. In 1886 the cigarmakers and the printers joined in the publication of The Pacific Coast Boycotter. The White Laior Herald was the organ of the cigarmakers in 1889. See article "Labor Papers of the Pacific Coast," by Ira Cross, in Labor Clarion for June 5, 1908. 10 Minutes of the Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen 's Journal, August 6, 1890. ^^^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 389 tronage from firms employing Chinese labor. Their efforts seem to have been quite successful, for in November, 1887, their repre- sentative reports that the demand for white-labor goods is so great at present that the factories are running day and night to supply the orders/^ In the meeting of the Federated Trades of December 12, 1890, Delegate Mullen, of the Shoemakers' Union, reported that his union was in favor of adopting a universal label, to be used on all trade-union products.'^ This idea has been advocated from time to time by different members of the San Francisco central body, but has never met with favor, as it is doubtful whether the trade-mark laws could be invoked for the protection of such a label. USE OP THE LABEL BY THE FEINTING TEADES. Although adopting the label at a later period, the printing trades have been most successful in its use. An attempt was made in 1890 to have a "union imprint" adopted,^' but the motion failed to obtain the necessary majority. In February, 1896, the matter was again brought before the Typographical Union by Henry Marsden, the President of the Bookbinders' Union, who urged the importance of adopting a label for the Allied Printing Trades." The committee which was appointed to confer with the different unions on the subject, brought in a favorable report at the March meeting of the union, and the motion to adopt the label was carried.^^ There was, at first, great irregularity in the use of the label. In August, five months after its adoption, a delegate from the Allied Printing Trades Council reported that sixty-seven coun- terfeit labels had been found. To guard against this evil it was decided to require that, whenever the label was used, the imprint of the office must also appear.^** 11 Mmutes of Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen's Journal, November 9, 1887. 12 Ibid., December 17, 1890. 13 Minutes of the Typographical Union, December 28, 1890. 14 nid., February 26, 1896. 15 March 25, 1896. 16 Minutes of the Typographical Union, October 25, 1896. 390 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^"l- ^ UNION LABELS ON PUBLIC FEINTING. Evidently, the printers pressed the use of their label quite energetically. In October, 1896,^' it was reported that the efforts to have the city printing bear the union label had met with a favorable response, but it was not until the meeting of March, 1897,^* that it was finally reported that the Board of Supervisors had adopted a resolution to the effect that all city printing must be done in offices entitled to use the union label. In the min- utes for April 25, 1897, we find the following extract: "The label has had quite a boom lately. By observation you will see it on most all of the theatrical, picnic, and other amusement printing. It also appears in numerous jobs done for the City and County. As a whole it is becoming more generally used. During the coming month a circular will be sent to all the fra- ternal and secret societies explaining the objects of the label and requesting them to have the label on their printing. ' ' Two lawsuits have grown out of the refusal of the super- visors to award the city printing to firms not entitled to the use of the label. The Charter of the City and County of San Fran- cisco provides that contracts for printing and other supplies shall be made with the lowest bidder offering adequate security,^" but it also contains a clause to the effect that when the super- visors believe that the public interest will be subserved thereby, they may reject any and all bids and cause the notice for pro- posals to be re-advertised.^" In response to an advertisement calling for sealed proposals for furnishing certain printed forms and blanks for the use of the city, the Stanley-Taylor Company submitted the lowest bid. Their proposal conformed to the rules of the board and was accompanied with a properly certified check. But owing to the fact that this was a non-union firm, it was claimed that the board would refuse to award them the contract, and so an action was brought which sought to enjoin 17 Minutes of the Typographical Union, October 25, 1896. i8/6(d., March 22, 1897. 19 Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, Art. II, Chap. Ill, Sec. 1. 20 Ihid., Sec. 5. ^^^*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 391 the supervisors from awarding the contract to any other person or firm. The case was carried to the Supreme Court, where it was decided in favor of the defendants. It was held that the Board of Supervisors are a quasi-judicial body whose duties are pre- scribed by statute. If they should let the contract in violation of the charter, such contract would be void. But the board had not yet acted when this suit was brought; and the court declared that it cannot be presumed that a public officer elected by the people and sworn to perform his duty faithfully and to the best of his ability, is going to disregard his oath and will- fully violate the law.^^ Soon after this first suit was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, the Board of Supervisors took action in the matter of awarding the contracts. The supervisors exercised their right to reject all bids on the ground that public policy demanded that such action be taken. They then awarded the printing to union firms submitting proposals at the figures of- fered in their bids, claiming that there was not time to re- advertise as the printed matter was required for immediate use. The Stanlpy-Taylor Company then applied to the Superior Court for a writ of mandate to stop this action. Judge Mu- rasky refused to grant this writ, whereupon the case was ap- pealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court, quoting with approval a large part of Judge Murasky's opinion. The courts held that, "Where the law in- tended a subordinate body to be the final arbiter of any question, vesting such body with discretion to determine the matter, and making its judgment absolute, the writ of mandate will not lie to divest or mold or otherwise interfere with such discretion." It was declared that, since the supervisors had jurisdiction to decide the matter, their judgment was not subject to the control of the courts. ' ' Were the Court to interfere, it might substitute its belief and its judgment for the belief and judgment of the Board, a result that our system does not contemplate. The 21 Barto V. Supervises of the City and County of San Francisco, 135 CaL 494. 392 University of California Publications in Economics, [^d- 2 writ of mandate will lie to correct illegal but not capricious acts."^= The trade-unions regarded these decisions as a great victory for the union label, which has continued to adorn all the public printing of the city. DECISIONS EECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF THE LABEL LAW. The third label case which the printers carried to a successful issue, if not so materially beneficial, was no less gratifying to the trade-unionists. The Citizens' Alliance, an organization of the opponents of the trade-unions, was the primary instigator of many of the labor cases brought before the courts during this period. Among other trade-union practices, the extensive use of the printers' label was attacked. On May 11, 1904, the fol- lowing circular was issued by Herbert George, the executive ^ officer of the Alliance : ' ' To Our Members : The obnoxious and offensive aisplay of union labels is to all liberty-loving and law-abiding Americans, and they resent the insolence. The zeal displayed by the typographical union in placing their label on all printed matter has led us to adopt a similar label (notice stamp in upper left-hand corner of this circular). It is not our plan to advocate its use. We simply offer it to enable our members to demand its use when the other label is forced upon them. ' ' The City and County printing is decorated with the union label. As citizens and taxpayers let us demand the use of our label in conjunc- tion with the other label, if labels must be used. Possibly both sides will then agree to leave off their labels entirely, and let the public print- ing appear like the printing of other American states that do not adver- tise their slavery to the union by the use of labels of any kind. ' ' In this connection we wish to enlist your assistance to get rid of union signs m barber shops, bootblack stands and other business places. Their display is an evidence of tyranny on the part of the unions. Ask your bootblack if he shines shoes of only union men, ask your barber if he caters only to union trade. While these signs are offensively dis- played, it gives courage to those who believe in the tyrannical methods of the walking delegate. In other states we have completely eradicated them by following the course above suggested. Might I ask you to assist? ' ' Another thing we wish to call to your attention ; an institution calling itself the Union Directory Company is seeking to list firms em- ploying 'union men' and those who are 'friendly to unions.' I consider it only another scheme to impose on our members and to make my task iarder to perform. "It is safe to turn down all propositions of this sort and we urge upon all members to decline donations to labor picnics, and things of that sort, for the present." (Signed by President Herbert George.) 23 22 Stanley-Taylor Co. v. Supervisors of the City and County of San Fran- cisco, 135 Cal. 488. 23 The circular was published as a part of facts in the case. ^^'^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 393 The Typographical Union promptly brought suit for an in- junction, restraining the Citizens' Alliance from making use of their imitation label. In his decision, Judge Sloss held that the section of the Political Code^* providing for the protection of trade-union labels was constitutional, and that the use of the label proposed in the circular was an infringement on the rights of the Typographical Union. He granted an in.junction re- straining the Citizens' Alliance from causing their counterfeit label to be imprinted on any book, circular, card, newspaper, or other printed matter, and from disposing of any printed matter bearing such an imitation of the printers' label. -^ The cigarmakers have also won several suits brought in de- fense of their label. In 1893 they secured an injunction re- straining Mattheas and Company from the further use of an imitation of the label of the Cigarmakers' Union. Ten years later this firm was caught selling about five hundred cigars made by non-union labor, and put up in boxes to which were affixed a false and fraudulent imitation of the cigarmakers' label. The union at once instituted contempt proceedings for the violation of the injunction order of 1893. The defendant firm was found guilty and fined $150.^° The California trade-unionists are gradually coming to realize that in the union label they have found their most effective means of securing the closed shop. The San Francisco Labor Council has a standing committee which devotes itself to de- vising means for promoting the demand for the labels of the organizations which it represents. The number of unions adopt- ing this means of identifying the work of their members have multiplied until it is difficult, even for a person familiar with the labor movement, to recognize all the labels now in use. The Labor Council has followed the example of the American Fed- eration of Labor in issuing a label calendar which displays in colors the large array of union labels which it behooves all loyal members to demand when purchasing goods. 24 Political Code, 3200. 25 French (Typographical Union) v. Ciiisens' Alliance; Case No. 90847, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 26 Burns et al. {CigarmaTcers' Union) v. Mattheas Sr Co.; Case No. 39578, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 394 University of California Publications in Economics. \y°^- 2 CHAPTER XIX. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT OF THE ACTIONS OF TRADE-UNIONS. In California we have two periods of marked development of judicial restraint of trade-union activities. Naturally these occur at the times of greatest aggressiveness on the part of the labor organizations. The first period was in 1889 to 1891, when, through the efforts of the Federated Trades Council, the Cali- fornia unions were closely affiliated, and were stimulated to energetic efforts for the perfecting of the organization of the different trades, and for the improvement of the conditions of work. It is at this time that we find the first extensive use of the boycott for the purpose of coercing individual employers. In both San Francisco and Sacramento efforts were made to find ways of restraining the activities of the labor organizations. The attempts to pass anti-boycott ordinances and laws were un- successful, but the courts responded with the first injunctions restraining the officers and members of trade-unions. In our sketch of the San Francisco labor movement, we have given the history of the successful efforts of the Employers' Association of 1891-2 to disrupt the unions, and of the period of inactivity which followed. The great revival of trade-union organization in 1897 to 1901 made possible a renewal of the energetic efforts to improve the conditions of work, and this resulted in the courts being again called upon to find means of restraining their activities. Between 1901 and 1906 the use oi the injunction in the San Francisco labor controversies was rapidly developed, until at the present time there remains but a narrow range of trade-union activity which the courts recog- nize as lawful. CASES GBOWING OUT OF THE ENFOECEMENT OF TBADE-UNION RULES AGAINST FELLOW-WORKMEN. While the assistance of the courts has been most frequently invoked by the employers, there has also been a small number 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 395 of cases in which members of the organizations have sought re- lief from trade-union discipline, or where non-union workmen have claimed the protection of the courts. The first case in which trade-union procedure was brought before a California court occurred as early as 1862. The print- ers oi the San Francisco Typographical Union issued a boycott or blacklist circular, which was adorned with a large rat, and which made known the fact that six members had been expelled from the union because they were working for less than the established rate. Immediately after the circular was issued the offending members were given an interest in the paper on which they worked, so that, as part proprietors, they would be exempt from the rules of the union. The paper then brought several suits for libel, not against the Typographical Union, but against the firm that had printed the offending circular. The com- plaint in the first of these cases claimed that the reputation of the plaintiff had been damaged to the extent of $20,000. In his instructions to the jury the judge made the interesting point that, if the circular was of the nature of a privileged paper such as lodges or secret societies send to give information about bad members, then it could not be considered a libel. ^ The jury was unable to agree in the first case, but in the second awarded damages of $199, with instructions that the plaintiff pay the costs of the suit.^ Another case where relief from the discipline of the trade- union was sought in the courts occurred in 1884. Three mem- bers of the San Francisco Journeyman Tailors ' Protective Union declined to go on strike with the fourteen fellow-workers of their shop. When the difBculty was settled, these members were ex- pelled from the union, and found themselves without prospects of employment. One of them brought suit to compel reinstate- ment. Judge Hunt, who tried the case, decided that there was no cause for action. He regarded the union as a voluntary benevolent society, and declared that when a member of such an organization is expelled, he must first exhaust all the remedies provided by the constitution and by-laws of the association before coming into court. ^ 1 Bulletin, November 4, 1862. 2 Ibid., November 6, 7, 10, 1862. 3 Alta, September 30, 1884. 396 University of California Publications in Economics. V^o^- ^ Two weete later the order of expulsion was rescinded, but the offending members were re-admitted only that they might be subjected to a formal trial on a charge of conspiracy to injure the society and its members. They were tried by the central body, or executive committee of the union, and again expelled. Whereupon August Otto once more appealed to the court for redress. The Superior Court granted a writ of mandate com- manding his re-instatement, and the union appealed from this judgment to the Supreme Court. Here the whole question of the right of a fraternal organi- zation to expel members, and the conditions under which the actions of such societies would be reviewed in a court of justice, were fully discussed. It was held that "The right of expulsion from associations of this character may be based and upheld upon two grounds: (1) A violation of such of the established rules of the association as have been subscribed or assented to by the members, and as provide expulsion for such violation. (2) For such conduct as clearly violates the fundamental objects of the association, and if persisted in and allowed would thwart those objects or bring the association into disrepute."* When the society acts in conformity with its rules in good faith, then the sentence is conclusive. The courts have no right to interfere with such decisions except in the following cases: " (1) If the decision arrived at was contrary to natural justice, such as the member complained of, not having an opportunity to explain misconduct. (2) If the rules of the club have not been observed. (3) If the action of the club was malicious, and not hona fide."^ When these rulings were applied to the facts of this partic- ular case, it was found to be subject to the review of the court. It was shown that in the constitution of the Journeymen Tailors ' Union the penalty provided for continuing work with parties against whom a strike had been declared was not expulsion, but a fine of not less than ten or more than one hundred dollars. The plaintiff was guilty of no other offense than that for which *Otto V. Journeymen Tailors' Protective and Benevolent Vnion of San Francisco, 75 Cal. 314. 5 Hersehl on Law of Fraternities, quoted in Otto v. Tailors Protective and Benevolent Union, 75 Cal. 314-5. 