University of California • Berkeley
WITH AN INTRODUCTORY SKETCH OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT
DEDICATED TO
GEORGE ELLIOTT HOWARD, 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
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
Copyright, 1910,
By LITCILE EAVES.
Published August, 1910.
i I IhUAUV
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 Workingmen's Convention of 1867 16
The Labor Movements of the Seventies 20
The Workingmen'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 79
CHAPTER II.
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 90
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 III.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION FOR THE EXCLUSION AND REGULATION 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 Regulations 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, 1871-1902. .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 1853 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 225
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
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 aoz
CHAPTER X.
LAWS REGULATING THE LABOR OF CHILDREN 287-310
Laws for the Regulation of Apprenticeship 287
Laws Regulating the Conditions under Which Minors may be Employed 295
Compulsory Education Laws k.... 307
Effects 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
CHAPTER XL
PAGE
LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WOMEN WORKERS OF CALIFORNIA. .311-317
Relatively Small Number of Women Wage-Earners 311
Efforts to Secure Constitutional Recognition of Women's Rights 313
Women in the Trade-Unions 314
Passage of the Laws Protecting Women Workers, 1889 315
CHAPTER XII.
LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF EMPLOYEES. .318-323
Boiler Inspection 318
Safety of Miners 319
Sanitation of Workshops 320
CHAPTER 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
Repeal of the Sunday Laws 331
Trade-Union Efforts to Secure a Day of Rest 333
CHAPTER XIV.
EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES 335-351
Early San Francisco Intelligence Offices 335
Attempts to Regulate 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
CHAPTER 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
ix
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 XVIII.
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 ^junction Cases 432
Summary of the California Injunction Cases 436
CHAPTER XX.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 439-443
BIBLIOGRAPHY 444
INDEX OF CASES 449
INDEX OF 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. Farnam, 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
History 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 FRANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT.1
REASONS FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO.
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-workers 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.
i This introductory sketch of the San Francisco 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 San 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.2 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: California 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.
Race 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,3 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 :4
g £ si, •« s a gs -
® o ^ - - ^ .2 •£ § 2 0.9 ^
Q EH SS^^WO&IcB^sS
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%.
4 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, Norway, and
Finland, and ten per cent, were German.5 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
8 Report of the Merctiant Marine Commission, 58th Congress, 3rd sess.,
Senate Beports, 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 efforts 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 unsurrnountable. For example,
when, in 1863, the bakers asked for increases in pay of from
thirty to forty-five dollars per month,0 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
e San Francisco Bulletin, November 4, 1863. They were then receiving
fifty-five and sixty dollars per month.
6 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.
FOEMS OF LABOE ORGANIZATIONS 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. 1
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 days 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 wras 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 Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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 numerous 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 emergency organizations which can be formed when circum-
gtances 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 PEEIOD OF TEADE-UNIONISM, 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
1910] 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. 7 In the following year the sailors,8 bricklayers,9 and
musicians10 conducted strikes ; in 1851 the printers followed suit ;
while in 1853 there was quite an outbreak of strikes.11
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.12 The editor of the Alia ventures to administer a
mild reproof, at the same time expressing a hearty approval of
trade-unions and strikes.13
T Alia, November 22, 1849; December 6, 1849.
8 Ibid., August 10, 12, 1850.
o Ibid., September 11, 1850.
lo/Znd., 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.)
i*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 every 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. tVo1- 2
"While these strikes were accompanied by public meetings,
processions and other demonstrations, it seems probable that they
were sometimes conducted by temporary organizations. We have
found direct evidence of fully organized trade-unions among the
printers,14 the carpenters,15 and the laborers of Sacramento.16
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 1850. The teamsters, draymen, 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. "1T
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 147 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 1870.18 The
history of the Ship Carpenters ' Union affords another illustration
of the instability of these early 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
i* Organized late in the spring of 1850.
15 Alta, July 19, 1853.
16 Ibid., August 7, 1853.
IT First Coast Seamen's Unions, in 'Coast Seamen's Journal, July 8,
1908, p. 1.
is My information about the Typographical Union is drawn from the
records of the union, which were destroyed in the fire of April, 1906.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 11
other method of emptying the overloaded treasury. The disputes
on this subject finally disrupted the union.19
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.20 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. "21
John M. Days, a state senator, was the first president of this
Trades Union.22 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
19 San Francisco Daily 'Report, 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.
21 Alta, June 2, 1867.
22 The account of this first trades union given in the San Francisco
Daily Eeport, May 11, 1886, and that written by Burdette Haskell.in Mc-
Neill's The Labor Movement the Problem 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. ' '23
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 sufficient 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
23 A. M. Kenaday came to California in 1847 and left to return in the
gold rush. He 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-
cause 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 ease 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 find 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. 24 "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.25 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-
ductions. 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.26 The moulders sent
out circulars warning other workmen not to come to San Fran-
cisco, and firmly refused to make any concessions.
2-1 Bulletin, November 4, 1863.
25 Alia, April 3, 8, 1864; Labor 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.
20 Alia, April 3, 1864.
14 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
The members of the other San Francisco trade-unions were
disposed to support the moulders,27 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,28 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.29
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,30 for during the last half of this decade we find 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.31 There
had been anti-coolie associations in San Francisco as earlv as
27 Ibid., April 8, 1864.
28 April 12, 1864.
20 Industrial Magazine, January j 1867.
so 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 Report of May 11, 1886, and a
recent history of the Bakers' Union also gives the incident full notice. (See
Labor Clarion, September 4, 1908, p. 36.)
si Alia, editorial, June 2, 1867.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 15
1862, but they now multiplied rapidly in numbers,32 and formed
a state organization with a central representative council and
various subordinate councils.33 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.34
The Industrial 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, 35 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-Chinese clubs in San Francisco, one
in each distvrict.
ss Bulletin, July 12, 1862; May 14, 1867.
3* For the completer account of its work, see Chapter VII, ' ' The Length
of the Work-Day in California" (p. 206, etc.).
ss San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867.
16 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
THE WOBKINGMEN'S CONVENTION OF 1867.
The National Congress of Workingmen held in Baltimore in
August, 1866,36 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 tf rom
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.37
The convention opened with 140 delegates, who represented
the anti-coolie clubs of the twelve districts of San Francisco, and
the various trades.38 A later account says .that thirty-two trades
and all the anti-coolie clubs sent delegates.39 The convention
promptly effected a permanent organization40 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.41
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
so McNeil!, The Labor Movement, etc., pp. 133-134.
3? Industrial Magazine, March, 1867.
38 Bulletin, April 1, 1867.
3oAlta, June 2, 1867.
40 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.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 17
convention.*2 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,43
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 worlungmen 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. ' H4
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 wras 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.
4-t Bulletin, April 3, 1867.
18 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
the state, calling upon the people to drop and forget all political
distinctions and work in harmony for the good of all."45
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 worldngmen 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.46
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. ' '47
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.
46 Ibid., April 10, 1867. •
47 Ibid., May 1, 1867.
1910] Eaves: California 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.48
The workingmen had planned to nominate Assemblyman
Wilcox, who had championed the eight-hour law 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.49 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.50
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,51 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.52 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
4S The Alia, 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.
« Alia, July 12, 1867.
50 A more detailed account of the efforts to pass these laws will be given
in subsequent chapters.
si There had been a Workingmen's Party in Sacramento prior to this
time, but it was unsuccessful. San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867.
52 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^vhich
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 Railroad 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 whieh, at
times, averaged two thousand per month. As a result of this
business depression and increase bf competitors, the trade-unions
were unable to retain the wages and hours of labor which they
had won during the sixties. Only 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 Labor 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-hour 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 Eight-Hour Executive Committee,
which was composed of the presidents of state and national
organizations of mechanics.53 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.54
He returned with authority to grant charters to branches of the
National Labor Union in California.55
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-unions 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.
**Alta, August 24, 1870.
ss Bulletin, March 15, 1871.
22 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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
1,500.5G 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.57 For a few
years this body continued to agitate in favor of the eight-hour
day, particularly in work for the public,58 and then it dropped
out of existence. The carpenters reorganized their union in
1882.59
The last notices of the Mechanics' State Council which we
have found appeared in 1877,60 so that this organization which
came into existence during the eight-hour campaign of 1867
survived for ten years. This was chiefly due to the persistent
activity of its president, A. M. Winn.61 Indeed it is claimed
that during the later years his list of unions represented was
fictitious, as some of them had ceased to exist.62 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.
5c Haskell, in McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., 609. In the sketch
of the life of Frank Roney, 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 Re-
port, May 11, 1886.)
57 Winn, Valedictory Address.
58 Alia, May 3, 28, 1873.
so Organized Labor, February 8, 1902.
wAlta, January 14, May 12, 21, 23, 1876; November 6, 1877.
<5i 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 difficulties 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.
02 San Francisco Daily Eeport, May 11. 1886.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 23
*
(2) Political Parties, 1870-1877.
Early in 1870 the meetings of the unemployed began in San
Francisco. They were followed in July by a great anti-Chinese
demonstration, which was led by the Knights of St. Crispin, an
organization of shoemakers.63 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.64 "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."65 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.66
"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 March, 1871.6T From that time until
03 Alta, July 9, 16, 1870.
64 Winn, Valedictory Address, p. 5.
es Alta, August 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 24, 1870. See p. 138.
oo Ibid., August 31, September 16, 1870.
67 Bulletin, March 15, 1871.
24 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 2
187868 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.69 A month later the State Labor Convention
met in San Francisco. A lengthy platform was adopted,70 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 :
' ' First — The disenthralment 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.71 Six delegates were appointed to attend
the National Convention of the party.72
In May the Executive Committee of the Labor Party of
, January 22, 1878.
Bulletin, December 26, 1871.
/Jnd., January 26, 1872.
Ibid., January 26, 1872.
td., January 27, 1872.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 25
California met and passed resolutions declaring that the undi-
vided support of all true labor reformers in the state was pledged
to Judge Davis and Joel Parker.73
In June the Executive Committee announced that at all future
elections the Labor Party of California would place nominees
before the people for each elective office who would be true
representatives of the industrial policies and political views of
the party. It was proposed that nominees should be elected by
ballot at elections called by the committee in the respective labor
unions.74 We have been unable to find whether this plan of
nomination was ever carried out by the National Labor Party,
though it was adopted by the Workingmen 's Party in nominating
candidates for the Constitutional Convention of 1878.
In 1873 we hear of the National Labor Union obtaining six
thousand names to an anti-Chinese petition.75 We have not
attempted to follow this organization during the next three or
four years when people of all classes joined in the great demon-
strations in favor of Chinese exclusion.76 While it did not
achieve any noteworthy successes, its continuity seems probable,
for in July, 1877, we find the National Labor Union calling the
meeting to express sympathy with the Pittsburgh strikers, which
set in motion the chain of events that led to the formation of the
Workingmen 's Party.77
We find some confusion of parties in the organizations of 1877-
1878. At first Dennis Kearney and his friends organized as a
branch of the Workingmen 's Party of the United States. In
California this seems to have been regarded as the successor to,
or identical with, the National Labor Party. Haskell says
Kearney was refused admittance to the Workingmen 's Party of
the United States.78 The historians of the California Working-
men's Party explain the organization as an independent party
™ Bulletin, May 29, 1872.
™lbid., June 15, 1872.
TS Alia, May 25, 1873.
TO The author has not had time to make the exhaustive examination of
the newspaper files of this period necessary to obtain this information
about the activities of the National Labor Union.
77 Eeport of Joint Committee on Labor Investigations, Appendix to
Journals of Senate and Assembly, 22d Session, Vol. 4.
7« McNeill, op. cit., p. 609.
26 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
as being due to some doubt of the right of the section to act
without authority from the central body at Chicago.79 They
effected their organization in August, and in the September
municipal election polled nearly six thousand votes.
The older party, which still retained the name of National
Labor Party, held its regular state convention in January, 1878,
at which the following resolution was adopted :80
' ' Whereas, A National Convention in the interests of labor is to be
held at Toledo, Ohio, on the 22d of February pursuant to a call signed by
Wendell Phillips and Peter Cooper, and other well-known friends of the
people; therefore, be it
' ' Eesolved, That this convention do now proceed to the election of six
delegates from the National Labor Party of California, and the President
and Secretary are hereby authorized to issue to such delegates the proper
credentials; and further
"Kesolved, That the State Executive Committee are authorized and
empowered to elect delegates to any other National Convention that may
be called in the interests of labor before this convention is again con-
vened. ' '
(3) Anti-Chinese Societies, 1873-1876.
We have already given accounts of the formation of anti-
Chinese societies in 1862, 1867, and 1870. At a later date the
scope of these societies was extended to include the whole Pacific
Coast. The People's Protective Alliance was formed in May,
1873, by the union of the Worldngmen's Alliance of Sacramento,
the anti-Chinese associations of San Francisco, and the Industrial
Reformers, for the purpose of securing the united action of the
working people of the Coast. This had primary associations,
county assemblies and a grand council, and entered upon a
vigorous campaign in California and Oregon.81 These efforts of
the workingmen were so successful that by 1876 the anti-Chinese
societies and demonstrations were no longer confined to their
organizations, but were general in scope. The meetings were
then called, and the investigations made by the authority of the
state legislature, and the municipal officials.
We have now traced the history of two state organizations
78 Stedman and Leonard, The Workwoman's Party of California, p. 5.
soAlta, January 22, 1878.
si For the more detailed accounts of the work of this association, see
the chapter dealing with anti-Chinese legislation.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 27
which had continued to hold meetings for from eight to ten years
prior to the organization of the Workingmen's Party of Cali-
fornia. We have shown that one of these was a state political
party with national affiliations. The anti-Chinese societies of this
period were even more effective in educating the working classes
of the state to concerted action, as they were more active than
the general labor organizations. Also, the subject of their
activities was one which aroused the passions of the working
people, giving an emotional impulse that helped in the develop-
ment of a strong, sympathetic consciousness of common interests.
Thus we see that the way was fully prepared for a successful
state Workingmen's Party. It remains only for us to study the
events that brought about the culmination of these forces that
had been in preparation since 1867.
THE WORKINGMEN'S PAETY OF CALIFORNIA, 1877-1879.
When we begin our analysis of the causes that made possible
the successes of the Workingmen 's Party, we are first met by the
fact that there was much discomfort, if not actual suffering for
the necessities of life among a large number of the poorer
citizens of the state. Economic conditions had been going from
bad to worse. There was a drought in the winter of 1876-7, the
grain crop failed and the cattle died. At the same time the out-
put of the mines was greatly decreased. San Francisco was the
natural focusing point of all the economic bitterness and dis-
content which the hard times called forth. The large numbers
of unemployed who paced her streets and gathered in the sand-
lots gave the increased force of numbers to the sufferings of the
times, and the suffering was often turned into bitter discontent
by the ostentatious displays of the wealth of some of the newly-
rich of the city.
Many of the wage- workers who did not lack the actual neces-
sities of life were brought into closer sympathy with the un-
employed by their losses due to the decline in stocks, in which
all classes had learned to speculate. The bitterness towards
capitalists which shows so frequently in the sand-lot oratory was
due not merely to resentment of the manifest economic in-
equalities but also to the corruption of the business life of the
28 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
time. There was a well-founded suspicion that some of the losses
that had swept away the savings of the poor were due to the
corrupt mismanagement of those in charge of the business
enterprises.
No explanations are needed to account for the strong anti-
Chinese feelings of the movement. Such feelings had been
diligently cultivated among the working people of the state for
the past twenty years, and they were, of course, aggravated by
the sight of hundreds of white men who were in need of the work
which the great hordes of newly arriving Chinese seemed able to
obtain.
The attention of the state was focused upon the economic
situation in San Francisco by the dramatic events which im-
mediately preceded the launching of the Workingmen's Party.
In July, 1877, the National Labor Party called a meeting on the
sand-lot in front of the City Hall to express sympathy with the
Pittsburgh strikers. Flights of oratory and resolutions adapted
to the purposes of the meeting were indulged in, but there is no
evidence to prove that the gathering had any lawless intent, or
was directly responsible for the attacks on the Chinese wash-
houses that followed.82
The term "hoodlum" is said to have originated in San
Francisco, and was coined at about this time to describe a class
of rough and lawless youths. Tormenting inoffensive Chinamen
was one of their chief forms of diversion. While the meeting was
in progress, they started a fire in a wash-house, and during the
following night attacked several other Chinese laundries in
different portions of the city. These were scattered through the
residence portions of the city, and San Franciscans have always
had good cause to dread fires.
As there was much wretchedness and discontent as well as a
large lawless class in the city, these events caused some uneasi-
ness. A meeting of citizens was called to consider the situation.
Possibly the presence of W. T. Coleman, the originator of the
Vigilance Committees of the fifties, may have suggested a similar
s2 Report of Joint Committee on Labor Legislation, Appendix to
Journals of Senate and Assembly, 22d Sess., Vol. 4, 1878. Compare also
the account by Henry George, in Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 17, p. 433.
(August, 1880.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 29
movement. The whole matter of making plans for the preserva-
tion of the peace was turned over to him. He welcomed the
opportunity to repeat his exploits of twenty years before, and
promptly enlisted over five thousand men in his Committee of
Public Safety. A supply of firearms was obtained from the
government arsenal at Benicia, and war vessels from Mare Island
were brought to anchor in front of the city. For ordinary
occasions the members of the Committee of Safety patrol which
he organized were armed with pick-handles.83
The only evidence of an outbreak was the firing of the lumber
yard near the Pacific Mail dock. As this dock had been frequently
threatened because of its connection with the Chinese traffic, it
was believed that it would be attacked. The fire department, the
police and the Committee of Safety patrol succeeded in dispersing
the large crowd that gathered, no one receiving any serious
injuries except one of the guards whose gun exploded..
Naturally these extraordinary proceedings occasioned great
excitement in San Francisco, and aroused interest throughout
the state. There has been much difference of opinion on the
question whether there was any real necessity for the Com-
mittee of Safety, many persons claiming that the regular
authorities could and should have done all that was necessary to
preserve the peace. Henry George, who was in the city at the
time, was among those who claimed that there was no occasion for
such a body. He thought that this extra-legal organization,
coupled with the well-known history of the Vigilance Committees
of the fifties, suggested to Kearney and his associates many of
their ideas about forming a special organization which should
dispense a rough justice, and carry out the reforms demanded
by the people, in case it proved impossible to obtain them through
the regular political machinery.84 This seems the more probable
from the fact that Kearney was a member of the "pick-handle
brigade."
The meetings of the National Labor Party had been suspended
during this excitement, but they came together again in August
83 Coleman, ' ' San Francisco Vigilance Committees, ' ' Century, Vol. 43,
p. 145.
s* Popular Science Monthly (August, 1880), Vol. 17, p. 433ff.
30 - University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
to prepare for the elections. Unlike most organizations of this
kind, it did not cease its activities after the election. At the
meeting of September 12, the first platform of the California
Workingmen's Party was adopted. In this the chief emphasis is
placed on the corruption of the existing political parties, and the
need of provisions that would secure a better representation and
protection of the interests of the workingmen by the state
government. This platform declared:
"Whereas, The contending political parties of the country having
through lack of principle or of statesmanship, failed to meet the growing
wants of this rapidly growing country; and,
' ' Whereas, Their past history furnishes no points of honesty whereon
the workingmen can hang any hopes of their future good behavior; then
be it
' ' Resolved, That the workingmen sever all affiliation with existing
political parties and do hereby organize for the purpose of good and
equitable government a new party to be called the Workingmen 's Party
of California, having in view the following reforms in politics:
' ' First — The abolition of the assessment on candidates for office, the
people to own the offices, not the incumbents.
' ' Second— Holding State and municipal officers to strict accountability
for their official acts.
' ' Third — The establishment of a Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
' ' Fourth — The immediate reduction, and periodical regulation thereafter
of the hours of labor.
' ' Fifth— The creation by the State Legislature of a Convention on
labor with headquarters in San Francisco. "85
At a meeting held a few days later it was announced that
the movement had "for its primary object the extirpation of
the Chinese curse; that this should be the grand keynote of
the warfare." It is said that Kearney concluded all his speeches
with the declaration, ' ' The Chinese must go ! "
In this, as in the subsequent expressions of the speeches
and platforms, we find the assumption that the workingmen
are now about to enter politics for the first time. It never
seems to have occurred to anyone that they were in the major-
ity, and that their votes had helped to elect the much-abused,
and unfortunately justly abused, politicians.
The first of the famous sand-lot meetings was held on Sep-
tember 16, a few days after the adoption of the platform, and
85 Stedman and Leonard, The Workingmen's Party of California, p. 17.
Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 31
a mass meeting in Union Hall followed on the 21st. The papers
reported the most sensational parts of the intemperate oratory
of Kearney and his followers, and the meetings gained rapidly
in numbers.86 While no actual violence was committed as a
result of the meetings, the bold talk of the virtues of fire and
hemp as correctors of social abuses aroused much uneasiness,
particularly when a meeting was held on Nob Hill, where the
railroad magnates had their homes.87
The successes of the Werkingmen's Party outside of San Fran-
cisco were very largely the result of the arousing of class con-
sciousness, and feelings of resentment due to what appeared to be
unjust persecution of the leaders of the movement, and an op-
pressive invasion of the rights of free speech and assemblage
by the San Francisco authorities. Kearney and other officers
of the party were repeatedly arrested and held on excessive
bail, though no conviction was obtained to justify their deten-
tion. The resolutions of the Sacramento mass-meeting show
how this action was regarded by many of the working people
of the state. These expressed their sympathy with "the friends
of freedom", and declared that they "regarded Kearney and
Knight, each, as a John Brown in this, the second irrepressible
conflict." They called upon the workingmen and their friends
in every county, town, city, and hamlet to organize branches of
the party at once, and prepare for a campaign that would en-
able them to draft a constitution which should place the gov-
ernment in the hands of the working people.88
The "gag laws" passed by both the San Francisco super-
visors89 and the state legislature00 were peculiarly out of har-
mony with the liberty, almost amounting to license, that often
characterized the speech of the early Californian. For example,
se The daily papers gave full notices of the performances of the Work-
ingmen's Party. We will give the dates ol important events, without
attempting to furnish detailed references, as they can be easily found in
the newspaper files.
87 San Francisco daily papers, July 24, September 22, November 1 to
7r 1877, give reports of meetings, etc.
88 Quoted in Stedman and Leonard, The Worlcingmen 's Party of Cali-
fornia. (A contemporary account.)
so Passed November 24, 1877.
9° Passed January 19, Acts Amendatory to the Codes of California,
1877-8, pp. 117-8.
32 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
these provisions from Section 54 of what was spoken of as
' ' Gibb 's Gag Ordinance, ' ' h,ave a decidedly un-American sound :
' ' It shall be unlawful for any person to use or utter any words,
language, or expression, conveying or suggesting any threat con-
ditional or otherwise for the purpose of wrongful intimidation.
These provisions shall apply whether the intimidation is in-
tended for the community, or for a class or for one or more per-
sons, and whether said person or persons are present or absent
at the time of use or utterance of said words, or language, or
expression."91
Not only was the freedom of speech encroached upon, but
the right to meet for the discussion of their grievances was also
invaded. The first state convention of the party had to be held
secretly, because the Mayor of San Francisco had issued a proc-
lamation forbidding public assemblies. False notices of the
place of meeting were published to mislead the police, while
the accredited delegates were secretly informed of the correct
hall. Even with these precautions, the police discovered the
place, and arrived fifty strong when the session was half con-
cluded.92
The special committee of the legislature appointed to in-
vestigate the labor troubles in San Francisco declared that after
the Mayor's proclamation the workingmen offered no resistance
to the dispersal of their meetings. It adds, "On the contrary,
your committee found by competent testimony, that under this
proclamation the police officers in several instances, entered
halls where peaceably disposed citizens were assembled for the
purpose of discussing the Chinese question and the best means
of ameliorating the condition of the working classes, and with-
out waiting to know the nature of the proceedings or to learn
whether any infraction of the law was contemplated or advo-
cated by the speakers, ordered such assemblage to disperse."
The committee also charged that the police had arrested the
leaders of the meetings on their platforms in the presence of
excitable crowds, and that they had handled the prisoners
91 Stedman and Leonard, op. cit., pp. 46-7.
92 The convention met January 21, 1878. The police found no cause
to disperse the meeting.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 33
roughly, and used their clubs freely on the crowds. The minority
report testifies "The quiet, patience, and resignation exhibited
by the workingmen in the dispersion of their meetings, and the
vigorous handling which they received at the hands of the
police on these occasions is greatly to their credit. That there
is great want, destitution, and squalid poverty in San Francisco,
there is no room for doubt."93
What stronger combination could one have for the triumph
of the new party ? For years the workingmen had been familiar
with the idea of a separate labor party that should remedy
the evils of their lot. They had joined in the great anti-Chinese
campaigns of the years immediately preceding, and were grow-
ing impatient at the long delays in the response to the demands
for exclusion, and inclined to suspect that the state officials
and representatives had not done their whole duty in executing
the will of the people in this matter. The hard times brought
suffering to all classes, and now when this new party, organized
by the workingmen of San Francisco, arose confidently pro-
claiming its ability to remedy the political and economic wrongs
of the time, it was met with the most outrageous persecu-
tion that trampled on all those time-honored rights which are
most dear to a liberty-loving people.