19101 Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 397 he was expelled in the first place; the charge of a "conspiracy to injure and destroy the union" was but a pretext to punish him for an offense which should have made him subject to a fine. The court characterized the trial and conviction of the plaintiff as " a travesty upon justice, and lacking in the essential elements of fairness, good faith, and candor, which should char- acterize the actions of men in passing upon the right of their fellowmen. "" The judgment ordering the re-instatement of the plaintiff was affirmed. In 1904 another case occurred in which Judge Hebbard of the San Francisco Superior Court held that one George Ding- well, a member of the Street Carmen's Union, had been unlaw- fully expelled. As in the earlier case, the action of the union was reviewed by the court because the expulsion was upon a charge not provided for in the constitution or by-laws of the association.'' The question of the right of trade-union members to procure the discharge of non-union workmen by refusing to work in the same shop has also been brought before the California courts several times. A case of this kind which attracted much atten- tion, and was spoken of at the time as the first decision on the legality of the boycott, occurred in connection with the iron- molders' strike in 1888. The activities of members of the trade- unions at this time had led to a number of arrests, but the Le Boeuf case differed from the others in that it presented the single question of the legality of trade-union methods, without any extraneous considerations of force or violence, or trespass. The plaintiff, Le Boeuf, was a member of the Ironmolders' Union who had been suspended for violation of its rules, and found himself unable to obtain work because of the refusal of other members of the union to remain in any shop where he was employed. He brought suit against the union, claiming $25,000 damages for an alleged conspiracy to prevent him from obtain- ing employment. B otto V. Tailors' Protective and Benevolent Union, 75 Cal. 316. 7 A similar case was Grand Grove v. Gariialdi Grove, 130 Cal. 116. A report of the Street Carmen 's case can be found in the Labor Clarion, March 4, 1904, p. 8. Dingwall was charged with conspiracy against the oflfieers of the union. 398 University of California Publications in Economics. \yo\. 2 Judge Maguire, who first heard the case in the San Francisco Superior Court, decided that there was no cause for action. He asserted that "a conspiracy to do a lawful act by lawful means, or to do an act not in itself unlawful by means not in themselves unlawful, can never constitute an actionable conspiracy. ' '^ This first ruling of a California court on an alleged trade-union con- spiracy did not escape severe criticism. The editor of the Post declared, "It should have been obvious that Judge Maguire is the last person to whom such a case should have been assigned, especially in the present nebulous state of the law on that sub- ject. Judge Maguire is an honest man, but there are two sub- jects on which he is afflicted with monomania. Those are the questions of land and labor. . . . We do not consider that Judge Maguire has properly stated even such a law as exists on this subject. "° But on retrial in the Superior Court, Judge Garber fully sustained the former decision. By an argument which empha- sized strongly the individual freedom of contract, he reached the same conclusion announced by Judge Maguire. The main points made were: (1) It was admitted upon the argument that no law could control a man in selecting the character of the labor that he would perform or the person in whose com- pany he would labor. (2) This means that a man may not only select his own vocation, but in plying it he may exercise the right arbitrarily to refuse to work except under his own pre- scribed conditions. This right is not denied to him, nor is it denied even though the conditions prescribed by him be unreas- onable, still it is a question of his own solution whether he will employ himself or remain in employ when his demands are not complied with. In this case the defendant contends that the observance of the union rule was no more than the exercise of a legal right. (3) That which one man may lawfully do can be lawfully done by any number of men." Ten years later a similar case was tried in the San Francisco 8 The ease is reported and discussed in the Coast Seamen 's Journal, June 16, 1888. 3 Evening Post, May 29, 1888. ^0 Alta, September 30, 1890. See also Pacific Union Printer, October, 1890, and Coast Seamen's Journal, October 8, 1890. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 399 Superior Court. One Hess, a linotype machinist employed by the Bulletin, was refused admission to the Typographical Union on the ground that he had not served an apprenticeship of five years in the printing trades, and was therefore ineligible for membership. However, he continued to hold his position with- out opposition from the union members of the office up to the time when he was granted a vacation by the proprietor of the Bulletin. He went to Alaska expecting to remain there if he found suitable employment, and the union at once exercised its right to fill vacancies by securing the appointment of one of its members to the place. When Hess returned a month later, the union members of the office refused to permit him to go to work again. Owing to this refusal to work with him, he found it impossible to secure a position elsewhere. He therefore brought suit against the union claiming $25,000 damages, and asking for a restraining order to prevent the defendant intimidating or threatening the Bulletin or any other newspaper, printing office. or person, with a boycott if they employed him.^'^ Judge Daingerfield, who tried the case, instructed the jury that, (1) "Merely to persuade a person to break his contract cannot be wrongful in law or fact, but if the persuasion be used for the purpose of injuring the employer or employee, it is a wrongful act and actionable if injury actually results from it. Every man has a right to employ his labor free from the dicta- tion of others and if two or more persons join to force his choice in their behalf, it is an unlawful conspiracy, whether the means employed be actual violence or intimidation by threats. "(2) Members of trade-unions may contract with an em- ployer in advance that he shall employ none but union labor, but they cannot lawfully interfere with pre-existing contracts between employer and employee with the object of compelling the employer to discharge such employee. " (3) Whenever a person by intimidation procures the breach of contract or the discharge of a person from employment, which but for such interference would be continued, he is liable to damages. " (4) Members of trade-unions have the right to say that they 11 Case No. 62417, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 400 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 will not work for persons who do not belong to their organi- zations, and they have the right to secure employment for their members if they do not interfere with a lawful pre-existing contract. If union men refuse to work in an office because merely an employee there is not a member of their union, it is lawful for them to do so, unless it is their intent to have this result in the discharge of this employee. "^^ The jury returned a verdict awarding $1200 damages. The union at once took steps to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but before the time set for the hearing in that court the dispute Avas compromised and the plaintiff decided to drop the case. The instructions given the jury by Judge Daingerfleld em- bodied a principle that had not before been applied to California trade-union disputes. If fully enforced one of the commonest trade-union practices would be rendered unlawful. The de- cision refused to concede that the injury incident to all trade competition may also be legitimate when bargaining for the sale of labor. In other words, a trade-union would not be per- mitted to act for the benefit of its members when such action injured their competitors. A member once employed would have no cause to fear expulsion from the union, if the courts would not permit his fellow-workmen to procure his discharge by their refusal to work with him. A full recognition of the principle would completely undermine trade-union discipline, and prohibit the use of the most effective means for procuring the closed shop. Needless to say, the verdict in the Hess case aroused much indignation among the trade-unionists." The opportunity for an effective protest came a little over a year later, when Judge Daingerfield was a candidate for re- election as judge of the Superior Court. The labor organiza- tions, led by a committee from the Typographical Union, en- tered upon a systematic campaign to secure his defeat. The election was closely contested. It is evident that the feeling against Judge Daingerfield in the parts of the city where the 12 Case No. 62417, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. These reports of Superior Court eases were taken from the records in San Pranciseo prior to their destruction in the fire of 1906. The extracts were carefully made, but the author could not afterwards verify them by com- parison with the original documents. 13 Voice of Labor, February 4, 1899, p. 4. lUd., July 29, 1899. ^^1"] Eaves: California Laior Legislation. 401 workingmen voted was very bitter, and undoubtedly his defeat was due to 'their opposition.^'' Three years later this question of the right of trade-unions to prevent the employment of fellow-workmen by a combined refusal to work with them again came before the San Francisco courts. While nearly all the organizations of the building trades of the city were affiliated solely with the Building Trades Council, one local of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America had, for many years, also maintained its membership in the Labor Council which is chartered by the American Federation of Labor. The Building Trades Council announces its policy in the following terms: "The Building Trades Council controls the building industry from the foun- dation to the roof exclusively and it will tolerate no interference from any miscellaneous central body or organization. Unions in the Building Trades Council must be organized and guided solely by the Building Trades Council, and by this Council only. The Building Trades Council will not and cannot divide respon- sibility with any central body made up of different trades and callings." In accordance with this policy, an amendment to the constitution was adopted to the effect that no labor organ- ization, under the control of or obeying orders from any central labor body which has members who are engaged in other work than the building industry exclusively, could become a member of the Building trades Council, or send delegates thereto. At the time this resolution was passed the carpenters' union in question was a member of both the Building Trades and the San Francisco Labor Council. "When forced to a choice, it decided to relinquish the membership in the Building Trades Council. The members of the union were no longer able to obtain the working card of the Building Trades Council, and so the workmen who were affiliated with that body refused to stay on any job where the members of this carpenters' union were employed. As this resulted in their loss of employment, a suit was brought for damages and for an injunction to restrain the Building Trades Council from continuing the boycott.^'' 14 Organized Labor, October 13, 20, 27 ; November 3, 10, 1900. 1^ Cole et al. v. McCarthy, Building Trades Council et at; case No. 80044, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Decided May 22, 1902. 402 University of California Publications in Economics, [^d- 2 In the decision the court held that the Sherman Act did not apply to restraints and monopolies of this kind, and that, if it did, then only the federal courts had jurisdiction. As further grounds for refusing the injunction, Judge Seawell declared, "While the regulations and acts of defendant, intended as they are, and tending as they do to secure for itself a monopoly of the building industry in San Francisco, are against public policy, they are not, merely for that reason, the subject of judicial restraint. Agreements made for the purpose of creating a monopoly are against public policy and void, but they are not illegal in any other sense than that the law will not enforce them. In the eye of the law a void contract is no contract at all. An injunction restraining defendants from refusing to work on the same jobs with plaintiffs would be, in effect, a command requiring them to work. A court of equity cannot compel the performance of personal services. The fact that the acts done are malicious makes no difference in the law. "^'' In another dispute between a member of the Master Mason's Association and the Bricklayers' Union, Judge, Seawell rendered a decision which seems to imply that, under some circumstances, the courts might intervene to prevent an attempt to compel members of a union to obey strike orders. Of the alleged menace of trade-union rules, he says : " If a member of a labor union aiSliated with the Building Trades Council works upon a job which has been declared unfair by competent authority, notice will be given the union by the Council and such linion will thereupon fine or expel such member. It is contended that the rules of the unions in reference to the discipline of an offending member operate as a menace by which all the members of the unions are intimidated from working for plaintiffs, and that de- fendants should be enjoined from enforcing such rules. This court has no power to set aside the rules and by-laws of any labor organization upon the ground that cases may possibly arise in which their enforcement may operate injuriously upon persons who are not members of it. It should appear that some member of the union is at work and threatened with punish- KiCoZe et al v. McCarthy; Case No. 80044, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. ^^^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 403 ment by the union in ease he continues work and who, but for such threats, would be willing to continue work. ' '" It will be seen from this review of the decisions on the right of trade-unions to cause the discharge of non-union workmen, that the courts started with the assumption that a combination of men could lawfully do what one man could do, and that so long as the act was one which was recognized as lawful, the intent to injure a fellow-workman, or the actual damage which he might suffer, would not be recognized as subjects of legal action. In the later decisions it is recognized that under some circumstances judicial restraint is justifiable, but as yet the courts have developed no clearly defined, consistent policy in deciding just where legitimate trade-competition ends and ma- licious persecution begins. The extent to which the decision depends on the individual point of view of the judge is shown by the radical difference between the rulings of Judge Dainger- field and those of other judges trying similar issues. THE BOYCOTT BEPOEE THE CALIFOKNIA COURTS. During the early period of the California labor movement frequent attempts were made to prevent the public patronage of the products of Chinese labor. As early as 1862 we find the cigarmakers urging the public to refrain from buying cigars made by the Chinese, and at a later date the shoemakers were also active in their efforts against their Chinese competitors. But the first general systematic boycott of Chinese products seems to have been that attempted by the San Francisco Trades Assembly in 1882. As has been pointed out, the boycott was unsuccessful and its leaders were arrested.^^ When the presi- dent of the Assembly came before the court he was acquitted, but the boycott was soon abandoned. In our history of the San Francisco labor movement we have shown the great activity of the Federated Trades Council in the period between 1886 and 1891, and have presented typical inci- dents illustrating the extensive development of the boycott as a means of inducing the concessions in wages and conditions n Butcher v. Building Trades Council et ah; Case No. 84018, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. IS See the chapter on the San Francisco Labor Movement, p. '41, note llil. 404 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^"l- 2 of work demanded of the employers at that time. The effec- tiveness of the new and aggressive policy adopted by the trade- unionists was quickly realized, and the employers soon began seeking means of defense. Their first appeals to the courts brought them but little assistance. As early as 1887, members of the Furniture Makers' Union were arrested for distributing boycott circulars, and the officers of the Federated Trades Coun- cil were also brought into court on a charge of criminal libel. We find the Council appealing to the unions which it repre- sented for funds to enable it to employ the best available counsel for the defense of what were spoken of as "the boycott eases." The charges were dismissed, thus leaving the unions free to press the boycotts then in force, and to declare new ones. The trade-unionists continued to make an extensive use of this new and effective weapon. The Council had a special boy- cott committee, whose chairman gave his entire time to devising ways of advertising the boycotts, and to the discovery of custo- mers of the objectionable firms. At the labor convention held in December, 1888, a new plan was proposed for making the boycotts more effective.^^ Business centers where the various trades were most influential were located, and each union was then held responsible for the prosecution of the boycott in the portion of the city assigned it. Among the groups of workers who profited by the vigorous enforcement of the boycotts were the brewery workers, the cooks and waiters, the barbers, the retail clerks, candy-makers, box-factory workers, the cigarmak- ers, coal miners of a certain firm in British Columbia, and the ironmolders. In time the Federated Trades Council realized the dangers of a hasty and ill-advised use of this powerful weapon, and passed rules for its stricter regulation.^" After failing in their first appeal to the courts, the employers tried to find other means of combating the boycotts. Repeated attempts were made to induce the supervisors to pass ordinances declaring boycotting illegal." These were unsuccessful, prob- ably because of a realization of a lack of authority for such 18 Coast Seamen's Journal, December 26, 1888. 20 Minutes of the Federated Trades for November 27 and DecemlDer 11, 1891, in Coast Seamen's Journal, 21 Minutes of the Federated Trades Council for November 28, 1890, in Coast Seamen 's Journal, December 13, 1890. l^^O] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 405 legislation. Many of the boycotts were prosecuted by the dis- tribution of handbills, and an effort was made to deal with the subject by passing an ordinance forbidding all such distribu- tion.