So the clubs of the Workingmen 's Party multiplied with a
wonderful rapidity in all the wards of San Francisco. The for-
eign-born citizens organized and the doctrines of the new party
were promulgated to enthusiastic groups of Germans, French,
Scandinavians, and Italians. A large German-speaking section
of the Socialistic Workingmen of the United States was ab-
sorbed into the ranks, and their representative, a lawyer
named Beerstecker, was afterwards sent to the Constitutional
Convention. The newspapers had given the party unlimited free
advertising by their extensive reports of the extravagant oratory
of the sand-lots, and of the many dramatic incidents connected
with its early history, so the way was prepared for the rapid
organization of the clubs in the cities and towns of the state.
03 Beport of the Joint Committee, App. Journ. Sen. and Ass., 22d Sess.,
Vol. 4 (1878). Compare the accounts of Stedman and Leonard, and
Henry George.
34 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
Soon there were flourishing groups in the more important cen-
ters of population as far south as Los Angeles. Successes in the
municipal elections of Oakland, Sacramento, and in the choice
of a state senator to fill a vacancy in Alameda County, and an
assemblyman from Santa Clara County, gave promise of a more
sweeping victory when the members of the Constitutional Con-
vention were chosen.
But it was not all smooth sailing, as there were violent dis-
sensions within the ranks of the party. Kearney had reason to
suspect that many of the ward presidents and officers of the
clubs were cherishing political ambitions of their own. He ap-
pealed from the decision of the majority of his State Executive
Committee to the audience of the sand-lot,94 to obtain support
for the self-denying ordinance, or non-eligibility resolution,
which he promulgated to curb the ambition of these members
who were pulling wires to promote their own election to the Con-
stitutional Convention. This resolution declared that no member
of the county or state executive committees, or any officer of a
club or trade-union affiliated with the party, should be eligible
as a candidate for any political office, nor should any such be
permitted to resign his position to accept a political nomination.
Some of the ablest leaders of the party were alienated by this
resolution, and their unsuccessful attempts to organize a rival
party caused some confusion. As the more aggressive members
who were familiar with parliamentary practice had naturally
been elected to office, this resolution undoubtedly deprived the
party of the services of men who would have been much more
effective members of the Constitutional Convention than many
of those who were elected.
The elaborate plan adopted for nominating candidates for
office was believed to insure the choice of men entirely satisfac-
tory to the party. The candidates were first to be apportioned
to the different wards by the ward presidents, in open session.
Then the clubs of each ward were to hold joint sessions at which
they nominated persons, who were members in good standing,
for the positions. A week later the balloting took place, after
0-* It \\as afterwards endorsed in the meetings of May 4 and 16, 1878.
(May 4, by ward presidents; May 16, state convention.)
1910] Eaves : California Labor Legislation. 35
which it was necessary to have the elections ratified in mass-
meetings of the wards, and at last by the great sand-lot assem-
blage.95
Two lengthy platforms were adopted by the Workingmen's
Party; one at the state convention of January 21, and another
at the convention of May 16, when the Kearney branch of the
party won its final victory over the seceders. We will content
ourselves with a condensed summary of the more striking featuivs
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 sufficient 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.
»5 Stedman and Leonard, op. cit., pp. 75-6. This plan was adopted on
May 4, 1878.
36 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 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.
INFLUENCE OF THE WOEKINGMEN'S PARTY 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.96 Their employment by cor-
porations or on any state, county, municipal, or other public
work is forbidden.07 The legislature is empowered to make laws.
»o Constitution of California, Art. I, Sec. 1 .
87 Ibid., Art. XIX, Sees. 2, 3.
1910] 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.98 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,
uncultivated 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."100
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.101 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."102 The legislature is authorized to
pass laws protecting certain portions of the homestead and other
property of heads of families from sale.103
The constitution contains a number of regulations aiming to
increase the burdens of capital and to regulate and restrict the
operations of 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.104 The
legislature is authorized to regulate the charges of public ser-
vice corporations furnishing gas, telegraph service, water, stor-
age, and wharfage.105 All corporations must be formed under
98 Constitution of California, Art. XIX, See. 1.
oa/btd., Art. XIX, Sec. 4.
100 Ibid., Art. XVII, Sec. 2.
101 Ibid., Art. XIII, Sec. 2.
102 ibid., Art. XVII, Sec. 3.
103 Ibid., Art. XVII, Sec. 1.
104/btd., Art. XIII, Sec. 1, Sec. 4.
105 Ibid., Art. IV, Sec. 33.
38 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
general laws, and these are subject to changes by the legisla-
ture.106 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 officers of the corporation
during their term of office.107
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. . . ,"108
The constitutional prohibition of local or special legislation109
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,110 the eight-hour day on public
work,111 and for the regulation of the labor of convicts.112
The Workingmen's Party owes its success to a spontaneous
uprising of the wage- workers expressing itself in a way with
i<><> Constitution of California, Art. XII, Sec. 1.
IOT Ibid., Art. Xil, Sec. 3.
ins Ibid., Art. IV, Sec. 35.
100 Ibid., Art. IV, Sec. 25.
110 Ibid., Art. XX, Sec. 15.
m Ibid., Art. XX,. Sec. 17.
"2 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 Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 425-448.
40 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
GEOWTH 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' Appeal11* 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,115 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,110 the representative sent
114 I have been able to find only one copy of this weekly paper, that of
July 21, 1880.
us Third Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 128-131.
us Prank Roney 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 months in jail,
Roney 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 WorJcingmen'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
wrote 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, Roney pursued the trade of an ironmoulder. (San Francisco
Daily Eeport, May 11, 1886. Compare the account by Ira Cross, in Coast
teamen's Journal, July 8, 1908, p. 2.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 41
from the Seamen's Protective Association in June, 1881. 117 This
activity took the form of another great anti-Chines6 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.118 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.119 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.120
THE KNIGHTS OF LABOE.
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.121
11? Coast Seamen's Journal, July 8, 1908, p. 2.
us 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.
no 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 Eeport, December 7, 1885. Roney, 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 ban Francisco Daily Eeport, November 28, 1885.
42 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
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 workingmeii, 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.122
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.123 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.124 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 case of the Coast Seamen 's Union, which they organized in
1885.
123 San Francisco Daily Report, March 17, 19, 30. McNeill, op. cit.,
p. 609.
*2* 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 satisfactory solution of the labor question. All but one member of
the organizing committee were Internationalists.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 43
objected to the pronounced socialistic tendencies of the move-
ment.125
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.126
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. Haskell, 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 literature 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 Workiiigmen '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 Report, December 1, 1885.
44 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
Knights of Labor, and several of the more conservative trade-
unions.127
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, —
"Resolved, That these federations should be 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 Federation 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 reflect 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."128
THE FEDEBATED TRADES 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.
191°] 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 of 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. [Vol. 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."129
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.130 Even the unions of British
Columbia found the San Francisco Federated Trades ready to
help fight their battles.131
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 Eeport, Bureau of Laoor Statistics, pp. 114-15 By
1890 the Federated Trades Council regained its former membership.
130 Fifth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 40.
isi The vigorously pressed "Wellington coal boycott was for the benefit
of the coal miners of British Columbia.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 47
way advance the material welfare of the workers, individually
and collectively. . . . ' '132
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.
Affiliations 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 measures.
With the development of greater strength and confidence in
the support of public opinion, the fear of publicity was lessened,
and since May, 1889, 133 the meetings of this central body have
been open to the public, and no pledge of secrecy exacted from
its members.
NEW TRADE-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 Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 53. The pol-
icies as developed were more original than suggested by this declaration.
1 33 Coast Seamen's Journal, May I, 1889. Minutes of Federated Trades
Council.
48 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 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
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 49
what they claimed were extortionate prices.134 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.135
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
fight.136
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-
134 Examiner, June 14, 1890, p. 2.
135 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. [Vol. 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.137 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 OBGANIZED OPPOSITION OF THE EMPLOYEES
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.138 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.
iss Fifth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor 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.139
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.140
The moulders' union is said to have spent two hundred
thousand dollars in this controversy.141 A portion of this was
the regular strike benefit furnished by their International, but a
139 A full account of the difficulties with the breweries is given in the
Fifth Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 101-166.
140 Examiner, March 3, 1890. Full reports of the strike are given in
the Examiner.
141 Labor Clarion, September 4, 1908, p. 34.
52 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
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.142
FIRST EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION.
The employers now began to realize the necessity of com-
pleter organization, and in August, 1891, their first central body
1-42 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 146, reports
a membership 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.143
The employers did not succeed in maintaining this mildly
defensive attitude. A "Manifesto on the Boycott"144 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 should 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 Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 51.
I** Ibid., p. 52-3.
54 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
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 firms. When boycotting becomes dangerous,
and boycotts help more than they harm, boycotting will cease."
STEUGGLE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYERS' 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. 145
The Coast Seamen's Union was organized in 1885 and in-
creased rapidly in numbers, soon claiming three thousand mem-
145 The .City Front Federation, which included fourteen unions em-
ployed on the waterfront, struck in sympathy with the teamsters.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 55
bers.146 The sailors had a disastrous three months' contest with
?
the shipowners in 1888, after which 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-
liams147 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."148 In his
instructions to the new agent at Seattle the policy of the asso-
ciation is set forth quite explicitly.149 "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 shipowner. . . . 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.
I*? This was an assumed name ; it was afterwards proven that his real
name was WalthewT. He had become familiar with the methods of the
labor movement while acting as a eporter on the San Francisco Daily
Eeport.
148 From a letter to Captain Charles Goodall.
149 Some of these letters were published in the Examiner of February
]1, 1894. The instructions to the new Seattle agent are found in the
letter of July 29, 1893.
56 University of California Publications in Economics. EVo1- 2
union because there will be no vessels for the union sailors to
mat. . . . 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 union
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 heavy 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.150 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 adopted 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.
r
Eaves: California 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 wrages 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.151
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.
RESULTS 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
isi 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. [Vo1- 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. ' '152
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 EEVIVAL OF THE SAN FEANCISCO LABOE 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.153 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-four154 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 was 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
iss Labor Clarion, August 7, 1903; September 4, 1908.
154 My statistics of the Labor Council are taken from an unpublished
manuscript by Ed. Eosenberg, 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. [Vol. 2
hundreds of idle workers now found employment. The savings
banks again showed a surplus of deposits over withdrawals.155
The revival of prosperity brought new life to the trade-unions.
At first the increase was gradual,156 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. "157
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.158
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.)
156 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 Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 114.
iss Ibid., pp. 117-8. Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
p. 78.
1910] Eaves: California. Labor Legislation. 61
to demand the eight-hour day.159 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.100 It was able to announce that it represented every build-
ing trade in the city,161 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 increa.se 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 membership 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.163
The great increase in San Francisco was due to the fact that
among the newly organized unions were many trades employing
159 This eight-hour movement was national in scope. Everywhere the
building trades were selected as the ones to make the demand.
ico Organized Labor, August 31, 1901.
i6i 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.)
103 Ninth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 92; Tenth Bien-
nial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 77-79.
62 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
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.164
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.165 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-
mittee. 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
Council for at least six months. This sensible provision, how-
ever, failed to pass. ' '1GG
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.167 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
164 Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 78.
IBS Organised Labor, March 2, 1901.
i«e Ibid., June 22, 1901.
167 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 GREAT STEUGGLE OF OEGANIZED CAPITAL AND
LABOE, 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.108
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
io8 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.109
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."170
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 years 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 was 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.171
i«9 Coast Seamen's Journal, August 7, 1901, p. 1.
no Ibid., p. 2.
i7i 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 congests 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. . . . "172
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 July the union 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
172 Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 668-9, December, 1902.
66 University of California Publications in Economics. IT01- 2
and Waiters Alliance Local No. 30 in good standing and who
carry the regular working card of the organization.
" (3) 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 wrages 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 "Kelp. 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
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 67
to those displaying the union card.173 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.174
ITS Professor Page gives a slightly different 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. 17, pp. 673-4, Decem-
ber, 1902.)
174 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. tVo1- 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.175
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 8 was the result. A few small carriage shops gave
in to the union demands. They were refused supplies, as had been threat-
ened. To break through the supply blockade, the Brotherhood of Teams-
ters/ membership about 1,800, 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. ' '
ITS 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 Rosenberg, 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.
1910] 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 vof
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."176
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 OF 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 Epworth 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
From an unpublished manuscript by Walter Macarthur.
70 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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,177 and so induced
them to fall in line with 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. Many 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 seriously 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 eoun-
177 From an unpublished manuscript by Ed. Bosenberg, secretary of the
Labor Council.
1910] 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 future 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 off,
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 Mayor,
and other prominent individuals all made repeated attempts to
72 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. a
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. ' '178
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.179
In response to the efforts of the Mayor and a committee of the
supervisors, two statements were issued 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 :180
ITS Page, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 682, December, 1902.
i™ Ibid., p. 669.
iso For the account of these efforts of the Mayor, see the San Francisco
daily papers, July 30 to August 6, 1901.
19l°] Eaves: California Labor 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
groups 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. [Vo1- 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.181
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 they 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
"i Coast Seamen's Journal, July 31, August 7, 1901.
1910] Eaves: California Labor 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."182
THE LABOB 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,
Magazine, Vol. 22, p. 368, February, 1904.
76 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
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 officers
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. ' '183
iss San Francisco daily papers, August 16, 1901.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 11
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.184 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 assemblyman, all of the suc-
cessful candidates carried Democratic endorsements, and ran
in districts wrhere 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 reflected
is* 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 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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 Republican 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 Mayor'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 in 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.
191°] 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 Mayor 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 FRANCISCO TRADE-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. With 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. tVo1- 2
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 or 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 many 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
1910] 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 unescapable 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. tVo1- 2
CHAPTEB II.
SLAVE OR FREE LABOR IN CALIFORNIA?
THE SLAVEEY 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."1 In discussing the pos-
sible introduction of slavery, the Calif ornian 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."2 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 off 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."3 He quotes 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 OF SLAVERY IN THE FIRST 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.4
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
s The California Star. March 25, 1848. See also the article quoted from
the New Yoric Evening Courier, Ibid., May 15, 1847.
* Brown, J. Ross, Eeport of the Debates in the Convention of California
on the Formation of the State Constitution, in September and October, 1849,
pp. 43-4.
84 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
little discussed in California, so settled appears the public mind
relative thereto. Public meetings have scarcely ever consid-
ered it."5
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 McCarver
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 effectually
prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this State
for the purpose of setting them free."6 McCarver, 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.7 Steuart8 and Semple9 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.10 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 Mc-
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 fully discussed, declaring that, in can-
vassing his district, he found but one person who was not anxious
to secure such an exclusion."11
5 Brown, op. cit., p. xix.
e Ibid., p. 137.
1 1bid., pp. 137, 140.
s Ibid., pp. 146-7.
» Ibid., p. 138.
10 Ibid., pp. 138, 335.
11 Ibid., pp. 332-3.
191°] 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."12 He,
as well as Semple,13 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 society
which pervades all nature, and that equilibrium can only be
established by acting in conformity with the laws of nature.
12 Brooks, p. 49.
is Ibid., p. 148.
86 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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. ' n*
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. ' '15
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
!•* Brooks, pp. 143-5.
is Ibid., p. 333.
1910] 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.."10 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.17 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.18
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.19 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.
IT Ibid., p. 143.
is Ibid., 331.
10 Ibid., p. 149.
88 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.20 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.21 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 Avere 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.22 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.
1910] 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. Her 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 NEGEOES.
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 flogged 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, 23 and again in
1851, 24 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.
24 Ibid., 1851, pp. 19-21.
90 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
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 governor; the bill of 1850 passed the
assembly, only to be indefinitely postponed in the senate,25 while
that of 1851 seems to have died in the assembly committee to
which it was referred.20 Thus the bills "to prevent the emi-
gration of free negroes and persons of color" never became laws.
INCKEASE 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. ' '27
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.
20 Assembly Journal, 1851, pp. 1315, 1440.
27 Ibid., 1851, p. 21.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 91
seven, another five, and so on."28 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. ' '29 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 SLAVEEY.
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.30 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.31 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 San Francisco Herald, April 16, 1852.
20 The Pacific, April 23, 1852.
so Hid., March 12, 1852.
si Ibid., April 23, 1852.
92 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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 shores
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.32
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 ;33 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,
32 Daily Evening Picayr.ne, February 11, 1852. Assembly Journal, 1852,
p. 159.
33 Daily Evening Picayune, August 2, 1851.
1910] 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."34 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 remarkably 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
Democrats35 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 fpr 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.30 The efforts to secure the revision of the constitution were
34 The Pacific, March 19, 1852.
35 Ibid., October 22, 1852. Davis, Political Conventions of California,
p. 23.
36 Appendix to Senate Journal, Doc. 16, 17.
94 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
renewed from year to year, until at last it came before the
people in 1857, when it failed to obtain the necessary majority,37
and so put an end to all hopes of securing an opening for slavery
in Southern California.
THE CALIFOENIA FUGITIVE-SLAVE 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."38 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 wras 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.39
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.
ss Statutes of California, 1852, p. 77.
39 Ibid., 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.40 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 upon claimants of fugitives from labor within the
meaning of this section."41
40 San Francisco Herald, 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. [Vol. 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.42
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.43 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.44 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
in 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.
1910] 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.45
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,46 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
45 The Pacific, June 18, 1852; Herald, June 4, 1852.
46 In re Perkins, 2 Gal. 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.47
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 26th 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 o'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.49 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.50 The first recorded document
of Butte County was a negro manumission paper,51 and Dr.
Duniway reports that in his investigation of the early California
47 In re Perkins, 2 Cal. 443-459.
48 The Pacific, June 25, 1852.
49 Hayes Scrap BooTcs, Los Angeles, I, No. 28.
so Tinkham, Geo. H., A History of Stockton, p. 128.
si Wells, Harry L., History of Butte County, p. 199.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 99
county archives he found many of these papers issued down to
1856.52
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.53
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,54 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 tgler-
able specimen of a young negro whose blood is not debased by
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, young 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 Ann. Eeport American Historical Society, 1906, p. 224.
53 Hayes Scrap Books, Los Angeles, I, No. 519.
5 4 Sacramento Daily Union, January 9, 12, 27; February 11, 12, 13; see
also the San Francisco papers.
100 University of California Publications 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."05
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. II. 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
ns Sacramento Daily Union, January 27 ; see also January 9, 11, 12, and
San Francisco Bulletin, January 28.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 101
fugitive slave laws, the court pronounced this astonishing de-
cision: "From 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.56
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 Supreme 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.57 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.
56 Ex parte Archy, 9 Cal. 147, 171.
57 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 Ity 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 Ardhy. An officer was kept
in readiness to serve these papers. As it was feared that Stoval]
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 could have accomplished all this without
the assistance of influential white friends.58
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.
E. 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.59 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
papers, 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.60
ss Bulletin, March 5, 6, 7, 1858; Alia, March 6, 7, 1858.
so Bulletin, March 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31; April 6, 7, 14, 1858.
GO Baker was elected United States Senator from Oregon two years
later.
1910] 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.61 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
unnecessary, 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.62 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 cases, and the more
active campaign against them ceased.
ei Assembly Journal, 1857, pp. 811, 823, 824.
62 Bulletin, April 14, 3858.
104 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 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.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 105
CHAPTER III.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION FOR THE EXCLUSION AND
REGULATION OF THE 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
whose 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. ["Vol. 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. ' n
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.2 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. 3 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.4
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, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 859.
s Eeport of Committee on Mines, Assembly Journal, 1853, Appendix,
Doc. 28.
4 Minority report on Resolutions of Shasta Miners ' Convention, Senate
Journal, 1855, Ap., Doc. 19.
1910] 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.5 The conditions of the traffic were, if possible,
worse than those of the African slave-trade.6 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.7
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.8
5 Rep. on Coolie Trade, Corn, on Commerce, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., H. R.
No. 443, Serial No. 1069.
6 The U. S. Congressional documents give the correspondence from
consuls in China, Cuba, Brazil, and Japan showing the terrible conditions
of this trade.
? Report of Committee on Mines, Senate Journal, 1852, Appendix, p. 669.
San Francisco Herald, May 4, 1852.
s 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.9 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
o Senate Journal, 1852, p. 373.
1910] 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.10
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 wrere fre'e 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 Senate Journal, 1852, Appendix, Rept. of Com. on Mines.
110 University of California Publications 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.11
OPPOSITION TO THE CHINESE IN THE MINING CAMPS.
The Chinese name for California was "The Golden Moun-
tains," and they, like the people o'f 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.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. Ill
of vital importance to the little community were settled in a
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 185012 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.13
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 Gov-
ernment ; that after foreigners had landed and intermingled with
12 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 221.
is Senate Journal, 1850, Appendix, Eept. of Green, chairman of Com.,
p. 493.
112 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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 jvas 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.14
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.15
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.16 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.17 While the law did not discriminate be-
The People v. Naglee, I Cal. 232.
Statutes of California, 1851, p. 424.
Eept. Com. on Mines, Senate Journal, 1853, Appendix.
Statutes of California, 1853, p. 62.
191°] 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.18 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,19 and then all for-
eigners who had declared their intention to become naturalized,
were exempted from the application of the license law.20 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 FEOM THE COURTS.
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
is Statutes of California, 1853, p. 82.
10 Ibid., 1854, p. 55.
20 Ibid., 1855, p. 216.
114 University of California 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."21
This ruling was sustained in later decisions,22 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.23
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.24 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.25 When the California Codes were compiled
in 1872, the provision excluding such testimony was omitted!26
PEELIMINAEY 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 Cal. 399.
22 Speer v. See Yup Co., 13 Cal. 73. People v. Elyea, 14 Cal. 145.
23 B. S. Brooks gives many such cases in his argument before the Con-
gressional Committee taken from the Bulletin.
24 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.
25 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 grealest 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 ; 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 Government, which, by
virtue of its treaty-making powers and control of commerce has
the right to regulate immigration.27 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 studying 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.
27 Passenger Cases, Smith v. Turner, 7 Howard 282.
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 REGULATION 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.28 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.29
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."30 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 twenty-four hours' notice, otherwise the miners
will inflict such punishment as they deem proper."31 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.32 At a mass meeting of the Gold Hill miners
in 1858, resolutions were passed expelling the Chinese from Dia-
mond Springs Township. It was provided, however, that those
who had purchased claims should be allowed to work them out
before leaving.33 The miners of Colville passed a law in 1862
excluding Chinese from the mines.34 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.35 These
2» Bothwiek, J. D., Three Years in California, chap, xvii, Edinburgh and
London, 1858.
so Ibid., p. 262.
si Bulletin, November 24, 1858.
32 Historical Souvenir of Eldorado County, California, etc., Oakland,
1883, p. 102.
33 Ibid., p. 102.
34 Bulletin, December 2, 1862.
35 Ibid., September 11, 1867.
191°] 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 EEGULATIONS, 1855-1867.
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 county 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 1854 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,30 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, and in-
creasing the miners' licenses in such a way that it would soon
Eept. of Select Com., Senate Journal, 1855, Appendix, Docs. 16 and 19.
120 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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, 3856, to October 1, 1857, $8.00 per month, and so on.37 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.38 The original tax of four dollars a
month for all foreigners was restored.39 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.40 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, 41 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.
37 Statutes of California, 1855, p. 216. ,
38 Kept, of Com. on Mines, Senate Journal, 1856, Appendix,
so Statutes of California, 1856, p. 141.
40 Ibid., 1858, p. 302.
41 Ibid., 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.42 The
i
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.43
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
I860,44 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.45
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,40 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.47 A
few months later the state legislature passed a law that would
make possible the entire suppression of these houses.48
42 Statutes of California, 1860, p. 307.
43 Ibid., 1863-4, p. 493.
« Ibid., 1860, p. 325, Sec. 8.
45 Ibid., 1863-4, p. 213, Sec. 13.
4« 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. [Vo1- 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.49 -
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 185250 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. 8. 8. Con-
stitution, on the authority of the Passenger Cases, it was de-
clared unconstitutional. In his concluding argument Justice
49 7 Howard, 282, 391 ff.
so Statutes of California, 1852, p. 78. Amended ibid., 1853, 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 regu-
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. ' '51
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.52 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.53 The courts promptly declared this law
unconstitutional.54
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
si People v. S. S. Constitution, 42 Cal. 578, 590.