^^ Though a number of arrests were made for the violation of this ordinance, it does not seem to have been effective as a means for preventing the continuation of the boycotts. ^^ It remained for a Sacramento judge to put an effective weapon in the hands of the boycotted employers by issuing the first injunction in a California labor dispute. The striking printers of the Sacramento Bee were conducting a vigorous boy- cott of the paper, with the assistance of members of the Feder- ated Trades Council, who were sent to Sacramento to give advice about the conducting of the boycott. For its more effective promotion, a little paper called the Trade Union was issued for the purpose of presenting the cause of the strikers to the public. Judge Armstrong, of the Superior Court, granted an injunction forbidding the boycotters from doing any of the acts complained of as injurious to their former employers. The order included in the forbidden acts all advertising of the boycott in the news- paper or printed circular.^* Judge Armstrong's decision, which attracted much attention, was based on the common law and on provisions of the Cali- fornia Political and Civil Codes. He argued, (1) that every person is bound to abstain from the injury of the person or property of another, or from infringing on his rights ;^° (2) that the good-will of a business is property;-" (3) that the defend- ants were responsible for all injuries due to their willful acts." The defendants claimed the right to speak and print what they wished under the State Constitution, but the Constitution also held them responsible for the abuse of that right.^* Since the 22 Alta, December 3, 1890, p. 8, report of meeting of the Board of Supervisors. 23 Minutes of Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen 's Journal, March 13, June 3, 1891; January 8, 1892. ^i Alta, November 20, 1890; Coast Seamen's Journal, November 26, 1890. 25 Civil Code, Sec. 1708. 26 Ibid., Sees. 992, 655, 663. 2' liid.. Sec. 1714. 28 In a recent Supreme Court decision it was held that this section of the Constitution would prevent an injunction restraining freedom of speech, but that the person exercising this right could be punished for its abuse. Daily v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94. 406 University of California Publications in Economics. U^ol. 2 defendants were insolvent and could not pay damages, they must be restrained by injunction, otherwise the plaintiffs would not be safe-guarded in their right of acquiring, possessing, or protecting their property, guaranteed in the Constitution.^" The injunction does not seem to have abated the zeal of the boycotters. The Sacramento Federation of Trades held a mass meeting and made plans to carry the decision to the Supreme Court, and to start a rival evening paper.^" Six of the more active of the trade-unionists, among them G. W. McKay, the president of the Federated Trades Council of San Francisco, were soon brought to trial for the violation of the injunction. The president of the Typographical Union, the manager of the Trade Union, the boycott paper, and his assistant were found guilty of the violation of the injunction, and fined twenty dollars each.^^ Three months later the printers were still prosecuting the boycott, and had appealed the case to the Supreme Court.'^ We have been unable to find any report of a decision in this court, so it is probable that, as in so many other cases of this kind, the controversy was settled and the case withdrawn. The San Francisco employers hastened to make use of this new remedy. We have found but scanty records of these cases, as no attempt was made to carry them to the Supreme Court. In the meeting of the Federated Trades Council of November 28, 1890, the shoe clerks reported that they had been victorious in the contempt cases against their members. In June, 1891, the officers of the Council were enjoined from boycotting one West- erfield.^^ At about this time the Employers' Association was organized in San Francisco, and the campaign which it conducted against the unions proved so successful that, by the end of 1892, there was no longer any need of injunctions to protect the business of the employers. As the San Francisco organizations had led in 29 Alta, November 20, 1890. 30 Minutes of the Federated Trades Council of November 28, reported in Coast Seamen's Journal of December 3. 31 Alta, December 14, 1890. 32 Pacific Union Printer, January and February, 1891. 33 Minutes of the Federated Trades Council, November 28, 1890, and June 5, 1891, in Coast Seamen's Journal, December 3, 1890, and June 18, 1891. ^^1°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 407 planning the more aggressive policies, there was a general de- cline in trade-union activity. The economic depression that prevailed in 1893-4 also discouraged . all efforts to improve the conditions of work. These circumstances explain the absence of injunction cases in the California courts during a period when the use of this means of restraining boycotts and strikes was being rapidly developed in the Eastern states. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION IN LABOE CONTROVERSIES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1888-1900. In order to appreciate fully the significance of the later period of development of the use of the injunction by the Cali- fornia courts, it will be necessary to review some of the prece- dents set between 1888 and 1900 by the courts of Eastern states and by the federal courts. We find that the California expe- riences with the boycott, leading up to the issuance of the first injunction in a labor dispute, were being duplicated in other sections of the country. In 1888 the Supreme Court of Massa- chusetts held that, banners displayed in front of a person's premises with inscriptions calculated to injure his business and to deter workmen from entering into or continuing in his em- ployment constitute a nuisance which equity will restrain by injunction.^* In the same year a Pennsylvania court enjoined a boycott which showed many of the tactics which had been adopted by the San Francisco labor organizations in their con- troversies with the Wellington Coal Company, and with certain breweries and bakeries. The defendants were restrained from requesting others to boycott the plaintiff, from threatening to boycott those who patronized him, from following his wagons through the streets and requesting the public to boycott him.''^ On the other hand, in 1890 there were several decisions in which the courts of different states refused to enjoin the publi- cation of boycott circulars and letters, or to prevent a news- paper from advising workmen to break their contracts of em- ployment. It was declared that there were adequate remedies 3-1 Sherry v. PerUns (1888), 147 Mass. 212, 214. ss Brace v. Evans (1888), 5 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 163. 408 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^"l- ^ at law for the circulation of libelous statements,^" and that the publications which led the employees to violate their contracts did not come within the common-law prohibition of the entice- ment of servants.^' In 1891 a decision was rendered in the United States Circuit Court of the Southern District of Ohio which completely aban- doned this more conservative point of view. This was a case similar to the one which had called forth the first injunction restraining a California trade-union. The decision sustained the issuance of an injunction quite as radical in its terms as the one which had aroused the indigq^tion of the Sacramento print- ers. The court granted an injunction prohibiting the publi- cation and circulation of posters, handbills, circulars, etc., printed and circulated in pursuance of a combination or con- spiracy to boycott.*** In the period between 1891 and 1900, during which the injunction was rarely used to restrain the California trade- unions, many radical precedents were set in the courts of Eastern states, among the most important of which were the following: (1) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sustained an injunc= tion in 1893 which restrained striking employees and persons sympathizing with them from gathering at and about the plain- tiff's place of business, from following the workmen whom he employed to and from their work, from gathering at and about the boarding places of said workmen, and from any and all manner of threats, menaces, intimidations, opprobrious epithets, ridicule, and annoyance to and against said workmen or any of them, for or on account of their working for the plaintiffs.^" (2) In 1894 a New Jersey court enjoined the Essex Trades Council from issuing circulars calling upon members of the unions and the public to cease patronizing a certain newspaper that was boycotted because it used stereotyped or plate matter.*" (3) A Massachusetts court refused to permit a patrol of sa Mayer v. Journeymen Stone-cutters' Association (1890), 47 N. J. Eq. (2 Dick.) 519. 37 Sogers v. Evarts, 17 N. Y. Supp. 264 (1891). ss Casey v. Cinn. Typo. Union No. 3, 45 Feci. 135; 12 L. E. A. 193. 30 Murdoclc v. Walker, 152 Pa. St. 595. 40 Barr v. Essex Trade Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101. 1^^''] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 409 two men for the purpose of persuading workmen from entering into the employment of the complainant who was granted an injunction for the protection of his business against strikers.''^ (4) The courts repeatedly decided that acts which threat- ened irreparable or continuing injury to property would be enjoined, even though such acts were also punishable as crimes. The decisions regarded business as property.*^ (5) Mere persuasion to abandon employment, unaccompanied by threats or acts of intimidation, was enjoined.*^ (6) In other cases the rulings where the circumstances were similar were the reverse of those already cited: the courts re- fused to intervene to prevent the sending of boycott circulars to the plaintiff's customers,** or to prohibit the use of the streets for displaying malicious placards,*^' or to forbid the inducing of others, by entreaty and persuasion, to leave their employment.*" " It is evident from this brief summary, that the decisions in the state courts of the Bast and Middle West during this period show a rapid development of the use of the injunction to re- strain the activities of labor organizations. Much of this de- velopment was made possible by precedents set in the federal courts. precedents' foe the use of the injunction set by the fedeeal couets. In the earlier federal court injunction cases, the more rad- ical departures from former well-recognized limitations in the use of the writ of injunction were justified by the claim that they were necessary to protect property in the hands of receiv- ers, who had been appointed by the court, or by the need of protecting adequately the mails and interstate commerce. Some of these decisions made such unprecedented use of these special *i Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92. See also WicTc China Co. v. Brown, 164 Pa. St. 449. ■12 PerMns v. Sogg, 28 Wkly. Law Bui. 3S ; Davis v. Zimmerman, 36 N. Y. Supp. 303 ; Hamilton Brown Hhoe Co. v. Saxey, 131 Mo. 212. is Beck V. Bailway Teamsters ' Protective Union, 77 N. W. 13 ; 42 L. R. A. 407. a Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers of America, 77 Hun. 215; 28 N. Y. Supp. 321. *5 Biggs V. Cinn. Waiters' Union, 5 Ohio N. P. 386. 46 Reynolds v. Everett, 144 N. Y. 189. 410 University of California Publications in Economics, ["^"l- 2 judicial prerogatives that not only the general public, but many members of the legal profession raised a cry of "government by injunction, ' ' charging the judiciary with attempting to usurp the powers of legislation. As early as 1885, we find cases where members of trade- unions were convicted of contempt of court for interference with the operation or property of railroads in the hands of re- ceivers.*' In one of these cases a request to quit work with a mere show of force was held to be contempt, and three men were punished by terms of imprisonment of ten days, thirty days, and four months respectively.** The injunction issued in 1894 on behalf of the receivers of the Northern Pacific is one of the most extreme instances of this assumption of extraordinary judicial powers. The officers, agents, and employees of the receivers and all persons, associa- tions, and combinations were restrained from interference with the property or operation of the railroad which stretched through some four thousand four hundred miles of territory. The court also undertook to prevent some 12,000 employees from "com- bining and conspiring to quit, with or without notice, the service of said receivers with the object and intent of crippling the property in their custody, or embarrassing the operation of said railroad, and from so quitting the service of said receivers, with or without notice, as to cripple the property or to prevent or hinder the operation of the railroad."*" The decision of the Circuit Court sustaining this injunction was appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, where the section of the injunction compelling the involuntary servitude of the employees was declared to be in violation of the Constitution. The unquestionable right to quit work, either singly or in combination, was clearly stated by Justice Harlan. He says in his opinion : ' ' The rule, we think, is without ex- ception that equity will not compel the actual performance by an employee of merely personal service, any more than it will ■f In re Doolittle, 23 Fed. Rep. 544. *8 U. S. V. Kane, 23 Fed. Eep. 748. 49 Farmers ' Loan and Trust Co. v. N. Pacific Uailroad Co., 60 Fed. Eep. 803. For completer discussion, see the article by C. N. Gregory, Ear. Law Rev., Vol. II, p. 495. ^^^^^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 411 compel an employer to retain in his personal service one who, no matter for what cause, is not acceptable to him. That even if the quitting were in breach of contract, the injured party has merely his action for damages, but that equitable relief by injunction against the breach has always been regarded as im- practicable. That the peaceful but concerted combination of workmen to withdraw from an employment on account of a reduction in wages, even if amounting to a strike, is not illegal. "=» The Toledo, Ann Arbor and North Michigan Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania Co.^^ is another famous case where a federal court injunction was sought to assist in the operation of a railroad in the hands of receivers. Among the forbidden acts specified in the injunction were the following : (1) Eight railroad systems were restrained from refusing to take freight from the complainant, because of their fear that their union employees would strike if they handled such freight. (2) The court undertook to compel the president of the Locomotive Engineers to rescind his order requiring members to refuse such freight, and to prevent him sending out such directions. (3) While engineers might withdraw from service rather than handle such freight, any refusal to do so while still re- taining their positions would render them liable to punishment for contempt of court. About a year later, this last point was given still wider application in a California case growing out of the great strike against the use of the Pullman cars. Members of the American Railway Union employed by the Southern California Railway Company refused to handle the Pullman cars, at the same time continuing to perform their other duties. There was an exist- ing valid contract compelling the railroad to attach Pullman cars to its trains, and the complaint averred that the refusal to handle the cars subjected the company to a multiplicity of suits, and irreparable damages. Justice Ross, of the United 50 Arthur v. OaTces, 63 Fed. Eep. 310. 51 Toledo, etc., v. Fa. Co., 54 Fed. Eep. 730. This was the first case under the Interstate Commerce Act. It was decided in 1893. 412 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 States Circuit Court of the Southern District of California, at the conclusion of his argument announced, "I shall award an injunction requiring the defendants to perform all their regular and accustomed duties so long as they remain in the employ- • ment of the complainant company, which injunction, it may be well to state, will be strictly and rigidly enforced. ' '^^ The great Pullman strike resulted in a number of injunction cases in other parts of the United States. The officers of the American Railway Union were charged with a conspiracy to obstruct the transportation of the mails and to interfere with interstate commerce.^^ The sweeping injunction directed against Debs and other officers of the Union, "and all persons combin- ing and conspiring with them, and all persons whosoever," com- manded among other things, that they desist and refrain: " (1) From in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of the business of any of the fol- lowing named railroads. " . . . "(7) From compelling or inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force, or vio- lence, any of the employees of any of the said railroads to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as employees of any of said railroads in connection with the interstate business or com- merce of said railroads, or the carriage of the United States mail. . . '"^^ Not only were Debs and other officers specified convicted for the violation of this injunction, but in two cases it was held to be binding as against persons not named in the bill.^^'^ Among other instances showing the development of the use of the injunction in the federal courts during this period were the following: (1) In 1892 the Miners' Union of Warden was restrained from trespassing upon the property of the Coeur d'Alene Mining Co.'^o 52 Southern California Bailroad Co. v. Rutherford, 62 Ped. Eep. 798. 53 U. S. V. Vehs, 64 Ped. Eep. 726. 54 ma., pp. 726-7. 55 U. S. V. Agler, 62 Ped. Rep. 824. U. S. v. Elliott, 64 Ped. Eep. 27. 56 Coeur d'Alene Consolidated and Mining Co. v. Miners' Union of War- den, 51 Ped. Rep. 260. Decided in 1892. 1^^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 413 (2) The draymen of New Orleans were ordered to refrain from instituting a general strike on the ground that it was an interference with interstate commerce.^' (3) Members of the Stevedores' Union were enjoined to pre- vent them from compelling the employment of none but mem- bers of their organization in the loading and unloading of a vessel.''^ (4) The federal courts have repeatedly held that crimes may be enjoined when they threaten a continuing injury to prop- erty.^" (5) A show of force, without any deeds of violence, has not only been enjoined, but also punished as contempt because de- clared to be in violation of an order of non-interference with employees who are protected by an injunction.'"' (6) A peaceful boycott of barrels made by machinery and child-labor was enjoined."' CALIFORNIA INJUNCTION CASES, 1899-1907. During this period when the use of the injunction to restrain the activities of labor organizations was developing so rapidly in other sections of the United States, the courts of California do not seem to have been called upon to render similar services. Between 1891 and 1900, we have found but one instance where an injunction was issued in a controversy of this kind. This was the case of Davitt v. American Bakers' JJnion'^" which was appealed to the Supreme Court, and decided in 1899. The bakers had for some time been making determined efforts to improve the wretched conditions of their trade. These activ- ities had resulted in the arrest of some of their members in 1890-1891. This union appears to have quickly recovered from 57 17. S. V. WorTcingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans, 54 Fed. Rep. 994. Decided under the Anti-Trust Act of 1890. =8 Elder v. Whitesides, 72 Fed. Rep. 724. 