52 Statutes of California, 1854, p. 230.
ss Ibid., 1855, p. 194.
54 People v. Downer, 7 Cal. 170.
12-1 University of California Publications in Economics. [v°l- 2
re-shipped.55 While this law remained on the statute books, we
are informed by the counsel for the appellant in Lin Sing v.
Washburn, that he had been instructed from the bench that the
law had been declared unconstitutional in an unpublished de-
cision.50
Undeterred by these decisions, the legislature in 1862 added
two more laws to its list -of unconstitutional measures. The law
of 1852 was amended,57 and, for the further discouragement of
Chinese immigration, a police tax of $2.50 per month was levied
on all Chinese who were not already paying for licenses. The
law allowed the usual harsh methods of enforcement; the col-
lectors being authorized to seize the property of persons refusing
to pay, and sell it at one hour's notice to obtain the money to
satisfy the tax. Employers of Chinese were responsible for
payment of the tax of those whom they hired.58
The Supreme Court decision on this law stated even more
clearly than in the previous cases the illegality of all such at-
tempts to legislate against the Chinese. The judge pointed out
that the act was one of extreme hostility to these people, and
that it undertook to prescribe the terms on which they should
be allowed to reside in the state. This right, when carried to
the extent to which it might be exercised, could be so used as
to cut off all intercourse between the Chinese and the people of
the state, thus the channels of commerce would be obstructed.
The Chinese could not be set aside as special subjects of tax-
ation. If this were possible, a tax might be imposed which no
human industry could pay. Commerce includes an intercourse
of persons as well as an importation of merchandise, and the
states have no power to tax commerce.59
55 Statutes of California. 1858, p. 295.
56 20 Cal. 534.
ST Statutes of California. 1862. p. 486.
ss Ibid., 1862. p. 462.
59 Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 125
THE WORKINGMEN OF THE CITIES TAKE UP THE CAMPAIGN
AGAINST THE CHINESE.
Between 1862 and 1868 there was a great decline in the
Chinese immigration. This was due not only to hostile legis-
lation and decreasing opportunities for profitable employment
in the mines, but also the organized opposition of the working-
men in the cities. As shown in our account of the San Fran-
cisco labor movement, this period was one of rapid development
of trade-unions and anti-Chinese societies. Anti-coolie clubs,
as they were often called, were formed as early as 1862,60 and
in 1866-1867 organizations of this kind were particularly numer-
ous and active, being found in all the wards of San Francisco.
The reports of the Custom House show that in 1864, 1866, and
1867, there were more Chinese departures than arrivals.01 But
just at this time, when the workingmen seemed to have fair
prospects of success in their efforts to lessen the number of these
cheap competitors, new influences combined to increase this ob-
jectionable immigration to greater numbers than ever before.
eo Bulletin, July 12, 1862.
611864, 1215; 1866, 871; 1867, 205.
126 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1-
CHAPTEE IV.
FEDERAL RELATIONS WITH THE CHINESE, 1840-1871
China was opened by force of arms in 1840. Four years
later, a ''Treaty of Peace, Amity, and Commerce" was con-
cluded, in which it was agreed that certain ports should be open
to the citizens of the United States. They were to have the
privilege of residing at these ports, and of obtaining sites for
the construction of houses, places of business, hospitals, churches
and cemeteries. . Local authorities were to defend them and
their property from all insult and injury. Americans guilty
of crimes were to be tried in their own consular courts. Rules
were set forth for the regulation of commerce.1
A second treaty for the regulation of trade between the two
countries, made in 1858, was equally favorable to the United
States. Among other provisions was the "most favored nation"
clause, which agreed that this country should receive any conces-
sions granted other nations.2
THE BUELINGAME TEEATY.
The famous Burlingame Treaty was concluded in 1868. In
it the mutual assurances of protection and trading privileges
were renewed. Both countries undertook to suppress the coolie
traffic. The reciprocal enjoyment of the privileges of the edu-
cational institutions of the two countries by their respective
subjects was allowed. The citizens of either country while re-
siding in the other were to be exempt from persecution on
account of their religious faith or worship. The provisions of
Article V on the subject of immigration are most significant
for our study. To quote from the treaty, "The United States
of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the
inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and
1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, p. 145, Serial No. 2262.
2 Ibid., p. 159-168, Art. XXX.
s Ibid., p. 181.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 127
allegiance, and also the mutual advantages of free migration
and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from
one country to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade or
of permanent residence." In this free interchange there was
but one reservation, which was embodied in an amendment pro-
viding that nothing in the treaty should be held to confer the
right of naturalization upon the citizens of the United States
in China, nor upon the citizens of China in the United States.
This treaty recognizing in such sweeping terms the right
of free immigration was concluded at a time when the political
parties of California were pledged to the effort to secure Chi-
nese exclusion. We have already noticed the anti-Chinese agi-
tation of organizations of workingmen in 1866-1867. Not only
were individual candidates required to express themselves on
this question, but the political conventions of both the Union
and Democratic parties were induced to adopt strong anti-
Chinese planks in their platforms. These declared that the im-
portation of Chinese or any other people of the Mongolian race
into the Pacific States or Territories was in every respect inju-
rious and degrading to American labor by forcing it into ruinous
competition, and strongly advocated legislative restriction of
such immigration.4 The Democratic delegates to the National
Convention of 1868 wrere instructed to call attention to the
question of Chinese immigration and to request that means be
recommended to Congress for protecting free industry from this
competition.5 There. seems no reason to doubt that this assur-
ance of the privileges of free immigration was given at a time
when the majority of the citizens of California were strongly in
favor of the exclusion of the Chinese.8
EFFECT OF FOUETEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS.
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Consti-
tution brought no political rights to the Chinese.7 The guar-
antees of the Fourteenth Amendment are for "all persons born
4 Davis, Political Conventions of California, pp. 249, 265.
s Ibid., p. 285.
o See Chapter V, note 15.
7 For the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment in admitting Chinese
testimony to the courts see Chapter III, notes 24-5.
128 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
or naturalized in the United States, ' ' and the Fifteenth Amend-
ment provides that "The rights of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be abridged, etc." Senator Sargent testified
that in preparing these amendments the word "nativity" and
certain other words were struck out of the original draft of
the Fifteenth Amendment, for the purpose of making it possible
to prohibit the naturalization of the Chinese.8 The California
Senator claimed that he was in conference with the committees
of both the Senate and House of Representatives when the
amendments were being drafted, and that it was not intended
to admit the Chinese to their benefits.
The passage of these amendments caused much uneasiness
in California, where it was realized that a modification of the
naturalization laws would at once make possible the admission
of over seventy thousand Chinese to the right of suffrage. The
Democratic State Convention passed resolutions in 1869 con-
demning the Fifteenth Amendment, declaring that it would
degrade the right of suffrage to grant it to negroes and China-
men, and that such a course would result in building up a class
of oligarchs, created and maintained by Chinese votes.9 The
Republican Convention of the same year dealt with the question
of Chinese immigration in an evasive way, but declared: "We
are opposed to Chinese suffrage in any form, and to any change
in the naturalization laws of the United States. ' no
Senator Sargent claimed that the amendment to the Bur-
lingame Treaty refusing naturalization to the Chinese was
written by Charles Sumner. That this great champion of the
rights of the negro had no intention of permanently disquali-
fying the Chinese for citizenship is evident from his subsequent
record. In July, 1867, he introduced a bill to strike out the
word ' ' white ' ' from the naturalization law. This bill was never
reported from the Judiciary Committee to which it was referred,
and he re-introduced it in March, 1869. The measure was
finally reported favorably in 1870, just in time for its author
to insist on its addition as an amendment to the bill then before
Congress for the revision of the naturalization laws.
s Congressional Globe, 2d Sess., 41st Cong., p. 4275.
o Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 290.
10 Ibid., p. 293.
191°] Eaves: -California Labor Legislation. 129
FIEST CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE ON THE CHINESE QUESTION.
While the representatives of the Pacific Coast states had
made earlier efforts to secure congressional action on the Chi-
nese question, the problems growing out of their presence were
fully presented to Congress for the first time in the discussions
of this bill for the revision of the naturalization laws. The
attempts to amend these laws grew out of the gross frauds in
the New York elections of 1868. A number of measures were
presented in 1869 and 1870 for the purpose of preventing the
wholesale illegal naturalization of foreigners for campaign pur-
poses. The bill of Davis of New York, "to establish a uniform
system of naturalization and to regulate the proceedings under
the same,"11 was promptly amended by Fitch of Nevada, who
proposed to add the words, "except natives of China and
Japan, ' '12 to the term ' ' alien. ' ' Johnson of California was then
trying to put through measures declaring that the Fifteenth
Amendment should not apply to the Chinese,13 and that the
states had the right of regulating Chinese immigration.14 The
California and Oregon representatives at once joined the Nevada
member in a successful fight against the naturalization bill.
Davis had the defeated bill taken from the table and re-com-
mitted. He then introduced a new measure which, by merely
amending the existing naturalization laws, and punishing crimes
against them, left the status of the Chinese unchanged.15 In
this form the bill was sent to the Senate.
The measure was extensively debated and amended in the
Senate, and then by unanimous agreement it was arranged to
close the debates and vote on the bill at five o'clock on the Satur-
day evening preceding the Fourth of July. About half an hour
before the time agreed upon, Charles Sumner seized the oppor-
tunity to force through the amendment embodying his bill which
11 Congressional Globe, 2d Sess. 41st Cong., pp. 1635, 4266, 4275, 4279,
4284, 4317, 4318.
12 Ibid., p. 4266.
is Ibid., 1st Sess. 41st Cong., p. 202 ; 2d Sess. 41st Cong., p. 755.
i* Ibid., 2d Sess. 41st Cong., pp. 338, 752.
is Ibid., pp. 4366, 4368, 5441, 5471, 5607.
130 University of California Publications in Economics. IT01- 2
had just been favorably reported from the committee, and which
he had been making futile efforts to pass for the preceding
three years. His amendment read, "That all Acts of Congress
relating to naturalization be, and the same are hereby, amended
by striking out the word 'white' wherever it occurs, so that in
naturalization there shall be no distinction of race or color. ' '1G
The Pacific Coast Senators were immediately up in arms.
Williams of Oregon at once amended the amendment by the
proviso, "But this Act shall not be construed to authorize the
naturalization of persons born in the Chinese Empire."17 Stew-
art of Nevada declared himself absolved from the agreement to
vote without further debate, because the original bill was a
police measure which did not extend the right of suffrage. It
was evident that no agreement could be reached without long
debate. For the first time in the history of the Senate a unani-
mous agreement was violated. It was decided to hold a session
on the Fourth of July, as there were still many important meas-
ures to be crowded into the closing days of the session.
The heated debates over the question of whether the Chinese
should be admitted to a full share in the benefits commemorated
by the great national holiday lasted all day and far into the
night. The members who were anxious to secure the measure
protecting the purity of elections, or who had other important
matters waiting, tried in vain to persuade Sumner to withdraw
his amendment until a^ more opportune time. He declared,
"This is the opportune moment. It is the Fourth of July; the
very day for the proposition."18
Sumner took his stand on the Declaration of Independence,19
and the doctrines of human equality and brotherhood so freely
promulgated at the time of the American and French Revolu-
tions, all of which had been given new force by the Emanci-
pation Proclamation, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend-
ments. These general principles, so dear to every American,
were set over against the very concrete presentation of the
ic Congressional Globe, 2d Sess. 41st Cong., p. 5121.
IT Ibid., p. 5121.
is Ibid., p. 5152.
10 Ibid., p. 5155.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 131
difficult race problem of the Pacific Coast. The western Sena-
tors emphasized the servile character of the Chinese labor; their
total lack of appreciation or understanding of our customs or
institutions; their fanatical devotion to their own political and
religious system ; the impossibility of binding them by any oath ;
and the control which the Six Companies would exercise over
their votes, were all presented. It was pointed out that this
amendment would defeat the purpose of the original bill, which
was a measure to ensure the purity of elections; the western
Senators freely asserting that the Chinese votes, like their labor,
would be on the market, and that politicians could contract with
the Six Companies for their delivery wherever they were needed
to control the elections.20
Senator Williams of Oregon made a bitter attack on Sumner's
devotion to what the Senator regarded as abstract theories. He
declared that if this country ''ever is destroyed it will be by a
blind unreasoning devotion to some abstraction or theory.