59 Consolidated Steel and Iron Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. Rep. 811. «o Mackall v. Batchford, 82 Fed. Rep. 41. 61 Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' International Union of N. A., 72 Fed. Eep. 695. This summary of cases is taken largely from the article on "Gov- ernment by Injunction," by C. N. Gregory, Harvard Law Beview, Vol. II, pp. 492-501. 62 Davitt V. Am. Bakers ' Union, 124 Cal. 99. 414 University of California Publications in Economics. 1^°^- 2 the depression due to the vigorous attacks of the Employers' Association, for in 1896 we find them again enlploying the aggressive tactics which were so common in the boycotts of 1888 to 1890. The bakers were trying to secure a ten-hour day, ex- emption from work on one day of the week, and the privilege of sleeping at home instead of at the place of employment.'*^ The firm of Daly and Davitt refused to accede to their demands, and secured an injunction restraining the members of the union and other persons from interfering with the business of the firm, particularly by sending out circulars which were alleged to contain false and defamatory statements. When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, Judge Garoutte refused to sustain the action of the lower court in issuing the injunction on the ground that the complaint was improperly drawn, in that it dealt with generalities throughout, and contained no statement of specific facts upon which relief was sought. Pie declared that, "Inferences, generalities, pre- sumptions, and conclusions have no place in such a pleading. Conceding the formation of a conspiracy is charged, having for its object a common design and purpose, still we find no state- ment in the bill as to any specific overt acts done by defendants in pursuance of that design or purpose. . . . "The allegations as to the acts of defendants in printing and circulating false publications is somewhat more specific than anything else we find in the pleading, yet that allegation is not broad enough. The substance at least of these publications and circulars should have been set out in the pleading.""* Although decided on purely technical grounds, this verdict was regarded as a victory for organized labor. "^ In May, 1900, Eehfisch, Kutz & Co., a San Francisco firm engaged in manufacturing shoes, obtained a temporary injunc- tion from Judge Seawell of the Superior Court. By it the striking employees of the firm were restrained from maintaining a patrol in front of or near the premises, from interfering with its employees and attempting to compel them to leave its employ, «3 Pacific Union Printer, November, 1896. «•* Davitt V. American Bakers ' Union, 124 Cal. 99. 65 Voice of Labor, April 1, 1899. -'■^•^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 415 and from trying to prevent new workers from entering the plaintiff's employ."" The case was dismissed three months later, as the firm soon settled the controversy and agreed to unionize the shop. In the 1901 session of the state legislature, the first attempt was made to pass a law restricting the use of the injunction in labor disputes. The bill was presented with the endorsement of the newly organized State Federation of Labor. Evidently, the measure was suggested by the efforts of the American Fed- eration of Labor to secure the passage of a similar federal statute, and by fears for the future, rather than by the need of correcting existing abuses. The bill failed to pass largely because the judiciary committee of both houses claimed that there was a lack of evidence of any marked use of the injunction by the California courts."^ This- argument was no longer valid when the bill was again presented two years later, for the San Francisco courts had been repeatedly called upon to restrain the activities of trade-unions during the many industrial cour flicts of this period. The injunction has been most frequently invoked in San Francisco to curb the activities of two different groups of workers, — the employees of restaurants, and the retail clerks. Waiters and clerks cannot hope to win better conditions of work by gaining control of the available supply of employees in their business, for inexperienced hands are quickly trained to take their places. To win concessions, it is necessary to appeal to the public for support, as only a fear of loss of business will induce the obdurate employer to grant the better conditions demanded by the workers. By means of the membership cards and buttons, the union store or restaurant card, and, in special cases, by fines for the failure to observe boycotts, it is possible to control the patronage of the large number of persons who are members of the trade-unions, but some other form of appeal is necessary to influence the general public. Hence the noisy patrol in front of the place of business, the sandwich man with his ooiJe/i/isch V. Galway et at; Case No. 72o04, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 67 Editor Macarthur's Views, San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 1901, p. 2. 416 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol. 2 placards setting forth the demand for reasonable hours and a day of rest, and other efforts to persuade customers to withdraw their trade. The first important case of this period was decided in July, 1901, while the great teamsters' strike was in progress."* It is interesting not only because of the insight it affords of the ob- jects and methods of the hotel and restaurant employees' union, against whom many injunctions have been issued,"" but also because, for the first time since the Sacramento Bee case of 1889, the whole question of the terms of such an injunction under the California laws was carefully argued. The Cooks' and Waiters' Alliance was engaged at this time in a vigorous effort to unionize the restaurants of the city. Its officers sought to have the proprietors sign an agreement which would entitle the restaurant to the use of the union house card. This agreement provided that each employee should have one day, or twenty-four hours, free time each week. The maximum working day was set at ten hours for the waiters, and twelve hours for the cooks and kitchen subordinates. All the employees were classified and a minimum wage scale provided. Overtime was to be paid for, and when no extra man was provided for the off man, the remaining men who divided his work must re- ceive extra pay. From twenty minutes to half an hour was to be allowed for meals. Both parties were to observe the agree- ment for one year, an arbitration plan being provided for the settlement of any disputes that might arise. Mathias Johnson, the proprietor of two large restaurants, refused to sign this agreement, with consequences which he set forth in his complaint as follows: "Defendants requested the patrons of the plaintiff not to deal with him, declaring that he was an enemy to labor, was 'unfair' and kept 'unfair' places of business. Defendants solicited plaintiff's employees to leave him, which a number of them did; and caused men to be pick- »s Johnson v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees et at; Case No. 76769, Superior Court, City and County of San Prancisco. See also San Fran- cisco Chronicle, July 27, 1901. «9 At a recent meeting of the Labor Council a representative of the Waiters' Union declared that no less than twenty-nine injunctions were issued against the waiters at this time, but that nevertheless the waiters found ways to continue their appeals to the public. '^^'^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 417 eted in front of his restaurants and march up and down and call out in loud and threatening tones to passers-by and custo- mers of plaintiff not to patronize him because he was 'unfair' and kept an 'unfair' house. Large crowds were gathered, and the doorways into the restaurants were so blocked as to make ingress into the restaurants difficult for the customers. Pro- cessions of men were organized by the defendants to carry ban- ners on which were inscribed notices not to deal with the plain- tiff; and men were caused to walk in front of the restaurants bearing placards inscribed: 'Don't patronize Johnson's Cream- erie. It is a non-union house. Six days a week is long enough for any restaurant employee to work. Help us with our fight for a day's rest and a shorter workday by patronizing houses with the union label.' Defendant further caused several labor organizations to pass resolutions forbidding its members from patronizing plaintiff under penalty of fines or expulsion.'"" In his decision Judge Sloss started with the assumption that the acts of the defendants, in so far as they were unlawful, might be enjoined, even though they were also punishable as crimes. His argument was devoted to the question of whether the acts complained of were unlawful. The right to leave the employ of the plaintiff, either individually or in a body, was unquestionable. On the other hand, "it is an actionable wrong for persons by means of violence, threats of violence, intimi- dation or defamatory statements, to induce workmen to leave the employ of their master, or to prevent others from entering such employ, or to prevent a trader's customers from dealing with him. In other words, the use of means, that are per se unlawful, for the accomplishment of any purpose that results in damage to one, gives him a cause of action against the person committing the unlawful act." Aside from the question of violence or intimidation, the mere persuasion of an employee to leave was unlawful under the section of the Civil Code'^ which forbade the enticement of a servant from his master. The law not only required that re- To Johnson v. Hotel and Eestaurant Employees et al.; Case No. 76769, Superior Court, City and County of San Tranciseo. 71 Civic Code, Sec. 49. This was repealed in 1903. 418 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 quests to cease to patronize the plaintiff should not be made in a way that implied a threat, but also the definition of "slan- der"'- in the California Code precluded the use of the term "unfair" or "unfair house. "'^ After designating these obviously unlawful acts which should be enjoined, the judge then entered upon a careful analysis of the question of whether the unions should also be restrained from peacefully persuading persons not to deal with the plaintiff or enter his employ. He pointed out that in a case of a malic- iously induced ejectment from a hotel, the Supreme Court of California had decided that no action could be brought against a person who persuaded another to violate his contract. The decision went to the length of asserting that if the man had a right to do the act damaging another, the fact that he was actu- ated by malice or other improper motive would not convert the lawful into an unlawful act. This had also been the rule of the court in the much-discussed English decision of Allen v. Flood. Judge Sloss was not disposed to concede that this rule is not also applicable to a combination of persons, though he recog- nized that motive is not always immaterial. He was disposed to follow Justice Holmes' argument in Vegelahn v. Gunter,''* and declared that the purpose of defendants was not "to coerce plaintiff to submit his business to defendant's control," but to gain shorter hours, better wages, and more opportunities for employment of the members of their Union. In seeking the latter object, the defendants merely endeav- ored to obtain economic advantages for themselves to the exclu- sion of others, — an object common to all forms of economic com- petition. In the case of traders, this right to combine for the purpose of limiting trade in a given branch to themselves, to the damage of rival traders, had been fully recognized by the courts.''' The federal court decisions declaring peaceful boy- '2 Civic Code, Sec. 46. 73 In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Daily v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94, Judge Sloss afterwards declared that this part of his decision was erroneous. (Cohn v. Betail Clerics' International Protective Association.) 7* Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 107. This was a dissenting opinion. 75 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, English Appeal Cases, 1892, p. 25. -^^■^"3 Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 419 cotts unlawful were not reconcilable in principle with the de- cisions granting this right to traders, and, in the conflict of authority, the judge considered the latter cases to have been correctly decided. The defendants were accordingly restrained "from persuad- ing or inducing persons in the employ of the plaintiff to leave his employ, from intimidating by threats, expressed or implied, of violence or physical harm to body or property, any person or persons" from entering into the employ of the plaintiff, or from dealing with or patronizing the plaintiff; from preventing or attempting to prevent, by the use of the word 'unfair' or any other false or defamatory word or words, statement or state- ments, oral or written, any person or persons from entering into the employ of the plaintiff, or from dealing with or patronizing the plaintiff. "■''' Two years later Judge Sloss declared that the part of his decision enjoining the use of the term "unfair" was erroneous, as the California Supreme Court had decided that, owing to the explicit provision of the State Constitution guaranteeing free- dom of speech, "The right of the citizen to freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments is unlimited, but he is responsible at the hands of the law for the abuse of that right. ' '^' There were several other less important injunction cases in 1901. In February and March, Judge Dunne of the San Fran- cisco Superior Court granted temporary injunctions restraining the Retail Clerks' Union from interfering in any manner with the business of certain proprietors of men's furnishing stores, or with their customers, and from picketing and congregating in front of the stores, from wearing badges, carrying banners, or making outcries to passers-by.'* In both cases the motion of the attorney for the defendant striking out certain material Tii Johnson v. Bestaurant Employees et at; Case No. 76769, Superior Court, City and County o± San Francisco. 77 Daily v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94, 97, decided in March, 1896. Art. I, Sec. 9, of the California Constitution: "Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; ana no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." 78 Gibson v. Betail Clerks' Union et al. ; Case No. 75466. Wolf v. Betail Clerks' Union; Case No. 75617, Superior Court, San Francisco. 420 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2 portions of the complaint was granted, and, as the plaintiffs' attorneys neglected to amend the complaints, the cases were dis- missed seven or eight months later. In October and November of 1901, the Superior Court of San Francisco granted two temporary injunctions restraining the activities of the Bakers' Union in a controversy they were having with a large bakery and restaurant.^" In one of these cases Judge Troutt granted an injunction pendente lite on Jan- uary 13, 1902, which restrained defendants from boycotting plaintiffs, and from calling on or seeking out the customers of plaintiffs and threatening them into ceasing to do business with plaintiffs; from maintaining pickets in front of plaintiffs' place of business and displaying banners announcing to the public that plaintiffs were working their bakers seven days a week, or that they intended to work their bakers seven days a week; and from posting placards announcing to the public that plaintiffs worked their employees seven days a week, or from making any other false and defamatory statements intended to injure the plaintiffs ' business. The defendants were further restrained from combining and conspiring together to prevent plaintiffs from carrying on their business, and from attempting to injure their business by threats of violence.^" The plaintiffs swore to a complaint charging defendants with a willful violation of this injunction, but, on the settlement of the difficulties between the contending parties, the injunctions were allowed to lapse, and the cases of contempt seem to have been dropped. It will be seen by a comparison of these two decisions that Judge Troutt enjoined the same actions which had been declared legal by Judge Sloss. It is true that the terms used in describ- ing the actions vary with the point of view of the judges. The efforts to induce the customers to withdraw their patronage are described as "persuading" in one case, and as "threatening" in the other ; what one judge regards as combined action to promote the welfare of members of the union, the other holds to be ■">Ruediger et al. v. Bakers' Union et at; Case No. 78387, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Weher v. Bakers ' Union, Local No. 24; Case No. 78387, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 80 See report and criticism of the decision in the San Francisco Ex- aminer, January 15, 1902. ■^^•^°] Eaves: California Labo7- Legislation. 421 "combining and conspiring together to prevent plaintiffs from carrying on their lawful business." Though inconsistent with California decisions, Judge Troutt's injunction was not more radical in its terms than many that had been granted by the courts of Eastern states. In November, 1902, this rapid development of judicial re- straint of trade-union activities culminated in an injunction which not only went further than any that had previously been issued by the California courts, but was also as drastic in its terms as the most radical of the injunctions issued by judges of the other states.*^ This injunction was also unique in that it was procured in the name of the non-union men who were taking the places of the striking employees. Judge Buckles, who granted the injunction, sat with Judge Armstrong when the latter decided the first injunction case of this kind to come be- fore the California courts, and in the twelve years that had elapsed since the Sacramento -Bee case had been decided, he had evidently retained his faith in the power of the courts to deal with labor controversies. The injunction issued November 14 was a temporary one, with directions to show cause why it should not be made perma- nent on December 8. By it the members of the Leather Workers' Union were restrained "from in any manner interfering with or preventing the plaintiffs, or any of them, from working for KuUman, Salz and Co., a corporation, and from following their usual vocations in the employ of said corporation ; and also restraining the said defendants, and each of them, from inter- fering with the plaintiffs, or any of them, in any manner, way, or form, while engaged in said employment, or at any other time or times, or at any other place or places, and restraining said defendants, and each of them, from using towards plain- tiffs, or any of them, threats, intimidations, persuasions, or force ; and from endeavoring to prevent the plaintiffs, or any of them, from continuing such service in the employ of said corporation ; and restraining said defendants, and each of them and their associates, from gathering on the streets of the city of Benicia, in said county of Solano, in the vicinity of the tan- si Labor Clarion, November 21, 1902. 