. , . 'All men,' says the Senator from Massachusetts, 'are
created equal, and therefore all men have a right to equal polit-
ical power in this country,' and when the practical argument is
made to him that his doctrine will overwhelm the nation with a
tide of ignorance and bigotry and prejudice and hostility to our
institutions, he answers, 'No matter as to consequences, no matter
as to practical effects; this theory of mine must be maintained
and fully vindicated.' "21
In the earlier debates in the House,22 as well as in this argu-
ment in the Senate, it was boldly asserted that the people on
the Pacific Coast would never permit the Chinese to exercise the
suffrage, — that the army and navy were not strong enough to
protect them should they attempt to become voters. Senator
Stewart maintained that should this measure pass it would be
impossible for the friends of the Chinese to protect them during
the two years that would intervene before they could become
citizens. He declared, "In those two years those who are op-
posed to them will carry on a constant war against them. You
20 Congressional Globe, 2d Sess. 41st Cong., pp. 4834, 5114, 5148, 5168.
21 Ibid., p. 5157.
22 Ibid., p. 756.
132 University of California Publications in Economics. IT01- 2
will have to send your army there because every friend of theirs
will be out of power. ... There will be no moral force left
among the good, and those who wish to protect them, and every
man who is a friend of the Chinaman understands it. ...
I say that during that period he will be maltreated, murdered,
exterminated. The result will be that we shall have war during
the whole of that time and he never will be allowed to vote."23
These statements show that even in the period prior to the more
active campaign against them, those familiar with conditions on
the Pacific Coast were fully aware of the bitter antagonism with
which a large class of its inhabitants regarded the Chinese.
In presenting his amendment, Sumner had spoken of the
fact that there were negroes born in Africa or in the West
Indies who were deprived of naturalization by the existing laws.
With some inconsistency, the Senate refused to pass his original
measure, but gave its sanction to an amendment extending the
naturalization laws to aliens of African descent and to persons
of African nativity. When in order to test the feeling on the
question Senator Trumbull proposed the additional clause, "or
persons born in the Chinese Empire," the Senate, which had
just agreed to confer citizenship on negroes fresh from the wilds
of Africa, refused the same privileges to persons from this oldest
of our civilized nations by a vote of nine to thirty-one.24
Undoubtedly the results of this first presentation of the
Chinese question in Congress were far-reaching. Had they ac-
quired the franchise, the Chinese would have been able to wield
a greater influence in the politics of the Pacific Coast states than
the negro has had in the South. They would certainly have
constituted a greater menace, because they combined less sym-
pathy and understanding of our institutions with greater intel-
ligence, abler leadership, and higher powers of organization for
concerted action in the -promotion of their interests. While it
is open to question whether the people of the Pacific Coast states
would have permitted them to exercise political rights, yet had
the Chinese been given an opportunity to acquire citizenship,
they would undoubtedly have been much better able to protect
23 Congressional Globe, 2d Sess. 41st Cong., p. 5173.
24 Ibid., p. 5177.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 133
themselves from the attacks of the next ten years, and the out-
come might have been different. But in this first instance when
the Chinese issue was fully presented to the law-makers of the
nation, these people were branded as permanent aliens who
should never be admitted to membership in the body politic, and
thus the way was paved for their complete exclusion.
134 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
CHAPTER V.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION FOR THE EXCLUSION AND
REGULATION OF THE CHINESE, 1867-1880.
An important turning-point in the Chinese situation in Cali-
fornia came in the period between 1867 and 1870. We have
seen that there was an actual decline in the number of Chinese
in 1866 to 1867, but in the succeeding three years they arrived
in greater numbers than at any time since 1854.1 While the
Burlingame Treaty may have helped to stimulate immigration,
the change was chiefly due to the increased opportunities for
employment afforded by the building of the overland railroad,
and the development of industries where their labor could be
utilized. Probably no contemporary writer was better qualified
to estimate the significance of these changes than Henry George.
As a member of the Typographical Union, he had opportunities
to familiarize himself with the point of view of the working-
men, and his later experiences as a newspaper writer enabled
him to learn the other aspects of the question. The first full
presentation of the great race problem of the Pacific Coast to
the eastern public was made in his article published in the New
York Tribune of May 1, 1869. In this article conditions in
California are summed up as follows : ' ' There is now more
reason for an anti-Chinese feeling in California than at any
other time; and that feeling, though less general, may be more
intense but it is certainly not as powerful as it has been, and
it is doubtful if it could at present secure the prohibition of
Chinese immigration, even were there no constitutional obstacles
in the way; though should such an issue come fairly before the
people, the prohibitionists would have a clear majority. There
are too many interests becoming involved in the employment of
i The arrivals at the San Francisco Customs House during these years
were as follows: 1866, 2,242; 1867, 4,794; 1],085; 1869, 14,994; 1870,
10,869. House Eeport No. 2915, p. 17, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No.
2815.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 135
Chinese labor to make this feasible, unless by some sudden awak-
ening to the danger, the working classes should be led to such
thorough union as to make numbers count more than capital."2
Accepting this point of view, we may regard the anti-Chinese
movements of the seventies as the process by which the working
people of California became fully aroused to their danger, and
achieved a degree of organization which not only enabled them
to enlist the full influence of the Pacific Coast states, but also
the active co-operation of trade-unionists all over the United
States, in their efforts to force congressional action for Chinese
exclusion. While, as we have seen, the working people of Cali-
fornia had been opposed to the Chinese since their first arrival
in large numbers in 1852, the gathering of thousands of unem-
ployed white men in San Francisco during the seventies gave
new force and bitterness to this antagonism.
The economic depression following the Civil War was, on
the whole, less severely felt in California than in other sections
of the country. Though a labor exchange was established in
1868 to assist in finding work for the unemployed, labor condi-
tions did not become very bad until 1870. This crisis was largely
due to the completion and opening of the transcontinental rail-
road in 1869. About ten thousand Chinese and between two
and three thousand white men had been employed in building
this road. This great mass of labor was turned back to compete
in other occupations. At the same time better facilities brought
a tide of immigration of those who in many cases fled from
bad conditions in the older states only to join the ranks of the
unemployed in San Francisco. The opening of the railroad
also brought greater competition to the employers of the Pacific
Coast. We have seen that the trade-unions were strongly organ-
ized in the later sixties, and were determined to maintain the
high wages and short hours which they had obtained during the
previous peculiarly favorable period. Discouraged by the diffi-
culties of the coming economic depression and by the frequent
strikes of their employees, those engaged in manufacturing enter-
prises were disposed to resort to the cheap and docile Chinese
^ The article was reprinted in The Chinese Invasion, compiled by H. J.
West, and published in San Francisco in 1873.
136 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
labor or to abandon the fight with adverse conditions.3 The
unemployed of the whole state gathered in San Francisco, and
soon began the first of the many turbulent labor demonstrations
that were characteristic of the seventies. Of course the hard-
ships of this period were common to all parts of the United
States, and were the results of complex and far-reaching eco-
nomic conditions, but the working people of California were
disposed to lay a large share of their troubles at the door of
"John Chinaman."
ANTI-CHINESE MOVEMENTS OF THE EAELY SEVENTIES.
The sand-lot meetings of the unemployed began in the early
part of 1870,* and were soon followed by a great anti-Chinese
demonstration.5 The Knights of St. Crispin, an organization of
the shoemakers who were among the chief sufferers from Chinese
competition, led this movement. There was a great procession
of members of labor organizations, who carried transparencies
displaying their protests against Chinese labor in such phrases
as, "Woman's Eights and no More Chinese Chambermaids,"
"No Servile Labor Shall Pollute Our Land," "We Want no
Slaves or Aristocrats," "The Coolie Labor System Leaves us no
Alternative — Starvation or Disgrace," "Mark the Man who
would Crush us to the Level of the Mongolian Slave — We All
Vote." Among the speakers at the great mass meeting of about
three thousand persons were P. A. Roach, Henry George, and
A. M. Winn. Resolutions were adopted declaring that the em-
ployment of Chinese in the boot and shoe business, and in other
trades, had already reduced the wages of such trades fifty per
cent., and thereby driven out of employment many white labor-
ers. It wras pointed out that, notwithstanding the protests of
the working people, no attempts were being made to put a stop
to the immigration, but that, on the contrary, the very means
of the people were being used to encourage the importation of
Chinese by paying large subsidies to the steamers that brought
3 Alta, July 22,. 1867. Bulletin, May 19, 1870.
*Alta and Bulletin, March 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 1870; April 1, 5, 6, 7, 9,
10; May 6, 13, 31, 1870.
s Ibid., July 9, 1870.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 137
them. It had become a national question, as the workmen in
the eastern states were already threatened with the same com-
petition. They announced that they were determined to prevent
by any and all means in their power what they characterized as
"this cruel and monstrous competition that is now driving us
and our families to starvation. ' ' They called upon their fellow-
workmen throughout the United States to stand with them in
the common danger, and to make of it a question on which there
should be no equivocation or subterfuge. They demanded that
the subsidy paid the Pacific steamers be stopped, and insisted
on the abrogation of the treaty with China, and the prohibition
of Chinese immigration, except for commercial purposes.0 Be-
fore the meeting adjourned it was decided to request the
Mechanics' State Council to present a plan for a state anti-Chi-
nese convention.
At the next meeting "a week later it was announced that the
Crispins had formed anti-coolie associations in four wards of
the city, and that many trade-unions had re-organized on an
anti-Chinese basis. The Mechanics' State Council had also met
and submitted a plan for the "Anti-Chinese Convention of the
State of California. ' ' This provided that the convention should
be composed of delegates from organized trade and labor asso-
ciations, and that its object should be opposition to Chinese
immigration, and the cultivation of public opinion for the abro-
gation of the treaty with China. All partisan politics were to
be debarred from the discussions.7 In addition to adopting
these plans for the state convention, this meeting requested the
Six Companies to inform the Emperor of China that it was
unsafe for any more Chinese to come here. Judging by the
great "decrease in the number of arrivals in 1871,8 this warning
must have been given. Apparently the suggestion that the
supervisors and other city officials who failed to co-operate with
them "must be hurled into oblivion" was also acted upon; at
least there was no lack of zeal on the part of these servants of
the people in succeeding years.
e Alta and Bulletin, July 9, 1870. A statement was also prepared and
submitted to the San Francisco Board of Health by the Anti-Coolie Asso-
ciation July 5, 1870. See Congressional Globe, 3d Sess. 41st Cong., p. 356.
7 Alta and Bulletin, July 16, 1870.
s The Custom House Eeports show 1870, 10,869; 1871, 5,542.
138 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
The Anti-Chinese State Convention which met a month later
was significant, first, because it was a step towards the unification
of the California movement against the Chinese ; second, because
a political labor movement was started which lasted over ten
years; third, because at this meeting we have evidence of the
beginning of the cooperation of the eastern labor organizations
in the efforts to secure anti-Chinese legislation. The convention
call had been issued under a constitution which debarred polit-
ical activities, but immediately on assembling the members pro-
ceeded to develop their own policy. While recognizing that it
was impossible by arbitrary rules to fix the price of labor, they
declared that the conditions of labor should be regulated by the
laws of the nation. They therefore urged the legal establish-
ment of the eight-hour day, and legislation that would prevent
competition with the labor from a country with a civilization
differing from our own. They opposed the election of any one
who employed Chinese or encouraged their employment or intro-
duction among us. It was also proposed to organize as a per-
manent labor party, and an executive committee was appointed
to nominate a full municipal ticket. This latter action caused
a split in the convention; those who were opposed to all separ-
ate political action withdrew and formed another organization.9
The eastern labor organizations wrere now becoming aware
of the possible menace of Chinese labor. This was not alone
due to the efforts of the Californians to secure a sympathetic
understanding of the race problems of the Pacific Coast. The
question was brought home with greater force by the actual
introduction of Chinese as strike-breakers in Massachusetts.
Efforts had been made in 1868 to 1870 to organize an extensive
business of supplying Chinese contract laborers for employment
in eastern states.10 While a few hundred of these laborers were
ordered for work in the South, the plan failed for lack of sup-
port. The displacing of white labor in a Massachusetts factory
by some ninety-five Chinese called forth a vigorous protest. The
Massachusetts Labor Reform party and the Democratic party
o Alia, August 12, 17, 20, 24, 1870. See p. 23.
10 This was organized by a man named Koopmanschap. He expected
the southern planters to welcome this substitute for the negro labor.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 139
conventions of 1870 passed resolutions denouncing such a policy
in terms sufficiently strong to have satisfied a Californian. To
quote from the resolution of the Labor Reform party, " ...