422 University of California Puilications in Economics, [^ol- 2 nery of said corporation, or along the approaches adjacent thereto, for the purpose of intimidating or persuading the plain- tiffs or any of them, into leaving the employ of said corporation ; and from picketing or patrolling said tannery, or streets, or approaches thereto, and also from going, either singly, or col- lectively, to the houses or places of sojourn of the plaintiffs, or any of them, for the purpose of inducing them, by threats or intimidations, or otherwise, to leave said corporation's service, or in any way to intimidate the wives or families of said plain- tiffs, or any of them, on the said streets of the said city of Benicia, with threats, or intimidation, or violent language; and from in any manner depriving or attempting to deprive said plaintiffs, or any of them, in the pursuit of their ordinary avo- cations, of peace and quiet." The terms of this injunction, particularly the parts restrain- ing the strikers from peaceful persuasion, and from gathering in the streets, were severely criticized. The protests were not confined to the vigorous denunciations of the labor papers, but were also voiced by other more disinterested representatives of the public press. The sympathy for the strikers was augmented by a disorderly and unprovoked outbreak of their non-union competitors, in which an old citizen of Benicia, who was in no way connected with the labor controversy, was killed, and sev- eral other persons were seriously injured. When, in the latter part of December, Judge Buckles finally heard the arguments in the case, he took occasion to remark upon the attacks on his honor and integrity as a judge, and, in answer to the severe criticisms of the terms of the injunction, declared that, had an application been made for a modification, it would have been granted, as there was no intention that it should de- prive the tanners of their constitutional right of peaceful as- sembly in the streets. He decided that there was no cause for continuing the injunction.*^ ANTI-INJUNCTION LEGISLATION. As the time for the meeting of the legislature approached, the labor organizations felt that it could no longer be claimed 82 Labor Clarion, December 26, 1902. Organised Labor, January 3, 1903. l^l*^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 423 that a law restricting the use of the injunction by California courts was unnecessary. The San Francisco Labor Council and the State Federation of Labor prepared to make a vigorous effort for the passage of the two measures that were proposed for this purpose. Judge Sloss' decision had suggested the need of re- pealing the part of the Civil Code which forbade the enticement of a servant from his master.*^ The American Federation of Labor bill "to limit the meaning of the word ' conspiracj^, ' and also the use of 'restraining orders' and 'injunctions' as applied to disputes between employers and employees," was again intro- duced. The second of these bills which called forth many lengthy and heated debates, read as follows: "No agreement, combi- nation or contract, by or between two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of any trade dispute between employers and employees in the State of California, shall be deemed criminal, nor shall those engaged therein be indictable or otherwise punishable for the crime of conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime, nor shall such agreement, combination, or contract be considered as in restraint of trade or commerce, nor shall any restraining order or injunction be issued with relation thereto. Nothing in this act shall exempt from punish- ment, otherwise than as herein expected, any person guilty of conspiracy, for which punishment is now provided by any act of the Legislature, but such act of the Legislature shall, as to the agreements, combinations, and contracts hereinbefore re- ferred to, be construed as if this act were therein contained. ' ' S3 This section of the Civil Code read as follows: Sec. 49. The rights of personal relations forbid: 1. The abduction of a husband from his wife, or of a parent from his child. 2. The abduction or enticement of a wife from her husband, of a child from a parent, or from a guardian entitled to its custody, or of a servant from his master. 3. The seduction of a wife, daughter, orphan sister, or servant. 4. Any injury to a servant which affects his ability to serve his master. It was proposed to omit the clause in italics, as it was claimed that this provision was a remnant of the earlier personal relationship between master and servant, and out of harmony with the modern purely con- tractual status of the employee. This act failed of passage in 1903, hut was enacted in 1905. See Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 58. 424 University of Calif ornda Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 Grove L. Johnson, th& chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, undertook to introduce this bill, with the under- standing that he might amend it if he found it best to do so. The cooks and waiters of a hotel within a block of the State Capitol were then conducting a boycott in a manner that seemed offensive to many members of the legislature. Johnson said that at first he had intended to introduce the bill without change,** but that the actions of these men suggested the need of amending the bill by adding the proviso : ' ' That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the use of force, violence, or intimi- dation. ' ' The bill, with this amendment, was reported favorably from the committee. The representatives of the San Francisco Labor Council'" who were in charge of the labor bills obtained legal advice upon the possible effects of the amendment to the bill. They were assured that it was immaterial to its substance and that it in no way vitiated or modified its terms. After con- sulting with the executive committee of the Labor Council, it was determined to make an attempt to have the proviso stricken out. But Macarthur's efforts in the judiciary committee were unsuccessful, and he and Wisler decided that, since the amend- ment had been declared harmless by able lawyers, it was better to accept it than to endanger the whole bill, and so announced their willingness, on behalf of the Labor Council, to do so. In the lengthy debates on the floor of the Assembly, the proviso was vigorously attacked.*" The phrase "or intimida- tion" was most objectionable, because it was declared that the courts would give the term so broad an interpretation that the force of the law would be destroyed."' Finally the motion of 81 San Francisco Examiner, February 5, 1903, p. 1. S5 Walter Macarthur and E. I. Wisler were the representatives of the Labor Council in Sacramento at this time. 80 Examiner, February 5, 1903. Labor Clarion, February 13, 1903. 87 That their fears were well founded is shown by the following ex- tract from Judge Beatty's opinion in a recent federal court case. In speaking of a boycott notice he said, "That is not anything apparently oppressive at first sight. It is simply calling attention to the fact that these parties are using the beer; but what is the design of it and what is the result of it? Why it is to intimidate these people or prevent them from dealing in complainants' beer. That far it is oppressive of the business of complainant and tends to destroy its business. There is no question about that, in so far as it would intimidate these people. It ^^^''l Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 425 Assemblyman Copus, one of the members elected by the Union Labor party, to strike out this objectionable phrase, was carried by a vote of 38 to 25. The bill was returned to the committee, where it was agreed to substitute the words, "or threats there- of." After another lengthy debate the amendment which now read, "Provided, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of force, violence, or threats thereof,"** was finally adopted. The fate of this bill was awaited with keen interest by the members of trades-unions throughout the state. While the debates were in progress, the Los Angeles labor organizations adopted resolutions expressing their disapproval of all efforts to amend the original bill.*" The San Francisco Labor Council also adopted resolutions in favor of the passage of the bill with- out the objectionable phrase "or intimidation."''" The Repub- lican members of the legislature, realizing that they would be held responsible for the fate of the bill, and fearing a split in their ranks, went into caucus for its discussion, and appointed a "steering committee" for the labor legislation."^ The pro- longed debates so delayed the passage of the measure that it would probably have died on the files, but for the fact that Assemblyman Walker of San Jose had it placed on the special urgency file. During the last days of the session it was hurried through the Senate, and received the Governor's approval on March 21.»2 INJUNCTION GASES SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSAGE OF THE EESTEAINING ACT. For over a year after the passage of this act, there were no important injunction cases in the state courts."^ But in 1904 must be remembered that there are many timid people in this world who would be much influenced by danger of even small losses." (Seattle Brercing Co. v. Hansen, 144 Fed. Rep. 1014.) ^i Labor Clarion, February 20, 1903. s» Examiner, February 12, 1903. 00 Labor Clarion, February 13, 1903. 91 Examiner, February 10, 1903. 82 Labor Clarion, March 13, 1903. See also March 27, for final report on the bills. S3 Several unimportant eases were allowed to lapse: Gentili v. Waiters' Union, Local No. 30, Case No. 87835; Novelty Theatre v. Actors' Union, Case No. 88890; Pundt v. Coolcs' Union, No. 44, Case No. 89941. All in the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. 426 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 the stablemen of San Francisco entered upon a vigorous- cam- paign to unionize the livery stables of the city, and the resulting controversies soon brought the law before the courts. The first of these cases grew out of a strike due to the refusal of the pro- prietors of the Nevada Stables to discharge a non-union em- ployee. New men were employed to take the places of the strikers on contracts to work for a definite period of time. The petition for the injunction charged that the defendants tried to force the new men to quit the employ of the plaintiffs by threats and acts of violence ; that they waylaid and assaulted these new employees; that the pickets in front of the stable called out such expressions as, "This is a scab stable!" "When we catch you outside, we will finish you ! " " We will get you yet!" "Tou will never get out of the stable alive!" "We will break you in half!" etc. It was also charged that the patrol which marched in front of the stable in the evening often num- bered as many as fifty men, and seriously obstructed the busi- ness of the stable; and that the agents of the union had sought out the customers of the stable and threateiied them with boy- cott if they did not withdraw their business from the plaintiff."* As a, result of these acts, the plaintiff averred that he was harassed and annoyed, his business was injured, he lost several customers, and was unable to hire out his hacks and road vehicles for lack of drivers, and was compelled to send twelve of his horses to the country. He accordingly brought action to obtain an injunction restraining the Stablemen's Union from contin- uing the boycott. In the decision Judge Hiint devoted his argument to the single question of whether the injunction was the proper remedy. In answering the defendant's claim that the plaintiff should seek redress in a criminal proceeding or in a civil action for damages, he pointed out that a wrongful act may be either a public offense or a private injury, but in respect to remedial consequences may be both; that is, the state may punish a wrong-doer by imprisonment, but that circumstance in no wise impairs the civil remedy of the aggrieved party."^ 04 Pierce v. Stablemen's Vnion; Case No. 91122, Superior Court, City and County of San Praneisoo. 95 Lahor Clarion, August 12, 1904, p. 2. ■^^■^°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 427 The Penal Code afforded the plaintiff no remedy for the loss of business sustained, nor could he look for a civil action for redress. Two or three hundred of the six hundred members of the Stablemen's Union had participated in the boycott, so that an attempt to hold them responsible for the injury would in- volve a multiplicity of suits against impecunious defendants. Judge Plunt attacked the doctrine that it is lawful for many to do what one person may do. He pointed out that an act may be unlawful without being a crime, for one is a private injury and the other is a public offense. Moreover, "The law recognizes the potency of numbers; it is numbers which is an inseparable element in conspiracy, combinations, or unlawful assemblies. The threat which, if uttered by one, might be in- nocuous, if uttered by many may well serve to intimidate." He claimed that the defendants' acts were unlawful, and that the act of 1903 did not sanction a combination to accomplish unlawful acts. He declared that in so far as the recent act attempted to deprive the courts of equity of the power to issue injunctions in trade disputes, it was unconstitutional. First, because it im- paired the right of ' ' Acquiring, possessing, and protecting prop- erty, " which had been guaranteed in the Constitution. The argument continues, "To deny the plaintiff equitable relief for the invasion of his rights and property is to deny him due process of law and to violate a fundamental principle of the Constitution of the State ; for a right without a remedy is no right at all. "Second, the provision in question is special legislation, in- asmuch as it is not of uniform operation ; under it litigants do not stand equal before the law . in matters of 'trade disputes,' it denies to employers an equitable remedy which it accords to the non-employing class. . . The owner of real estate is entitled to an injunction against a trespasser whose acts threaten his possession ; but, under this legislation, the man who owns a business, under like conditions, is denied like relief. "Third, the provision in question is void because it seeks to deprive the Superior Court of a judicial prerogative con- ferred upon it by the Constitution. . . If the Legislature 428 University of California Publications in Economics. ['Vol. 2 can deprive a court of equity of the right to issue an injunction in a case like this, then it could deprive it of the right to issue an injunction in any case; it could absolutely divest the court of what is and always has been one of its most potent remedies, thus nullifying its powers and making impotent its decrees. '""' The reasoning of this decision seems to imply that the Judge regarded a business, even though consisting largely of services that might be withdrawn at any time, as property in the sense that a piece of real estate is property, and as such, entitled to the same absolute legal protection. On the point of the right of the legislature to deprive the courts of their equity powers, the attorney for the union claimed that the Supreme Court of the state had always recognized the right of the legislature to pre- scribe remedies and procedure, and that the law did not deprive the employer of all remedies, but simply limited the form which these remedies should take. Notwithstanding this adverse decision, the efforts to unionize the different stables were continued, and during the next two years injunctions were issued in several other cases where the stablemen attempted to enforce their demands by boycotts."' One of these injunction cases was appealed to the Supreme Court,"* but before reviewing this decision, we will consider another important Superior Court case. In August, 1905, Judge Murasky handed down an opinion with a decision granting a perpetual injunction restraining the Cooks' Union from boycotting a certain restaurant. The de- cision differed in several important points from those that had preceded. While recognizing fully the right of employees to quit work either singly or in a body, with or without cause, and to persuade others to do so, he held the secondary boycott to be unlawful intimidation. His ruling on this point was as follows : "equity will protect the employer from a malevolent conspiracy to destroy his property, and any combination which o can not' doubt the contin- ilation of this 'policy, as' noi political' party could long. survive thte announcement of a determination to. remove the • restrictions on the immigrat-ion of Oriental labor.