We are inflexibly opposed to the importation by capitalists of
laborers from China and elsewhere for the purpose of degrading
and cheapening American labor, and will resist it by all legal
and constitutional means in our power."11 The western Sena-
tors found a colleague in the Massachusetts member who de-
clared, "I think the time has come when we should have some
action upon this subject, for it does seem to me at the present
day that there is a conspiracy of capital in this country to cast
a drag-net over creation for the purpose of bringing degraded
labor here to lower and degrade our laboring men. ' '
The Mechanics' State Council sent M. W. Delaney as a dele-
gate to the 1870 meeting of the National Labor Congress at
Chicago. A letter from him read at the Anti-Chinese Convention
gave a glowing account of the progress of the anti-Chinese move-
ment in this congress.12 In the November meeting of the council
we find further evidence of this eastern co-operation. Among
the resolutions adopted was one which ran: "Resolved, That
we rejoice in the fact that laboring men of the Eastern States
have taken steps to agitate opposition to the immigration of
Chinese laborers, and send greetings and a copy of these anti-
Chinese resolutions to Wm. J. Jessup, President of the Work-
ingmen's Association of New York, and to the United Mechanics
of New Jersey and other States where they are organized."13
Since the congressional action necessary for the exclusion of
the Chinese could not be obtained without support from other
sections of the Union, the enlistment of the active assistance
of the rapidly developing labor organizations of the eastern
states was an important step towards the securing of exclusion
legislation.
Although weakened by the division in their ranks, both
factions of the Anti-Chinese State Convention continued their
efforts to discourage Chinese immigration and to promote ex-
11 Congressional Record, XV, p. 3776.
12 Alia, August 24, 1870.
is Bulletin, November 10, 1870.
140 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
elusion. The Anti-Chinese State Central Committee met in Sep-
tember, organized, and called upon the trade-unions to amend
their constitutions by striking out the clauses that forbade their
entering into political movements. The chairman of the com-
mittee was instructed to call meetings in each precinct of San
Francisco for the purpose of organizing associations composed
of workingmen. A committee was appointed to draw up a con-
stitution for the government of anti-coolie associations through-
out the state.14 This faction under the name of the National
Labor Party was also active in politics.
The seceding faction of the convention under the leadership
of A. M. Winn organized under the name of "Industrial Re-
formers," and continued their labors against the Chinese.
The results of these efforts were soon apparent, as the immi-
gration of the Chinese declined fifty per cent, in 1871. Gover-
nor Haight's failure to secure re-election in September, 1871,
was also attributed largely to the fact that he had made himself
very unpopular with the workingmen by his cordial reception
of the Burlingame party, and friendliness to their mission.15
The Chinese influx was renewed in 1873 at a higher rate
than ever before ; the Custom House reports show that seventeen
thousand arrived during that year.16 Labor conditions in the
state continued bad; hundreds were still out of employment
and glad to find work at any wage. Early in the year another
combination of labor organizations was formed for the purpose
of checking this overwhelming flood of cheap labor. On May
29, delegates from the Workingmen 's Alliance of Sacramento,
the Anti-Chinese League of San Francisco, and the Industrial
Reformers, met to form the Peoples' Protective Alliance, an
anti-Chinese organization aiming to embrace the whole Pacific
Coast in its activities. There were to be primary associations.
i* Alta, September 16, 1870.
15 Jones of Nevada in his speech before Congress attributes the defeat
of Haight entirely to the fact that he had presided over the dinner to
Burlingame and his party, and had spoken favorably of the treaty. In
reality there were other factors that made possible the success of Newton
Booth in 1871. (Congressional Record, XIII, p. 1670.) For the vote at
the election of 1871, see Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 311.
is Congressional Eecord, XIII, p. 1518. H. R. Kept. No. 2915, p. 17,
51st Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2815.
I91°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 141
the officers of which would form county assemblies. The cen-
tral council was to be composed of the presidents of the county
assemblies, the grand council of the Industrial Reformers, and
certain representative citizens. A general convention was to
be held in San Francisco each year. The only condition of
membership was the signing of the following pledge: "We
pledge our sacred honor that we will not vote for any candidate
for office who is not at the time opposed to the immigration of
the Chinese, or any other class of servile labor; and that we
will use our personal influence to prevent the further influx of
Mongolians."17 The resolutions adopted by the new alliance
stated that while opposed to the further immigration of men
and women from China, its members were equally opposed to
any mis-treatment of those already in the state. They declared
that petitioning Congress was the only way to remedy the evil,
and called upon all citizens to sign the petitions and contribute
to the expenses of the campaign. Officers were elected and plans
made to extend the organization to the other cities of the Coast.
At the next meeting a somewhat revolutionary response from
Portland, Oregon, was received with great applause. The letter
declared that, should Congress refuse relief, "revolution, — yes,
riot and bloodshed will follow all along the Pacific Coast. The
American workman will never permit the heritage of their fath-
ers to fall from their grasp."18 Twenty-six thousand signatures
were soon obtained to the petition to congress. M. B. Starr was
appointed grand lecturer, and money was raised to defray his
expenses while lecturing through the state and Oregon.19 The
executive committee lost no time in organizing primary associ-
ations in the different wards of San Francisco.
These efforts -of the organizations of workingmen succeeded
in thoroughly arousing the people of the state. Citizens of all
classes signed the great petitions to Congress and joined in the
mass meetings of protest against the ever-increasing tide of
Oriental laborers. All political parties and the municipal and
state authorities were now fully enlisted in the efforts to secure
IT Alta, May 29 and 30, 1873.
is Ibid., June 6, 1873.
10 Ibid., June 12, 1873. •
142 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 2
exclusion laws, and, in their absence, to devise ways of discour-
aging the alarming increase of these unwelcome immigrants.
SAN FEANCISCO OEDINANCES BEGULATING THE CHINESE.
The only means for the discouragement of the Chinese immi-
gration open to the people of the Pacific Coast were the with-
drawal of employment and opportunities for making money, and
frightening away by a process of intimidation and persecution.
Both the municipal and state authorities now resorted to these
methods of dealing with the difficult problem.
In December of 1869 the committee of the Anti-Coolie Asso-
ciation appointed to investigate the conditions and habits of the
Chinese residents of the city reported the extremely overcrowded
and filthy conditions in Chinatown.20 The recent peculiarly vir-
ulent epidemic of smallpox was attributed to their presence. The
Board of Health had also frequently reported on the filth and
disease found in their quarters. We have already noticed the
great anti-Chinese demonstrations of July and August, 1870,
during which the city authorities were charged with a lack of
zeal in the cause. In response to this popular clamor, the San
Francisco supervisors passed the lodging-house or cubic-air ordi-
nance on July 29, 1870. This made it a misdemeanor for a
landlord to lodge any person in a room where there was less
than five hundred cubic feet of air for each person, and also
held the lodger equally responsible for occupying quarters where
he was not supplied with the requisite amount of air. The
penalties were a fine of from ten to five hundred dollars, or
imprisonment for not less than five days or more than three
months.
Had this ordinance been effectually and impartially admin-
istered, it might have proved highly beneficial to the whites as
well as to the Chinese. From early days, San Francisco has
had a large transient population, and the numerous cheap lodg-
ing-houses have often failed to make so generous a provision
for fresh air as this law required. But the white lodgers have
been allowed to breathe foul air without molestation, and the
20 Alia, December 6, 1869.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 143
ordinance was never enforced in Chinatown with any degree of
consistency or regularity. In response to some new popular
clamor against the Chinese, or by way of furnishing a little
extra work for the Police Department, occasional raids were
made on the Chinese quarters. The victims rarely paid the
fines, preferring to lodge with the city for the prescribed time.
The jails were soon crowded to an extent which, as was fre-
quently pointed out by the friends of the Chinese, rendered the
city guilty of gross violation of its own ordinance.
Two other anti-Chinese ordinances were passed by the San
Francisco supervisors in 1870. One prohibited the employment
o^ the Chinese on the public works, and the other made it a-
misdemeanor for any person on the sidewalks to carry baskets
suspended on poles across the shoulders.21 After several Chinese
had been arrested and compelled to pay fines for the violation
of this latter ordinance, its validity was thoroughly tested in
the courts. A demurrer was sustained in the police court, but
on appeal to the county court the decision was reversed. The
case was then carried to the supreme court on a writ of habeas
corpus. Judge McKinstry decided that the carrying on the side-
walk of baskets attached to poles upon the shoulders may be
regarded as a nuisance, or an obstruction, or a practice dangerous
to the public safety, and that as such the supervisors had author-
ity to enact an ordinance prohibiting it, and that the violation
of an ordinance of the supervisors constituted a misdemeanor.22
When early in 1873 the number of Chinese arriving in San
Francisco increased to two thousand a month, the supervisors
were aroused to renewed exertions to devise means for preventing
or decreasing the immigration. They sent a protest to Congress,
and discussed a plan for the extensive circulation of a pledge
for securing a rigid boycott of Chinese labor and all its products.
As the new arrivals were herded like cattle in the already over-
crowded quarters of Chinatown, the police commenced making
arrests for the violation of the cubic-air ordinance. The papers
reported twenty-five arrests on May 23, and fifty more two days
21 Passed in December, 1870.
22 People v. Ex parte Ashbury, Alia, February 5, 1871.
144 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
later.23 But, as the Chinese never paid the fines, the enforce-
ment of this ordinance was limited to the capacity of the jails.
Probably they realized that the payment of the fines would
simply have invited an extensive enforcement of the law.
The barbarous queue ordinance was proposed for the purpose
of forcing the payment of the fines, rather than serving the term
in jail. Supervisor Goodwin, who was the author of this, as
well as of the manifestly unjust laundry-license ordinance, justi-
fied them by declaring that the general government had so tied
their hands by the treaty with China that they must depend
on local legislation to discourage the excessive immigration which
was now causing so much alarm.24 It was well known that ly
greater punishment could be inflicted on a Chinaman than the
loss of his queue, as its absence degraded him in the eyes of his
fellows. The proposed ordinance directed that the hair of every
male prisoner in the county jail should be cut to within an inch
of his scalp. The supervisors passed this and also the laundry
ordinance, which provided that laundries employing one vehicle
drawn by animal power should pay two dollars per quarter license
fees, those with two such vehicles were charged four dollars,
while the laundries with no such vehicles were to pay fifteen
dollars per quarter.25
Mayor Alvord, not being carried away by the popular excite-
ment, promptly vetoed both ordinances. In his veto message
he set forth the history of the treaty relations between the United
States and China, and pointed out that the national faith was
pledged to firm, lasting, and sincere friendship with the Chinese
Empire; we had promised that the people of the United States
should not for any trifling cause insult or oppress the people
of China, and covenanted to exempt Chinese subjects in the
United States from all disability or persecution on account of
their religious faith. He declared that the supervisors had no
authority to pass su«h an ordinance, as the Consolidation Act
which provided what penalties they could inflict did not allow
23 Alta and Bulletin, May 23 and 25, 1873.
24 Alia, May 27, 1873.
25 Passed June 2, 1873.
191°] Eaves. > California Labor Legislation. 145
unusual ones. The Mayor's message brought the more fair-
minded members of the Board of Supervisors to their senses and
the attempt to pass the measure over his veto failed.26 The
better class of citizens in San Francisco and the interior press
commended Mayor Alvord's action in the matter of the queue
ordinance.
As to the laundry ordinance, the Mayor pointed out the
evident injustice of its terms, and declared that it would work
great hardship to poor women and others who delivered their
own work. Though the first attempt to pass this ordinance over
the Mayor's veto was unsuccessful, it was finally passed.
The police continued to enforce the cubic-air ordinance in a
desultory manner, — chiefly during the periods of public demon-
strations against the Chinese. One hundred and fifty-two arrests
were made in July, 1873, and ninety-five more in the following
August. There followed a long period when the city authorities
do not appear to have been exercised about the ventilation of
the sleeping quarters of the Chinese. This cessation of arrests
may have been due to doubts as to the validity of the ordinance,
for in September, 1873, the Chinese proprietor of the Globe Hotel,
who had been fined $500 for violating the ordinance, appealed
his case to the county court, and won a favorable decision.27
With the passage of the state law repeating the San Francisco
ordinance,28 and the arousing of the public by the great anti-
Chinese demonstrations of 1876, there was a renewal of interest
in this subject. In April, May, and June of that year there were
518 arrests.29
STATE ANTI-CHINESE LEGISLATION, 1870-1876.