- . ■ < • • , ■Another type' of legislation whi-ch has sought- to. ■ prevent cheap competitors is that regulating ooHvict labor. -California is fortunate in that 'a satisfactory -sdlutiou' has 'at last- 'been found ■^^■^"^ Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 441 for this difficult problem of the employment of convicts. Here again we have an impressive demonstration of the obstacles to be overcome in obtaining and enforcing labor legislation. It required ten years of agitation to obtain these laws and another ten years of effort to enforce them. A third object of the California labor legislation is the promo- tion of good conditions of work. The shorter work-daj^ has been the chief measure undertaken for this purpose. Notwithstanding' the large amount of time and attention given to the eight-honr movements, more has been accomplished by collective bargaining than by legislation. This is largely due to the reluctance of the California courts to permit restrictions on the freedom of contract. The validity of laws regulating the hours of labor in public work has been reluctantly aclcnowledged. Even the laws protecting minors have received scanty support. Little or no effort was made to enforce the earlier child-labor laws, and ample precedents for the recognition of this type of legis- lation had been established in other parts of the country before the later California law met the test of a Supreme Court decision. One is struck by the relatively small amount of attention that has been given to obtaining proper sanitation and protection from accidents. The few laws with these aims that have been passed have been enforced with the utmost carelessness, or entirely ignored. This is in striking ' contrast to the elaborate legislative and administrative provisions found in foreign coun- tries, or even in a few of the older states of this country. Factory legislation of this' kind is not usually promoted by workingmen alone. They ares proverbially lacking iin foresight in ' matters pertaining to the' protection of their health. The cooperation of public spirited persons- of wider outlook is gener- ally necessary' for the perfecting of such legislation, and this has been singularly lacking in' California. The fourth object' of the labor legislation has been promoted by the laws permitting- liens on 'property upon which services have been expended^ and the provisions seeking -to give wages the preference over -other claims .for payment of ■ money due. The' problem of 'finding ways of comjiletiiigthis protection by laws reciuiring a 'prompt ftioney paynient for services rendered 442 University of California Publications in Economics, [^"l- 2 has not been solved. The constitutional requirement of equality before the law prohibits any curtailment of the scope of the labor contract. It would seem that the difficulty can only be met by legislation requiring that the intention to make deferred or t^ck payments shall be clearly stipulated at the time when the employment begins. Even this would give inadequate pro- tection, as the necessities of the working man often force him to accept unsatisfactory labor contracts. It is only in recent years that the California trade-unionists have felt the need of laws for the protection of their right of organized efforts to promote their interests. The people of California have always been disposed to concede this right. The recent extensive use of the injunction in restraint of trade- union activities has been rendered possible by the precedents set in other state courts and in the federal courts. Public opinion is so little in sympathy with the more radical rulings of the courts that employers whose business depends on public patronage are not disposed to avail themselves fully of the advantages which the courts have given them. In reviewing the California labor legislation, one is impressed with the absence of that paternalism which is so evident in European labor laws. The California wage-worker has sought the reform of abuses or a guarantee of just treatment rather than special privileges. "With the self-reliance characteristic of the West, he has undertaken his own- defense by an intelligent use of the ballot and by vigorous organized efforts. If unre- strained in his activities, it seems quite probable that he would be able to hold his own in any future controversies. The man who works for his daily bread has no other weapons but those that he can fashion from human sympathies. Yet history has repeatedly demonstrated the impossibility of disarm- ament of a force so equipped. If for the good of society it is found necessary to restrain and regulate the activities of trade- unions, then some compensating protection must be found. Paternalism is out of harmony with our institutions and with the spirit of the American people. In proportion as govern- mental agencies undertake the regulation of the relationships hitherto subjected to trade-union control, the wage-workers will 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 443 seek more effective representation in legislative bodies. The past history of California clearly demonstrates the readiness with which their power of united action may be turned into political channels. The discreditable history of former experiences of this kind does not necessarily imply a lack of capacity for honest and efficient participation in governmental activities. Unfortunately the political history of California contains many other chapters quite as revolting as the one dealing with the recent records of San Francisco. On the whole, the labor movement of Cali- fornia has been singularly free from corruption. In proportion as the rank and file of its membership learn to take a more intelligent interest in political activities, we can hope for an infusion of the sturdy honesty that is generally characteristic of the American working man. There can be no question about the capacity of the wage-workers of California for persistent, self-sacrificing efforts. It remains for the public educational institutions, which have always received their enthusiastic sup- port, to develop the means of thorough political and social training which shall utilize these splendid powers of united action for the promotion of the social welfare, if not for the political regeneration, of this most richly endowed of our American commonwealths. 444 University of California Publications in Economics, [^ol- 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY. SOURCES. Newspapers. — Our information about the development of the San Fran- cisco labor movement and the social and economic conditions giving rise to the labor legislation has ' been gathered chiefly from contem- porary newspapers. The early California press was disposed to look quite favorably upon trade-union activities. This friendly spirit may have been due to the fact that the papers were frequently the busi- ness ventures of thrifty printers who had been members of the typographical union. In later days . when the papers have repre- sented larger investments of capital, the labor interests have been of sufficient importance to command space. There have been generally one or more papers making special efforts to present this class of news. The California trade-unions have had many publications of their own. Mr. Ira Cross in his article on "Labor Papers of .the Pacific Coast ' ' enumerates no less than forty-five published in California. The earlier of these enterprises were quite shortlived, and, with the exception of a few stray sheets, ' bave disappeared: The Coast Sea- men's Journal has a complete file running, back to 1887. The minutes of the San Prancisco central representative body were first published in the Jour7ial and later in the Pacific Union Printer, the Voice of Labor, Organized Labor, and the Labor Clarion, thus giving an almost unbroken record of the parts of its procedure which have been open to the public. Alta, Daily Alta Californian, San Francisco, 1849-1891. Bulletin, Daily Evening Bulletin, The Bulletin, San Francisco, 1855-. Call, Daily Morning Call, The San Francisco Call, San Francisco, 1856-. Californian, The, Monterey and San Francisco, 1846-1848. California Star, San Francisco, 1847-1848. Chronicle, Daily Dramatic Chronicle, Morning Chronicle, Sati Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, 1865-. Cigarmakers' Appeal, The, San Francisco, 1879-1880 (?).i i(?) Dates which we have been unable to verify. Coast Seamen's Journal, San Francisco, 1887-. Daily California Chronicle, 1850-1858. Examiner, The Daily Examiner, San Francisco Examiner, The Examiner, San Francisco, 1865-. 1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 445 Industrial Magazine (monthly), January-March, San Francisco, 1867. Labor Clarion, San Francisco, 1902-. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, 1881-. Los Angeles Examiner, Los Angeles, 1903-. Organized Lahor, San Francisco, 1900-. Pacific, The, San Francisco, 1851-. Pacific Union Printer, Union Printer, San Francisco, 1888-1899. Picayune, The Evening, Daily Picayune, San Francisco, 1850-1854. Consol- idated with the San Francisco Daily News, Jan., 1854. Sacramento Daily Union, Sacramento, 1851-. Sacramento Record Union, Sacramento, 1875- . San Francisco Daily Evening News, San Francisco, 1853-1856 (f). San Francisco Daily Beport, San Francisco, 1880-1889 (?). San Francisco Daily Times. There were several papers with this name. First, the morning edition of the Picayune started in April, 1852. Town Talk took the name of Daily San Francisco Times, Sept., 1857. This paper seems to have been continued until 1861. We have found another paper with this name issued between 1866 and 1869 (?). San Francisco Herald, San Francisco Daily Herald, San Francisco, 1850- 1862. Voice of Labor, The, San Francisco, 1895-1900. Trade-Union Records. — Nearly all the headquarters' of San Francisco trade-unions vvere destroyed in the fire of 1906. The valuable records of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific and of the Coast Seamen's Journal were §aved. The author has also made extensive use of extracts copied from the minute books of the Typographical Union prior to their destruction. American Federation of Labor, Proceedings of The, 1881, Bloomington, 111., and Washington, D. C, 1905-. Building Trades Council, minutes of meetings, as published in Organized Labor. Federated Trades Council, later Labor Council, minutes as published in the labor papers. Sailors' Union, Coast Seamen's Union, Sailors' Union of the Pacific, minutes of San Francisco meetings, other records in the office of the Journal. State Federation of Labor, Proceedings as published in the labor papers, and in separate pamphlets. Typographical Union No. 21, Minutes of meetings. 446 University of California Publications in Economics. ["V'ol. 2 Public Documents and Legal Reports. — Owing to the political activities of the trade-unions, and to the influence of organizations of wage- workers on the development of the state and national policy in dealing with Oriental labor, there are many references to California labor conditions in the state and federal public documents. The State Labor Commissioners have given much attention to the activ- ities of the trade-unions. The published testimony of some of their investigations of labor disputes furnishes our most reliable data for the history of the important period of trade-union development be- tween 1885 and 1891. The legal reports, in addition to the argu- ments on the validity of the laws, frequently contain references to the circumstances which led to their passage, or furnish documents throwing ligh1> on labor conditions. California, Constitutions — Brown, J. Ross, Report of the Debates in the Convention of Cali- fornia on the Formation of the State Constitution in September and October, 1849, Washington, 1850. Constitution of California, ratified in 1849. Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of California, Convened at the City of Sacramento, Satur- day, September 28, 1878, Sacramento, 1880. Constitution of the State of California, ratified in 1879. Codes — Revised Laws of the State of California (Pi-oposed), Political Code, Penal Code, Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Sacra- mento, 1871. Political Code, Penal Code, Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, as adopted in 1872, Sacramento, 1872. The Codes of California as amended and in Force at the Close of the Thirty-sixth Session of the Legislature, 1905, in four vol- umes. Fully annotated by James M. Kerr, San Francisco, 1906. Legislature — Journals of the California Legislature, Journals of the Assembly, Journals of the Senate, Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 1850-, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento, 1850-. Statutes — The Statutes of California, 1850-1880, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento, 1850-1880. Amendments to the Codes, 1873-1880, Sacramento, 1873-1880. Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1881-, Sacra- mento, 1881-. Supreme Court, Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of California, Vols. 1-158, San Francisco, 1887-. '^^^^] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 447 San Francisco — Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, 1908. General Ordinances, San I'rancisco, 1906. Municipal Reports, 1859-. Reports of the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. United States, Congress — Documents and Reports of the Senate and House of Representa- tives, as cited, Washington, T>. C. Congressional Globe, 1835-1873, Washington, D. C. Congressional Record, 1874-, Washington, D. C. Federal Court Reports, The Federal Reporter, Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and Circuit and District Courts of the United States, as cited. Opinions of the Attorney General, as cited, Washington, D. C. Statutes at Large of the United States of America, as cited, Wash- ington, D. C. Supreme Court Reports, Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States, as cited. Twelfth Census of the United States, Taken in the Year 1900, Wash- ington, D. C. Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the United States of America and Other Powers since July 4, 1776, Washington, D. C, 1889. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES. Baker, Ray Stannard, A Corner in Labor, What is Happening in San Francisco where Unionism Holds Undisputed Sway, McClure's Mag- azine, Vol. 22, p. 368, Feb. 9, 1904. Bancroft, H. H., History of California, 7 volumes, San Francisco, 1890. Essays and Miscellany, San Francisco, 1890. Bothwick, J. D., Three Years in California, Edinburgh and London, 1858. Bryee, James, The American Commonwealth, 2 volumes. New York and London, 1907. Brooks, J. G., Origin of the Union Label, in Bulletin of the Department of Laior, No. 15, p. 197, March, 1898, Washington, 1898. Coolidge, Mary R., Chinese Immigration, New York, 1909. Cross, Ira, Labor Papers of the Pacific Coast, Laior Clarion, June 5, 1908. First Coast Seamen's Unions, Coast Seamen's Journal, July 8, 1908. Davis, Winfield J., History of Political Conventions in California, 1849- 1892, Sacramento, 1893. 448 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2 Duniway, C. A., Political and Civil Disabilities of the Negro in Cali- fornia, 1849-1861, a paper read before the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association in November, 1907. See page 38, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1907, Washington, 1908. George, Henry, The Kearney Agitation in California, Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 17, p. 433, Aug., 1880. George, Henry, Jr., The Life of Henry George, New York, 1900. Gibson, Eev. 0., The Chinese in America, Cincinnati, 1877. Hayes, Benjamin, Scrap Books, Clippings dealing with politics, mining, local history, etc., in the library of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, University of California. Historical Souvenir of Eldorado County, California, Oakland, 1883. McNeill, George E., The Labor Movement: the Problem of Today, Boston and New York, 1887. Macarthur, Walter, Unpublished manuscript. Page, Thomas Walker, The San Francisco Labor Movement in 1901, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 665, Dec, 1902 Peixotto, Jessica, Women of California as Trade-Uuionists, a paper read before the 1908 meeting of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae, Serial III, No. 18, Publications of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae. Rosenberg, Edward, Unpublished manuscript. Seward, Geo. P., Chinese Immigration in Its Social and Economic Aspects, New York, 1881. Speer, William, The Oldest and the Newest Empire: China and the United States, Hartford, 1870. Stedman, J. C, and Leonard, E. A., The Workingmen's Party of Cali- fornia, San Eranciseo, 1878. \ Tinkham, Geo. H., A History of Stockton, San Francisco, 1880. Tuthill, Franklin, The History of California, San Francisco, 1866. Wells, Harry L., History of Butte County, San Francisco, 1882. West, H. J., The Chinese Invasion, San Francisco, 1873. Winn, A. M., Valedictory Address to the Mechanics' State Council of California in San Francisco, January 11, 1871, San Francisco, 1871. Index. 449 INDEX. INDEX OF CASES. Agler, U. S. v., 412. Ah Cue, Ex parte, 191. All Fond, In the matter of ,146. Ah Louis V. Harwood, 245, 247. Ah Pong, In the matter of, 146. Ah Yuk, In re, 194. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 434. Alexander v. Central Lumber and Milling Co., 270, 278. Ames and Harris v. Bag Workers* Union, 433. Andrews, Ex parte, 328. Archy, Ex parte, 101. Arthur v. Oakes, 411. Ashbury, Ex parte. People v., 143. Atkins V. Kansas, 224. Babcock v. Goodrich, 212, 221, 222. Barr v. Essex Trade Council, 408. Barto V. Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, 391. Bates V. Santa Barbara Co., 23.5, 241, 251. Baxter v. Roberts, 272. Beck V. Eailway Teamsters ' Pro- tective Union, 409. Beeson v. Green Mt. Gold Mining Co., 270, 275, 276, 281. Berentz v. Belmont Oil Co., 23.a. Bird, Ex parte, 328. Boswell V. Laird, 262. Bowman v. White, 270. Brace v. Evans, 407. Bringham v. Knox, 235. Brown v. Sennett, 275. Brymer v. Pac. Co., 271. Buell V. Brown, 245, 246. Builders' Supply Co. v. O'Con- nor, 249. Burke, Ex parte, 331. Burns v. Clark, 267. Burns et al. (Cigarmakers' Union) V. Mattheas & Co., 393. Burns v. Sennett & Miller, 269. Butcher v. Building Trades Coun- cil et al., 403. Cany v. Halleck, 263. Carson, Ex parte, 331. Casey v. Cinn. Typo. Union No. 3, 408. Cedenberg v. Oobison, 265. Chae Chan Ping, In re, 190. Chew Heong v. U. S., 183. Chin A On, In re, 181. Chy Lung v. Freeman et al., 147. Cohn v. Retail Clerks' Interna- tional Protective Association, 418. Cole et al. v. McCarthy, Building Trades Council et al., 401. Cole et al. v. McCarthy, 402. Collier v. Steinhart, 274, 277. Congrave v. Southern Pac. Co., 276. Conlon v. S. F. & S. J. E. E. Co., 274. Consolidated Steel and Iron Co. V. Murray, 413. Corbett v. Chambers, 247. Coeur d'Alene Consolidated and Mining Co. v. Miners' Union of Warden, 412. Cowan V. Griffith, 234. Cox V. Western E. E. Co., 235. Cregan v. Marston, 269. Daily v. Superior Court, 405, 419. Daves v. Southern Pao. Co., 276, 277. Davidson v. Laoghlin, 264. Davis V. Zimmerman, 409. Davitt V. American Bakers' Union, 413, 414, 430. Debs, U. S. v., 412. DeCamp v. Tolhurst, 249. Dickey, Ex parte, 347, 349. Donovan v. Ferris, 277. Doolittle, In re, 410. Douglass, U. S. v., 180. Downer, People v., 123. Drew V. Smith, 210, 211. Dyas V. So. Pac. Co., 270. Elder v. Whitesides, 413. Elyea, People v., 114. Elledge r. National and 0. R. Co., 276. Elliott, U. S. v., 412. Emanuel v. Harbor Commission- ers, 223. 450 Index. Fagundes v. Central Pac. Co., 277. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. N. Pacific Eailroad Co., 410. Fisk V. Cen. Pacific E. B. Co., 272, 277. Fiske, Ex parte, 187. Foley V. Cal. Horseshoe Co., 275. Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 195. French v. Powell, 245. French (Typographical Union) v. Citizens' Alliance, 393. Gabriel v. Bank of Suisun, 263. Gentili v. Waiters' Union, 425. Gibbs V. Tally, 242. Gibson v. Retail Clerks' Union et al., 419. Gier v. Los Angeles C. S. E. Co., 271. Goldberg Bowen Co. v. Stable- men's Union, 428, 430, 431. Gower v. Andrews, 267. Grand Grove v. Garibaldi Grove, 397. Green v. Chandler, 234. Grijalva v. S. P. Co., 272. Gulf Bag Co. v. Suttner et al., 433. Hall, People v., 114. Hall Supervisors, 337. Hallanan v. Storey et al., 433. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Saxey, 409. Hang Kie, In the matter of, 321. Hartman v. Eogers, 264. Hayes Valley Stables v. Stable- men's Union, 428. Helling v. Schindler, 269. Hermann v. Littlefield, 263. Higgins V. Williams, 275. Hing Quong Chow, U. S. v., 194. Ho Ah Kow V. Matthew Nunan, 149. Holland v. So. Pacific Co., 271. Hong Yen Chan, 162. Hotaling v. Cronice, 247. Ingerman v. Moore, 272, 279. Jager v. Cal. B. Co., 270. Jentzsch, Ex parte, 334. Jewell V. McKay, 241. Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co., 258. Johnson v. Hotel and Eestaurant Employees et al., 416, 417, 419. Jurgenson v. Diller, 235. Kane, U. S. v., 410. Kerrigan v. Market Street Ry. Co., 269. Koser, Ex parte, 331. Kosta V. Cooks' Union et al., 429. Kubach, Ex parte, 187, 220, 223. Lee V. S. Pac. R. E. Co., 279. Leishman v. Union Iron Works, 269. Leong Yick Dew, In re, 181. Lewis V. Dunne, 233, 273. Limberg v. Glenwood L. Co., 278, 279. Lin Sing v. Washburn, 124. Lindell v. Bode, 270. Livingston v. Kodiak P. Co., 277. Loewe et al. v. Cal. State Feder- ation of Labor et al., 433, 434. Long V. Coronado E. Co., 278. Lord V. Goldberger, 264. Lothian v. Woods, 234. Louis v. Elfelt, 265. McAlpine v. Duncan, 238. MeCall V. Pac. M. S. S. Co., 271. MeCants v. Bush, 241. McCormick v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 235. McCune v. Cal. S. E. Co., 275. McGlynn v. Brodie, 278, 280. McLean v. Blue Point Gravel Co., 274, 275. McNamara v. McDonough, 276. Mackall v. Eatchford, 413. Macomber v. Bigelow, 247. Magee v. N. Pac. E. E. Co., 278, 279. Maguire, Ex parte, 312, 313. Malone v. Hawley, 270, 281. Mann v. O 'Sullivan, 277. Mansfield v. Eagle Box Co., 272, 279. Mayer v. Journeymen Stonecut- ters' Association, 408. Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 235. Merced Lumber Co. v. Bruschi, 241. Mills V. U. S. Printing Co., 429. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 418. Morgan v. S. P. E. Co., 281. Morris v. Wilson, 250. Moynier, Ex parte, 321. Mullen V. Cal. Horseshoe Co., 270, 272, 279. Munro v. P. C. Dredging & E. Co., 281. Murdock v. Oakland R. L. & H. E. E. Co., 278, 279. Murdock v. Walker, 408. Naglee, The People v., 112. Newman, Ex parte, 326, 327. Ng Loy Hoe, In re, 194. Nixon V. Selby S. & L. Co., 276. Novelty Theater v. Actors' Union, 425. Noyes v. Wood, 276. Ny Look, In re, 195. Index. 451 'Connor v. Golden Gate Woolen Mfg. Co., 272. 'Donnell v. Kramer, 237, 240. Otto V. Journeymen Tailors' Pro- tective and Benevolent Union of San Francisco, 396. Otto V. Tailors' Protective and Benevolent Union, 397. Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' In- ternational Union of N. A., 413. Pacheco v. Judson Mfg. Co., 270. Pacific Boiling Mill Co. v. Bear Valley Tr. Co., 235. Palmer v. White, 240, 251. Peokham v. Pox, 249. Perkins, In re, 97, 98. Perkins v. Eogg, 409. Perry v. Brainard, 245. Peirce v. Stablemen's Union, 426. Polack V. McGrath, 266. Pundt V. Cooks' Union, 425. Quinn v. Leathem, 434. Seed v. Norton, 240. Eeese v. Bald Mt. G. M. Co., 235. Rehfisch v. Galway et al., 415. Beid v. Clay, 249. Renton v. Conly, 239. Reynolds v. Everett, 409. Biggs V. Cinn. Waiters' Union, 409. Rogers v. Evarts, 408. Rosenberg v. Pacific Coast Ry. Co., 263, 266. Boylance v. San Luis H. Co., 245. Ruediger et al. v. Bakers' Union et al., 420. Russ L. & M. Co. V. Garrettson, 241. Ryan v. Los Angeles Ice & C. S. Co., 272, 275, 279. Sappenfield v. Main St. E. B. Co., 271. Schaezlein v. Cabaniss, 322. Sehallert-Ganahl L. Co. v. Neal, 250. Seattle Brewing and Malting Co. V. Hansen et al., 425. 434, 435. Shaughnessy v. Am. S. Co., 242. Sherry v. Perkins, 407. Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers of America, 409. Skeltou V. Pacific Lumber Co., 270, 276. Skinner v. Garnett Gold Mining Co., 259. Smith V. Turner, 116. Soon Kung, People v., 149. Southern California Railroad Co. V. Eutherford, 412. Speer v. See Yup Co., 114. Spencer, In re, 305, 307. Spinney v. Grifath, 250. Stanley- Taylor Co. v. Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, 392. S. S. Constitution, People v., 123. Stein V. Williamson, 270. Stephens v. Doe, 277. Stimson Mill Co. v. Braun, 260. Stone V. Bancroft, 263, 266. Summer v. Nevin, 262. Sweeney v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 278. Thompson v. Cal. Const. Co., 280. Tibbatts v. Moore, 234. Tiburicio Parrott, In re, 160. Toledo, etc., v. Pa. Co., 411. Treadwell, People v., 262. Tredinnick v. Bed. Cloud C. M., 247. Trewaltha v. Buchanan G. M. & Co., 277. Tung Yeong, In re, 181. Utter V. Chapman, 265, 266. Vegelahn v. Guntner, 409, 418. Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Com. Co., 272, 279. Wall V. Marshutz & Cantrel, 269. Weber, In re, 309. Weber v. Bakers' Union, 420. Webster v. Wade, 266. Weithoff V. Murray, 265. Wells V. Cahn, 239. Westerfeld, Ex parte, 330. White, Ex parte, 321. Whittier v. Hollister, 240. Whittier v. Wilbur, 239. Wick China Co. v. Brown, 409. Willamette S. M. L. Co. v. Los Angeles C. Co., 245. Williams v. Hawley, 235. Wolf V. Eetail Clerks' Union, 419. Wong Sing, U. S. v., 194. Workingmen's Amalgamated Coun- cil of New Orleans, U. S. v., 413. Yick Wo, In the matter of, 321. Yoeman v. Contra Costa S. N. Co., 274. 452 Index. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Alameda, length of work-day, 228; represented in Convention of 1885, 43; Workingman 's Party of California in, 34. Alvord, Mayor, veto of queue and laundry-license ordinances, 144. Amendments to law of 1882, 180, 181. American Federation of Labor, and the eight-hour day, 217; national movement planned, 217. Anderson, Justice, on case, In re Perkins, 97. Angell, James B., commissioner on treaty with China, 172. Anti-Chinese associations, 7, 14, 26, 125; clubs (1867), 15, 125; conventions (1870), 23, 137, 138, 139; (1882), 41; (1902), 196; demonstrations, 148; League of San Francisco, 140; movements, 26, 135, 136; socie- ties (1873-1876),- 26. Anti-coolie clubs, 14, 125. Arbitration, see State Board of Arbitration. Archy, California Fugitive Slave Law case, 99, 102, 103. Armstrong, Judge, decision in in- junction case, 405. Arthur, President, veto message, 178. Asiatic Exclusion League, 7. Australian ballot, 47. Baltimore National Congress of Workmen, 16, 17. Baker, E. D., defender of Archy Lee, 102. Bakers, increase of pay asked (1863), 5, 13; legislation pro- hibiting Saturday and Sunday work sought, 330, 333. Barbershops, Sunday-closing law declared unconstitutional, 333. Barbour, member of Convention of 1870, 155. Barnes, W. H., member of Consti- tutional Convention of 1870, 156. Basket ordinance, 143. Beerstecher, socialistic delegate to Constitutional Convention, 33, 154, 216, 370. Bell signals in the mines, legisla- tion establishing, 320. Bigler, Governor, on Asiatic im- migration, 108. Blaine, .James G., support of Fif- teen Passenger bill, 170. Board of Manufacturers and Em- ployers of California, 53; Dec- laration of Principles, 53. Boiler inspection, _ law for (1872), 318; inspector for San Fran- cisco, 318. Boilermakers' strike (1864), 13. Booth, Governor, veto of convict labor bill, 359. Bothwick, J. D., report on Chi- nese in mines, 118. Boycott(s), arrests for, 41; of Chi- nese cigars, 403; goods, 41, 180, 403; labor, 143; of employers of, or purchasers from Chinese, 186; efforts to check use of, 404-5; endorsement of method of conducting, 50; feared by Employers' Association. 72; in- creased use of (1886-1891), 404; method of enforcement, 50; in- troduction of, 48; Manifesto on the, 53; of non-union restau- rants, 66; valued weapon of trade-unionists, 73; Wellington coal, 46, 48. Brewers ' Protective Association, 50. Brewery workers, form of organ- ization, 46; nine-hour day se- cured, 219; eight-hour day se- cured, 227. Bricklayers, loss of eight-hour day, 213. Broderick, on the California Fugi- tive Slave Law, 96. Brotherhood of Teamsters, see Teamsters. Bryce, James, visit to California (1883), 39. Building trades, eight-hour move- ment, 218; first federation, 44; joint executive committee, 61; organization (1896), 60; Coun- cil, composition of, 61. Bureau of Labor and Labor Sta- tistics, see State Bureau of Labor. Burnett, P. H., on the negro ques- tion, 89; decision in ease. Ex parte Archy, 100; message (1851), 90. Burlingame Treaty, 126, 151, 153, 162, 164. Butchers, journeymen, strike of (1901), 67. California, admission of, 88, 89; division of the state movement, Index. 453 92; Fugitive Slave Law, 94; population of, 2, 3; Sunday laws, 324-333; Workingmen 's Party, see Workingmen 's Party. (See also Labor Day, National Labor Union, Svmday Laws.) California Planing Mills, refusal to continue eight-hour day, 209. Capital, burdens increased in State Constitution, 37. Capitation tax imposed on Chi- nese and Japanese emigrants to Cahfoi'nia, 123. Carlisle, Secretary, estimated cost of deporting Chinese, 195. Carpenters, Eight-Hour League, 22, 202; eight-hour Saturday, 217; nine-hour day (1883, Los Angeles, 1884), 217; reorgan- ization of union (1882), 22: Ship Carpenters' Union, 10. Carriagemakers ' strike (1901), 68. Census, United States (1880), 190; (1890), 190. Central Pacific Railroad, opening of (1869), 20; completion of (1869), 135. Certificates for Chinese, fee re- quired, 191; fraudulent, 182; of residence, 194; for return, 181, 189; specified in law of 1884, 182. (See also McCreary Act.) Child-labor, and the eight-hour law, 206. China, Burlingame Treaty, 126, 127; Treaty of 1880, 172; of 1894, 196. Chinese, boycott of goods, 41, 180, 403; of employers of, or pur- chasers from, 186; of labor, 143; capitation tax, 123; certifi- cates required, 181, 182, 191, 194; convention against (1870), 138; culmination of feeling against, 184; early good treat- ment, 106; estimated cost of deporting, 195; exclusion by state laws attempted, 122 ; from certain communities, 117; em- ployment on public works, 153, 158; mines, 118; public schools, 120; vote on (California), 158; (Nevada), 159; exclusion bills in 52d Congress, 192; expulsion from towns and cities, 157, 158, 159, 185, 187; feeling of Cali- fornia wageworkers, 105; of Nevada miners, 179; immigra- tion, 16, 105, 108, 114, 162, 180, 184, 196; labor, agitation against, 13, 18, 143; laborers. regulations regarding, 181, 196; laundries, ordinances regulat- ing, 320; naturalization, 127- 133, 162, 177; opposition to, 107, 110, 111, 117, 118, 125; or- dinances against, 119, 187; peti- tions against, 141, 178, 192; police tax imposed, 124; polit- ical rights not conferred in 14th and 15th amendments, 127; prevention of all employ- ment, 154; prohibited from em- ployment by corporations, 153, 158, 159; from fishing, 158; prostitution, 121; provisions of State Constitution, 36, 37; the Chinese question in Congress, 129, 132; in Constitutional Con- vention (1879), 150, 152; regu- lations against (1855-1867), 119, 187; reports of Joint Commit- tee of Investigation (1876), 165, 166; of State Legislature's Committee (1876), 148; resolu- tions of, Knights of Labor Con- vention (1885), 185; of political parties, 147 ; restriction of term, merchant, 181; San Prancisco ordinances, 142-145, 147, 149; selective infiuence on popula- tion, 4; Six Companies, The, 191 ; summary of characteristics of legislation, 115; testimony excluded from courts, 113; turning-point in situation (1876- 1880), 134; as strikebreakers in Massachusetts, 138; Working- men's Party influenced by agi- tation against, 28. (See also Anti-Chinese, Anti-coolie, Fif- teen Passenger bill, League of Deliverance, Ordinances.) Cigarmakers' Appeal, The, cited, 40. Cigarmakers' Union, adoption of white label, 386. Citizens' Alliance, activity of, 227; restrained from use of counterfeit union label, 393; successor to Employers' Associ- ation, 78, 80. Citizens ' Anti-Chinese Convention (1886), 186. Citizens' Protective Union, or- ganization of, 171. City Front Federation, strike of, 71. Coast Seamen 's Union, 54. (See also Sailors' Union and Sea- men's Protective Association.) 454 Index. Colemen, W. T., organizes Com- mittee of Public Safety, 29. Committee of Public Safety, 29. Compromise measures admitting California to the Union, 88. Congressional debate on Chinese question, 129, 132. Contract labor, laws regarding, 109, 163. Contract system of prison labor, see Convict labor. Convention of 1885, 43. Convict labor, 352-3, 358, 366, 368; contract system of, 356, 361, 363, 365; Commissioner Enos' investigation, 364; indus- tries developed, 357, 362; leas- ing system, 351-2; legislation regarding, 351, 359, 360, 363, 365; in the platform of Work- ingmen's Party, 35; prevention of competition with free labor, 357; prices paid for, 356. (See also Jute bags, Folsom, San Quentin.) Cooks' and Waiters' Alliance, 65, 66. Coolie labor and traflac, 107, 109. Cooperative schemes, 8; stores, 16. Corporations, regulations regard- ing, 37, 153, 158, 159. Crockett, Justice, opinion in eight- hour day case, 211. Cubic-air ordinance, 142, 143, 145, 149. Daingerfield, Judge, decision in Hess case, 399; re-election op- posed by trade-unions, 400-1. Davis, Judge, candidacy in Na- tional Labor Union Party, 25. Davis, Representative, and Chi- nese legislation, 167. Day labor, required on public buildings, 212. Days, John M., president of Trades-Union, 11. Declaration of Principles of Board of Manufacturers and Employ- ers, 53. Delaney, M. W., delegate to Na- tional Labor Union, 21, 139. Democrats, attitude to Chinese, 147, 173; to Union Labor Party, 77, 78. Dolph, Senator, and Chinese ex- clusion, 192. Draymen's Association, agreement with Brotherhood of Teamsters, 69. Dwinelle, Assemblyman, and the eight-hour bill (1867), 205. Economic depression following the Civil War, 135. Edmunds, United States Senator, and the Fifteen Passenger bill, 170. Eight-hour day, advantages ex- pected, 202; agitation and de- mands for, 19, 61, 198, 204, 207, 213, 218; celebration of, 204; enforcement of, 204; first break from, 209; legislation, 205, 211, 215, 216, 219, 220; loss of, 212; literature, 218; movement of building trades (1889-1890), 218; organizations securing, 203; brewery workers, 227; electricians, 228; iron trades, 226; millmen, 225; polishers, 225; printers (job and book), 227; sheet-metal workers, 228; upholsterers, 228; varnishers, 225; woodworkers, 225; re- quired for minors, 205; on pub- lic work, 205; strike of labor- ers for (1868), 207. Eight-hour law, The, agitation and demands for, 12, 16, 18, 23, 199, 200, 205, 215; amendments to, 201, 221; in the Constitution, 216, 222; declared unconstitu- tional, 223 ; enforcement of, 207, 220; passage of, 206; Na- tional, 21 ; and public work, 210, 211, 219 ; for women, 225. Eight-hour League, The, 7, 202, 208, 213, 217; Carpenters', 22; Federated Trades', 47, 219; stamp to identify product of eight-hour mills, 209. Employers, opposition to demands of unions, 13, 50. Employers' Association, assist draymen, 70; contest with trade-unions, 57; funds of, 64; refuse to confer with labor leaders and representatives, 72, 73; Manifesto on the Boycott, 53; organization, 64, 406-7; and the Teamsters ' strike, 73 ; strug- gle with Sailors' Union, 54; succeeded by Citizens' Alliance, 54. (See also Board of Manu- facturers and Employers of California, Brewers ' Protective Association, Draymen's Associ- ation, Engineers' and Foundry- men's Association, Shipowners' Association.) Employment agencies, causes of complaints against, 341-5; changes in number and propri- Index. 455 etorship, 340, 341; eflforts to secure state support for, and conduct of, 345, 346; legislation regulating, 347-8, 349; licenses issued to, 340; San Francisco ordinances regulating, 342-3. (See also Intelligence Offices, Labor Exchange, Shipping Of- fices.) Enos, Labor Commissioner, invest- igation of convict labor, 364; collection of labor statistics, 375. Engineers' and Poundrymen's As- sociation, organization of, 51. Estell, lessee of convict labor, 352, 353. Eumenie Order of United Mechan- ics, 22. Exclusion, Chinese, see Chinese. Exclusion laws (1870), 146; (1882), 173; (1888), 188, 189; (1892), 191; (1903), 196; Geary Bill, 193; opposition of the Six Companies, 191 ; State and local attempts, 119, 122, 146, 191. (See also Dolph, Mitchell, Mor- row.) Factory inspectors, need for larger number, 378. Farley, Senator, on Chinese natur- alization, 177. Federal Civil Eights Bill, 114; legislation on Chinese immigra- tion, 162; relations with the Chinese, 126; statutes regulat- ing mines, 120. Federated Trades, aims, policies and methods, 45, 46, 47; Eight- hour League, 47; of Stockton, 50 ; sub-councils organized, 46 ; Council, opposition to State Board of Arbitration, 380 ; or- ganization, 44 ; representatives refused audience, 49; standing eight-hour committee, 219; sub- councils, 46. Federated Trades of the Pacific Coast, 44. Federated Unions, attempts to form, 22. Federation, tendency to, 44. Federation of Labor, State, for- mation of, 62. Field, S. J., Justice, decision in Hong Kong case, 180; opinions in certificate cases, 183, 190; opinion in Sunday law case, 326. Fifteen Passenger bill, 167, 170, 171. Fitzgerald, E. L., State Labor Commissioner, services as, 345, 377-8. Folsom prison, regulation of in- dustries at, 367. (See also Con- vict labor.) Foreign-born, California, Charac- teristics of, 4. Foreign males of specified nation- ality in California, table of, 3. Foreign miners' license law, see Miners' license law. Foreign parentage, shown in cen- sus of 1900, 3. Fourteenth and Fifteenth amend- ments, political rights not given to Chinese, 127. Free-Soil Democrats, 93. Fugitive slave cases, 95, 99. Fugitive Slave law, California, 94, 96. Fuhrman, Alfred, secretary of brewery workmen, 50. Gadsden, James, plan to import negroes to California, 91. Gag laws, 31. Gage, Governor, on arbitration, 383; on free employment agency, 346; in the Teamsters' strilce, 74. Garber, Judge, decision sustaining legality of trade-union activi- ties, 398. Geary Act (Bill), 193. Geographical factors of San Fran- cisco 's trade-union leadership, 2. George, Henry, on the race prob- lem of the Pacific Coast, 134, 136, 160. German trade-unions, 4. Gompers, President American Fed- eration of Labor, 47. Goodwin, Supervisor, author of queue and laundry-license ordi- nances, 144. Grand Jury investigation of Union Labor leaders, 78. Grover, Senator, definition of "laborers," 177. Haight, Governor, defeat of, 140; on convict labor, 360. Hamlin, Chairman of United States Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, 169. Harlan, Justice, decision on eight- hour law, 223. Haskell, B. G., in Convention of 1885, 43, 44; promoter of Cen- tral Labor Union, 42. Hayes, E. B., President, veto of Fifteen passenger bill, 170. 456 Index. Hawaii, effect of annexation of in San Francisco, 59. Henley, efforts for anti-Chinese legislation, 182. Historical factors of San Fran- cisco 's trade-union leadership, 5. Hoar, Senator, on Exclusion bill of 1882, 176. Hoffman, Judge, 182, 183; deci- sion in Tiburcio Parrott case, 160. Hong Kong, immigrants from, 180. House Carpenters, see Carpenters. Immigrants' Aid Society, The, 338. Immigration, of Chinese laborers from island territory to main- land of United States prohib- ited, 196. (See also Chinese.) Industrial Congress (1875), 214. Industrial League of California, 14, 16, 202, 230. Industrial Magazine, 15. Industrial Eeformers, 23, 26, 140. Injunction, cases of, in California: (1899-1907), 413-422; after passage of California restrain- ing act, 425-432; Federal, 432- 6; summary of, 436-8; develop- ment in use of in United States (1888-1900), 406-409; legisla- tion restraining use of, 422-5; precedents for set by Federal courts, 409-413; use of in print- ers' strike (1890), 405-6; use of in San Francisco (1890-1891), 406. Inspectors, factory, need for larger number of, 378. Intelligence Offices, legal regula- tion of (1861), 336; in San Francisco, 335. (See also Em- ployment Agencies, Labor Ex- change, Shipping Offices.) International Workingmen 's As- sociation, 42. Internationalists, 42, 43, 48. Iron Trades, 44, 80; Council of, 51, 226. Ironmoulders' strike (1864), 13, (1890) 51, 52. Irwin, Governor, message of, 158, 159. Jessup, W. J., President of Work- ingmen 's Association of New York, 139. Johnson, U. S. Commissioner, de- cision in Arehy Lee ease, 102. Johnson, Governor, takes posses- sion of San Quentin, 355. Joint Congressional Committee of Investigation of 1876, 154-166. Julian, G. W., candidacy in Na- tional Labor Union Party, 24. Jute bags, sale of, 367. Kearney, Dennis, member of "pick-handle brigade," 29; of Workingmen 's Party, 31; or- ganized branch Workingmen 's Party of U. S., 25. Kenaday, A. M., biography, 12; president of Trades-Union, 11, 198. Kerr, J. W., representative iron trades employers, 226. Knights of Labor, 7, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 217, 231; of St. Crispin, 23, 136. Label, Cigarmakers' Union, 386. Label, The Union, see Union Label. Labor, contract, 109, 163; Coun- cil, San Francisco, 59, 79; Day, 202, 212, 218; Exchange, 208, 311, 337, 338-9; laws regulating hours of, 224; movements, 2, 11, 20; organizations, forms of, 6; oriental, 5; Party, 138; Mas- sachusetts Eeform Party, 138; State Commissioner of, 220; Statistics, 373, 376, 378. (See also Contract labor. Eight-hour day. Eight-hour League, Eight- hour Laws, Employment Agen- cies, Intelligence Offices, Ship- ping Offices, State Bureau of Labor.) Land, and the California State Constitution, 37; improvement subject to lien, 234. Laundries, ordinances regulating, 320-1; license ordinance, 144, 149. League of Deliverance, 41, 180. (See also Boycott, Chinese.) Lee, Archy, California Fugitive Slave Law case, 99, 102, 103. Lien claims, 236-240, 242; laws, see Mechanics' lien laws. Lobbying, prohibited by Consti- tution, 38. Los Angeles, eight-hour ordinance, 220; length of work-day, 228; Trades Council, 43. Lowell, Justice, decision in Hong Kong case, 180. Luttrell, Eepresentative, bills against Chinese, 167. Macarthur, Walter, cited, 58. McCarver, on exclusion of free negroes, 84, 85, 88. Index. 457 Machinists, strike for nine-hour day, 225. MeCreary Act, 195. Maguire, Judge, consipraey law not applicable to trade-union, 398. Manifesto on the Boycott, 53. Maritime Trades, federation of, 44. Markham, Governor, and the eight-hour law, 220. Massachusetts Labor Reform Par- ty, 138. Mechanics' lien laws, 16, 18, 229, (1868) 231, (1880) 239, (1883) 240, (1885) 231, 240, (1897) 242; bond required, 242, 243; conditions of protection from, 236; constitutional provision for, 239; extent of application, 233-236; history, 229; legal process of enforcement: (o) en- dorsement by employer, 244; (6) time of filing claims, 245; (c) form of document filed, or of notice to owner, 246; (d) time of commencement of suit, 248; (e) costs of securing wages, 248; liability of owner, 239; lines of development, 232. Mechanics' State Council, and the Chinese, 137; and convict labor, 358-9; Eight-hour League, 213; enforcement of eight-hour law on public work, 212; length of existence, 22; national eight- hour day, 214; organization, 15; in politics, 23, 139. Memorials to Congress, of Citi- zens ' Anti-Chinese Convention, 186; opposing slavery, 83. Merchant, restriction of term as applied to Chinese, 181; Marine Commission, 4. Metal Polishers' strike (1901), 65, Miller, J. F., Senator, chairman committee on Chinese questions Constitutional Convention of 1879, 154, and Chinese legisla tion, 168, 182; member of Com ^mittee on Foreign Affairs, 173 175. Miners, license laws, 111, 112 120; meetings, 8; safety, 319 320. (See also Bell-signals.) Mines, Federal statutes regulat ing, 120. JVTining camps, government of. Ill; opposition to Chinese, 111 117, 118. Minors, eight-hour day required for, 205. (See also Child labor.) Mission Improvement Clubs, Fed- eration of, 76. Mitchell, Senator, and Chinese ex- clusion, 186, 188, 191, 192. Morrow, W. W., Representative, and Chinese legislation, 192; on Chinese appeal bonds, 194. Morton, Oliver P., minority re- port Committee of Investigation (1876), 166. Moulders' Union, 14. Murasky, Judge, decision in in- junction case, 428; opposition roused by, 429, 430. Murray, Chief Justice, opinion in case. In re Perkins, 97. National Congress of Workmen, 16, 17. National Labor Congress, 139; Convention, 17. National Labor Party, see Na- tional Labor Union. National Labor Union, anti-Chi- nese activity, 25, 147; Califor- nia branch, 23, 24; continuous existence, 24; and eight-hour law, 23 ; plan of nomination, 25 ; platform of, 24; relation to Workingmen 's Party, 25; reso- lutions of Convention (1878), 26; suspension of meetings, 29; sympathy with Pittsburgh strik- ers, 25, 28. Negroes, in California, 84, 86, 90, 91, 99, 103, 104; manumission papers in county records, 98; sale of, 98. Nelson, Justice, decision in Hong Kong case, 180. Nevada, anti-Chinese sentiment, 159, 179. New England, opposition of Con- gressional representatives to anti-Chinese legislation, 176. Nine-hour day, book and job printers', 226-7; strike of ma- chinists, 225. Oakland, length of work-day in, 228; representation of in Con- vention of 1885, 43; Working- men's Party of California in, 34. O'Malley, Assemblyman, eight- hour day bill, 204. Ordinances, San Francisco: basket, 143; cubic-air, 142; laundry- license, 144, 149; prohibiting employment of Chinese on pub- lic works, 143; queue, 144, 149; regulating laundries, 320-1. (See also Chinese.) 458 Index. Oriental labor, 5. Pacific Mail dock, attack on, 29. Page, Representative, and Chinese immigration, 165. Page, T. W., cited, 65, 72. Palace Hotel, 213. Parker, Joel, candidacy in Na- tional Labor Union party, 25. Parties, political (1870-1877), 23; labor, 7; lack of strength in San Francisco, 3, 17. Peachy, Memorial presented by, 92. Peixotto, Jessica B., cited, 317. People's Protective Alliance, 26, 140. Perkins, Governor, convict manu- facture of jute bags suggested, 362. Plasterers, eight-hour day last (1877), 213. Politics, 7; labor movement in, 138; relation of trade-unions to, 17, 18, 75, 76. Population of California, concen- tration of, 2; influence on labor movements, 2; in politics, 3. Presidential elections (1880, 1884), 187; (1888), 188. Printers' union, 10. Prison industries, development of, 362; labor, see Convict labor. Public service corporations, con- stitutional regulation of, 37. Queue ordinance, 144, 149. Eace elements, in San Francisco, 3 ; problem of Pacific Coast, 134. Regulations, State and local, against the Chinese, 119. Representative Assembly, period of greatest activity of, 40. Representative Council of Trades and Labor Federation of the Pacific Coast, 44. (See also Federated Trades.) Republicans, attitude of toward Chinese, 147, 173 ; toward Union Labor, 78. Restaurant Keepers' Association. 66. Roach, P. A., and the Chinese question, 136; and the contract labor bill, 136. Robinson, Judge, decision of in case of Archy Lee, 100. Roney, Prank, biography, 40; chairman Convention of 1885, 43; leader in Representative Assembly, 40. Rosenberg, Ed., secretary of the Labor Council, 68. Sacramento, Knights of Labor in, 43; San Francisco aided by trade-unions of, 59; Working- men's Alliance of, 26, 140; Workingmen's Party of Cali- fornia in, 34. Sailors' Union, plan to overthrow, 55; Shipowners' Association's attacks on, 57; struggle with Employers' Association, 54; training school for trade-union- ists, 4. (See also Seamen's Pro- tective Association.) Sanderson, Justice, opinion of in eight-hour day case, 211. Sand-lot meetings, 30, 33, 215; oratory against convict labor, 358-9. San Francisco, Bay, concentration of population, 2; Chamber of Commerce, 47 ; comparative iso- lation of, 5; during early gold mining period, 2; factors of labor leadership: (o) geograph- ical, 2; (6) historical, 5; (c) race element, 3; Labor Council, 59, 79; labor situation (1863), 12; length of work-day, 228; municipal policy in Teamsters' strike, 75; rejoicing over pass- age of Fifteen passenger bill, 170. Sanitation, act of 1889, 321; of laundries, 320-1; of workshops, 320, 322. San Quentin, abuse in manage- ment, 355; industries developed under contract labor system, 357; possession by Governor Johnson, 355. Santa Clara County, Working- men's Party of California in, 34. Sargent, A. A., efforts for Chinese exclusion, 163, 165, 167, 170, 173. Sawyer, Justice, opinion in eight- hour day case, 210. Scaffolding, inspection required, 323. Sohmitz, Eugene, administration of, 77. Seamen, form of organization, 46; Protective Association, 41. Seawell, Judge, decision in Cole et al. V. McCarthy, Building Trades Council et al., 402. Secretary of the Treasury, dis- cretion given regarding Chinese legislation, 196. Shanghai, origin of term, 336. Index. 459 Sherman Act, not applicable to trade-union ease, 402. Ship Carpenters' Union, history of, 10. Shipping offices, license required of, 336. Shipowners ' Association, policy of, 55; relations to Coast Sea- men's Union, 54; wages reduced by, 57. Shoemakers, see Knights of St. Crispin. Six Companies, The, opposition to exclusion laws, 191. Slavery in California, absence of, 82; advocacy of, 93; opposition to, 82; recovery of slaves, 96. (See also Fugitive Slave Law.) Socialistic Workingmeu, section of Workingmen's Party of Cali- fornia, 33. Socialists, 79; influence in Inter- nationalists ' Convention, 43. (See also International Work- ingmen 's Association and Knights of Labor.) Spanish-American war, effect in San Francisco, 59. Sprague, Justice, opinion in eight- hour day case, 211. State Board of Arbitration, estab- lishment of, 379-381; contro- versies submitted to, 381; failure of to settle labor dis- putes, 382. Building Trades Council, 61. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ap- propriation for, 373 ; attempts to establish, 369, 370-1; cre- ation of, 371; labor contro- versies investigated, 376; need for civil service regulation of, 378; for more factory in- spectors, 378; summary of work, 372-5. Federation of Labor, 62. Stewart, of Nevada, on Chinese naturalization, 130. Stockton Federated Trades, 50; represented in Convention of 1885, 43. Stovall, C. v., claimant in Fugi- tive Slave Law case, 99. Strike assessments (1886-1890), 45; benefit, 48; breakers, 5; im- portation of, 19; in Massachu- setts, 138; fund (1886-1890), 45. Strikes (1863), 12; boilermakers' (1864), 13; building trades' (1849), 9; (1851, 1853), 9; butchers ' and journeymen 's (1901), 67; carriagemakers ' (1901), 68; City Front Feder- ation's, 71; Cooks' and "Waiters' Alliance, 66; ironmoulders ' (1864), 13; (1890-91), 51, 52; machinists', for nine-hour day (1901), 225; metal polishers' (1901), 65; teamsters', 69; sup- port received from Knights of Labor, 41. (See also Teams- ters' strike.) Sub-councils of Federated Trades, 46. Sumner, Charles, on Chinese nat- uralization, 128, 129. Sunday laws in California, 324-5; amendments to (1855), 329; (1861-1872), 327; (1868), 328; barber-shop closing declared un- constitutional, 333; efforts to secure (bakers), 330; (trade- unions), 333; embodied in Code of 1872, 330; validity of, 326, 331; repeal of (1883), 331-4. Swift, John F., commissioner on treaty with China, 172. Tailors, attempted formation of federated unions, 21. Teachers' women, given same sal- ary as men, 312. Teamsters, Brotherhood of, agree- ment with Draymen 's Associ- ation, 69. Strike of (1901), 69; municipal policy toward, 75; proposi- tions made by Employers' Association, 73; by trade- unions, 74; real questions at issue, 73; settlement of, 74; violence in, 74, 75. Ten-hour Labor Association, 203; Law of 1853, 197. Terry, Judge D. H., decision in case. Ex parte Archy, 100. Tiburcio Parrott case, 160. Trade-unions, 1850-1880, 10, 11, 20, 21 ; approved and aided by Federated Trades, 47 ; best meet wageworker's permanent needs, 8; concessions gained (1901-2), 63; conspiracy law not appli- cable to, 398; directory of (1867), 15; (1880), 40; distri- bution of literature regarding, 45; early organization, and lack of continuity of, 6; efforts to shorten the work-day (1882- 1890), 216; to secure day of rest, 333, and eight-hour day, 201; German, 4; increase of 460 Index. membership (1900-02), 61, and number of (1901-2), 62; judicial restraint of, 394, 431; legality of activities sustained, 398; op- position to re-election of Judge Daingerfield, 400-1 ; organiza- tion of central representative bodies, 60; periods of activity and development, 7, 12, 80; rec- ognized as permanent factors in industrial life, 81; in the placer mines, 8; in politics, 17, 75, 76; procedure of, before the courts, 395,396; revival of (1899-1901), 60; rights of, to expel members, 395-397; to procure discharge of non-union men, 397-403. Trades Assembly, organization of, 11; dissolution of, 180; efforts to secure Chinese exclusion law (1882), 179. Trades Union, see Trades Assem- bly. Treaties with China, Bnrlingame, 126; 1880, 172; 1894, 196. Treseot, Wm. H., commissioner on treaty with China, 172. Typographical Union, assistance given Ironmoulders, 52; not ready for eight-hour day move- ment, 201; report on decline of membership in Federated Trades, 45; union label adopted and defended by, 389-90, 393; women admitted to member- ship, 312; International, nine- hour day agreement of, 227. Unemployed, condition of (1876- 7), 26; meetings of (1870), 23, 171; movements of, 7; solution of problem, 215; increase of (1869-70), 20. Union label, Citizens' Alliance re- strained from using counterfeit, 393; efforts to prevent fraudu- lent use of, 386; protective leg- islation for, 387; declared valid, 392; stamp adopted to identify product of eight-hour mills, 209; unions' efforts to promote use of, 388-9; use in California, 385-6; by printing trades, 389- 390; on public printing, 390. Union Labor party, conditions of rise, 75-7; control of San Fran- cisco municipal government, 78, 79; corruption in, 79; Grand Jury investigation of leaders, 78; influence on elections of 1902, 77; losses in elections of 1903-4, 77; managed by boss, 78; successes of (1901), 77. Valentine, Joseph F., president of Eight-hour League (1889), 218; of International Moulders' Union, 226. Vallejo, represented in Convention of 1885, 43. Van Dyke, on Chinese immigra- tion, 152. Wages, higher, demanded (1863), 5, 13. Washington, D. C, visit of A. M. Winn, 207. Wellington coal boycott, 46, 48. AVest Side Irrigation District, pro- hibition of employment of Chi- nese in, 147. Wilcox, Assemblyman, eight-hour bill presented by, 198. Williams, Gr. C, secretary of Ship- owners' Association, 55. Williams, Senator, of Oregon, on Chinese naturalization, 131. Willis, Chairman of House Com- mittee on Education and Com- merce, 167, 169. Wilson, B. D., county clerk of Los Angeles, 98. Winn, A. M., biographical sketch, 22; efforts for eight-hour day, 21, 207, 214; on the Chinese, 136; organized Industrial Ee- formers, 140. Women, admission to Typograph- ical Union, 312; advantages gained through trade-unions, 317; constitutional right to en- gage in any lawful calling, 313; excessive hours of work, 317; positions secured by Labor Ex- change, 311; suffrage, 313; Teachers, legal protection first received by, 312; workers, in- adequate supply of, 311. Work-day, movement for shorten- ing of (since 1900), 228. (See Eight- and Nine-hour Day, Ten- hour Labor Association, and Ten-hour Law.) Workingmen, petitions and memo- rials against Chinese, 178; Alliance, of Sacramento, 26, 140; Associations, directory of (1867), 15. Convention of (1867), distrust of older political parties, 17; nomination of primary ticket, 18 ; opposition to convict labor, 358; plan for state organiza- Index. 461 tion, 18; platform, 17; quali- fications of delegates, 16; success of, 19. National Congress of (Balti- more, 1866), 16. Workingmen's JParty of Califor- nia, advocacy of eight-hour law, 215; affected by economic con- ditions (1876-7), 27; anti-Chi- nese agitation, 27, 28, 148, 167; demand for mechanics' lien law, 231; events preceding or- ganization, 28; extension of, 34; influence on labor organi- zations, 40; on State Constitu- tion, 36; Legislative report on, 32; numerical strength in legis- lature, 167; organization of, 25, 30; plan for nominations, 34; platforms, 30, 35; primary ob- ject of, 30; in Sacramento, 19; sand-lot meeting, 30; State con- vention, 32; success, 31, 33, 38; weakening (1879-1880). Woi'kingmen 's Party of the United States, 25. Workmen, National Congress of, 16, 17. Workshops, sanitation of, 320, 321, 322. Wozencraft, on the McCarver amendment, 85. Wright, J. H., president Indus- trial Congress, 214. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED) GEAECO-ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY. (Quarto.) ^°and /riiwi*'f'',^^P2^' ^^'* ^- ^^^"^ ^y B«™^« P- G«nfeU, Arthur S. Hunt and J. Gilbart Smyly. xlx + 674 pages, with 9 collotypes. 1902. ^"nnnt ^ii*twh«'?i' f^P'^''/^ 2. Edited by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Ses, wi?h m^p^'TglT" °' '^''" '■ °°°'^^^^''- "^ + ^«^^^^« ^^^ 2 coUotype '^"'^n^H 7r1iL®^*^'',^^^^r' ^^* ^- ^'^^^^ ^y ^^n^^d P- GrenfeU, Arthur S. Hunt, and J. Gilbart Smyly. (In preparation.) "■'^'■, ff/fi^^'lV?i*Q,^ w^S'^'^ University ^ess (Henry Frowde), Amen Comer, London, E. C. irlll'e uL'ersUy'^^'^e's! B^^^^^^ '"''" '''''■ °°^^^^ '"'' '^'''''^'' ^^^ ^^ '^^'^^^^ EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY. (Quarto.) ^°^" lu T^^® ?®^-** Medical Papyrus. Hieratic Text in 17 facsimile plates in coUotype. with Introduction and Vocabulary, by George A. Reisner. 48 pages. 19t5 25 ma^s Vol. 2. The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-DSr, Part I, by «■ a, t',eisner 172 pages, 80 plates, 211 text-figures. 1908 !...':.....;„/:.?.. fi75 inarks Vol. 3. The Early Dynastic Cemeteries at Naga-ed-Der, Part II, by A. C. Mace xi 4- 88 pages, with 60 plates and 123 text-figures. 1909 ; 50 marks For sale by J. 0. Hinrichs Verlag, Leipzig, Germany. Copies for exchange may be obtained from the University Press, Berkeley. o j ^ PHILOSOPHy.— George H. Howison, Editor. Vol. 2. 1. The DialMtic of Plotinus, by H. A. Overstreet. Pp. 1-29. May 15, 1909 ... .25 2. Two Extensions of the Use of Graphs in Formal Logic, by W. E. Hockine. Pp. 31-44. May 17, 1909 ._. .15 3. On the Law of History, by W. E. Hocking. Pp. 45-65. September 17, 1909 .20 4. The Mystical Element in Hegel's Early Theological Writings, by George Plimpton Adams. (In piress.) PSYCHOLOGY.— George M. Stratton. Editor. Vol. 1. 1. The Judgment of Difference, with especial Reference to the Doctrine of Thresholds in the Case of Lifted Weights, by Warner Brown. (In press.) 2. The Process of Abstraction, an Experimental Study, by Thomas Vemer Moore. (In press.) SEMITIC PHILOLOGY.— WlUiam Popper, Editor. Vol. 1. 1907-. (In progress.) 1. The Supposed Hebraisms in the Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, by Herbert Harry Powell. Pp. 1-55. Februaiy. 1907 ...„ _ 75 Vol. 2. 1909-. 1. Abfl I'Mahasin Ibn Taghri Birdi's Annals, entitled An-Nujflm az-Zahira fi MulQk Misr wal-Kahira: volume 2, part 2, No. 1, edited by William Popper. Pp. 1-128. September, 1909 _ .„ 1.50 2. (The same.) No. 2 (in press). MATHEMATICS.— MeUen W. HaskeU, Editor. Vol. 1. 1. On Numbers which Contain no Factors of the Form p (kp + 1), by Henry W. Stager. (In press.) MODERN PHILOLOGY. — Charles M. Gayley, H. K. Schilling, and Lucien Foulet, Editors. Vol. 1. 1. Der Junge Goethe und das Publikum, by W. R. R. Pinger. Pp. 1-67. May 8, 1909 - - ~~ .50 2. Studies in the Marvellous, by Benjamin P. Kurtz. Pp. 69-244. March 16, 1910 - 2.00 3. Introduction to the Philosophy of Art, by Arthur Weiss. Pp. 245-302. Jan- uary 12, 1910 - - - .50 4. The Old English Christian Epic, by G, A. Smithson. (In press.) Vol. 2. 1. Wilhelm Busch als Dichter, Kunstler, Psychologe. und PhUosoph, von Fritz Winther. (In press.)