Although it had been clearly established by the earlier decis-
ions that the state could not exclude or tax the Chinese immi-
grants, two laws were passed irr 1870 which ostensibly aimed to
exclude lewd women and other criminals, but which were so
26 Alia, June 24, 1873.
27 Bulletin, September 9, 1873.
28 Statutes of California, 1876, p. 759.
20 Brooks, Brief on the Legislation and Adjudication Touching the
Chinese, San Francisco, 1877.
146 University of California .Publlcation&*in Economics. [Vo1- 2
sweeping in their terms as to constitute an obstacle to immi-
gration.30 These laws were later embodied in sections 174 and
175 of the criminal code. Section 175 reads, "Every person
bringing in or landing within this State any person born either
in the Empire of China or in Japan, or in the Islands adjacent
to the Empire of China, without first presenting to the Commis-
sioner of Immigration evidence satisfactory to such Commissioner
that such person desires voluntarily to come into this State and
is a person of good character, and obtaining from such Com-
missioner a permit describing such person and authorizing the
landing, is punishable by a fine of not less than one or more than
five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail
of not less than two or more than twelve months.',' Section 175
provided that for each individual brought to or landed within
the state in violation of the law, the guilty parties should be
liable to a separate penalty.
The constitutionality of this law which, it was claimed, was
intended chiefly for the exclusion of lewd women, was fully
tested in 1874 and 1876. The Supreme Court of the state sus-
tained the law, but on appeal to the Federal court the decision
was reversed. Justice Field declared that ' ' a statute thus sweep-
ing in its terms, confounding by general designation persons
widely variant in character," was not entitled to any very high
consideration.31 He pointed out that the extent of the power
of the state to exclude foreigners from its territory is limited
by the right in which it had its origin, the right of self-defense ;
whatever outside of the legitimate exercise of this right affects
the intercourse of our people with foreigners, their emigration
to this country and residence therein, is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the general government, and is not subject to
staje control or interference. The remedy for the evil should
be sought in a more vigorous enforcement of municipal laws.32
This opinion was confirmed in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman
30 Statutes of California, 1870, pp. 330-332.
si Brooks, Brief on the Legislation and Adjudication Touching the Chi-
nese, p. 39.
32 In the matter of Ah Fong, Opinions and Papers of S. J. Field, Vol.
11, No. 28.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 147
in the United States Supreme Court.33 The report of the de-
cision caused much bitter feeling in San Francisco, and helped
to arouse the people for the great anti-Chinese demonstrations
that immediately followed its publication in 1876.
Both the 187234 and 187435 sessions of the legislature passed
resolutions calling upon the California Senators and Represent-
atives in Congress to do all in their power to secure treaty amend-
ments that would permit measures for discouraging Chinese
immigration. In endorsing the bill introduced by Representative
Page for prohibiting the employment of coolie labor under con-
tract, the concurrent resolutions announced that the California
legislators would "cordially co-operate with our congressional
delegation in the passage of any constitutional measure that
will tend to relieve us of this class of people, and prevent their
future immigration to our shores."30 That there was no lack
of disposition to seize any possible opportunity for such legis-
lation is shown by the insertion of a section in the act creating
the West Side Irrigation District, which stipulated that "No
Chinese labor shall be employed in the construction of any canal
or ditch provided for in this Act."37
By this time it was well understood that no one could hope
to obtain any office in the gift of the people unless he displayed
appropriate zeal in the cause which was now fully recognized
in all the political platforms. Not only the Independent party,38
but also the older political parties passed resolutions pledging
their support to anti-Chinese measures. The Democrats and
Republicans quarreled over questions of priority and zeal in the
cause.39 The National Labor party continued its activities, and
the various other workingmen's organizations, such as the Me-
chanics' State Council, the Peoples' Protective Alliance, the
United Mechanics, and the Sovereigns of Industry, all found
ss Chy Lung v. Freeman et al, 92 U. S. 275.
s-t Statutes of California, 1871-2, p. 970.
as Ibid., 1873-4, p. 979.
so Ib id., 1873-4, p. 965.
ST Ibid., 1875-6, p. 747, Sec. 46.
ss Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 334.
39 Ibid., pp. 299-300, 307-308, 334, 357, 379.
148 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
the menace of cheap Asiatic labor the chief reason for their
existence. By 1876 the workingmen of the state were united
in different organizations to an extent that would have been
impossible but for the need of vigorous action for defense from
a common peril. "While these organizations were often short-
lived, yet they helped to make possible the successes of the Work-
ingmen's Party, and no doubt prepared their members for par-
ticipation in the more effective labor movements of later years.
SAN FBANCISCO ANTI-CHINESE DEMONSTEATIONS OF 1876.
The flood of Chinese immigration reached high-water mark
in 1876, when the officials reported 22,943 arrivals.40 The state
and municipal authorities, as well as the various voluntary asso-
ciations, all united in the largest anti-Chinese demonstration that
had yet taken place. The Mayor suggested the appointment of
a special committee which was to devote itself to the Chinese
problem. Acting on this recommendation the supervisors ap-
pointed a committee of twelve, one from each ward of the city.
They went to work energetically, and soon procured the passage
of a measure authorizing the city to expend $5,000 in sending
commissioners to Washington. The committee also decided to
call a great mass meeting of citizens. The activities of the
anti-coolie clubs were at once renewed, and it was feared that
their somewhat excitable oratory might lead to violence. Unusual
precautions were taken to prevent an outbreak on the night of
the great mass meeting. This was the largest gathering that
had thus far been witnessed in the state; it was claimed that
twenty-five thousand people assembled to listen to the speeches
and to express their sympathy with the movement.41
The state legislature also appointed a committee to take evi-
dence on the subject of the Chinese. This committee commenced
its work in San Francisco a few days after the great anti-Chinese
meeting; when one considers the state of public opinion at this
time, and the avowed purpose of the investigation, it is evident
40 Congressional 'Record, XIII, p. 1518.
41 Alia, Bulletin, and other San Francisco papers, April 6, 1876.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 149
that little testimony favorable to the Chinese would be presented.
When completed this report set forth in the most convincing
way the manifold evils charged to the presence of the Chinese.
The revolting facts connected with the unsanitary conditions in
Chinatown, and the unspeakable horrors of Chinese prostitution,
as well as the economic evils of their cheap labor, were elabor-
ated upon by the various witnesses. Twenty thousand copies
of this report were ordered printed for distribution throughout
the United States.
The San Francisco municipal authorities were evidently will-
ing to exercise to the utmost their limited powers of legislation
on the subject. The supervisors even used their authority to
grant licenses for steam boilers as a means of promoting the
employment of white labor. The proprietors of a large shirt
factory which would employ four hundred people were granted
a boiler permit on condition that they employ not more than one
hundred and fifty Chinese, and agree to reduce this number
every three months until their entire force was white.42 The
laundry-license ordinance had been declared invalid by the
County Court, on the ground that it was unequal in its operation
and dealt in odious and unjust discriminations.43 Since the state
law had given new force to the cubic-air ordinance, frequent
raids had been made on the crowded quarters of Chinatown. The
fine was increased from ten to forty dollars. The difficulty of
the lack of jail accommodations again arose, and once more the
supervisors passed the objectionable queue ordinance.44 Mayor
Bryant does not seem to have possessed the scruples or the
courage of Mayor Alvord, as he signed the ordinance without
a protest. The ordinance remained in force until July, 1879,
when it was declared unconstitutional^ in the United States
District Court.45
•12 Bulletin, July 12, 1875.
43 People v. Soon Kung, decided July 9, 1874. See also Alia, May 3,
1876.
4* Brooks, Brief on the Legislation, etc., p. 85; San Francisco Ordinance
No. 1294, June 14, 1876.
4~> Ho Ah Kow v. Matthew Nunan, 5 Sawyer 552.
150 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1-
THE WOEKINGMEN'S PARTY AND THE CHINESE.
Henry George who, through his connection with San Fran-
cisco papers during this period, had unusual opportunities for
estimating public opinion, wrote in 1880, "The feeling on the
Chinese question has long been so strong in California as to
give certain victory to any party that could fully utilize it. But
the difficulty in the way of making political capital of this
feeling has been to get resistance, since all parties are willing
to take the strongest anti-Chinese ground."46 Evidently this
remark was, in part at least, retrospective, for the successes of
the Workingmen's Party in 1877 and 1878 were largely due to
its ability to convince the public of its sincerity and zeal in
this cause. Kearney is said to have concluded every speech
with the emphatic declaration, ' ' The Chinese must go ! " and
the campaign literature was usually headed with this slogan of
the party. In another chapter we have given the history of
the rise of this party, and of its successes in electing members
to the constitutional convention, so we will pass at once to a
consideration of the efforts of this convention to find ways of
dealing with the Chinese question.
THE CHINESE QUESTION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION OF 1879.
We have seen that the California legislators had been trying
to find some way of controlling Asiatic immigration since 1852,
and that for ten years prior to the meeting of the constitutional
convention of 1879 the representatives of all political parties
had been eager to meet the demand for this class of legislation.
Everything that the state had any power to do had been done,
yet practically all the members of the convention were elected
under pledges which obligated them to find new remedies for
the evil. The people of the state were making what was prac-
tically a unanimous demand for the passage of laws which the
courts had repeatedly declared that the state had no power to
40 Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 17, p. 433.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 151
enact. No body of legislators were ever confronted with a more
impossible task.
It will hardly be profitable to attempt any exhaustive study
of the innumerable anti-Chinese measures which were presented
in the efforts to discharge these obligations. Many of them
were very crude, and the majority, if not actually unconstitu-
tional, were at variance with American traditions. The com-
mittee to whom the proposed measures were referred found
themselves unable to agree, and so brought in a report which
included all the suggestions that seemed likely to reach the
desired results, with the understanding that individual members
of the committee were not obliged to support the entire report
on the floor of the convention. The report of the committee
was taken up by sections, and apparently nearly every member
of the convention contributed to the lengthy debates. With
the exception of C. V. Stuart, of Sonoma, no one attempted a
defense of the Chinese. The following methods of dealing with
the great race problem of the state were embodied in the report
of the committee or suggested in the debates on its recommen-
dations :
1. An appeal to the general government for an abrogation
of the Burlingame Treaty, and the passage of exclusion laws.
2. The exclusion of certain classes by the- exercise of the
police power of the state.
3. Exclusion by a process of "starvation by constitutional
provision," or the refusal of all employment and opportunity
to earn a living.
4. Exclusion by taxation and the withdrawal of civil rights.
5. The state to prevent the settlement of the Chinese within
its bounds by absolute prohibition, or by some system of local
option.
As was repeatedly pointed out by the many able lawyers in
the convention, the first method was the only one to which no
constitutional objections could be offered. But there were few
members who had any hope of obtaining relief in this way.
The indifference of Congress to the needs of the Pacific Coast
was repeatedly commented on, and some of the Workingmen's
delegates were ready with bitter charges of the undue influence
152 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
of the wealthy commercial interests in the halls of Congress.47
It was difficult for Van Dyke to hold the floor for his temperate
presentation of the fact that there were clear lines of both
Federal and state decisions which established the controlling
power of the general government. He said he realized fully
that republican institutions could not survive a continued immi-
gration of this character, but claimed that there were indications
that the people of the East were coming to an understanding
of the evils of Chinese immigration, and that there was evidence
of a decided change of sentiment in Congress. He thought the
more radical measures would weaken our position before the
country ; this was a matter which concerned a great nation, and
would be righted by the nation in due time.48
.Every one was willing to make another appeal to Congress,
and so a memorial was prepared which set forth that, "As
became a people devoted to the National Union, and filled with
profound reverence for law, we have repeatedly, by petition
and memorial, through the action of our Legislature, and by
our Senators and Representatives in Congress, sought the ap-
propriate remedies against this great wrong, and patiently
awaited with confidence the action of the General Government.
Meanwhile this giant evil has grown, and strengthened, and
expanded ; its baneful effects upon the material interests of the
people, upon public morals, and our civilization, becoming more
and more apparent, until patience is almost exhausted, and the
spirit of discontent pervades the State. It would be disingenuous
in us to attempt to conceal our amazement at the long delay of
appropriate action by the National Government towards the
prohibition of an immigration which is rapidly .approaching the
character of an Oriental invasion, and which threatens to sup-
plant Anglo-Saxon civilization on this Coast."49 The memorial
also presented some of the reasons for the almost universal hos-
tility to the Chinese on the part of the people of the state.
The convention had communications sent to the governors of
47 Debates and Proceedings, etc., Barton, pp. 653-4; Barnes, p. 687;
Kleine, p. 648; Barbcur, p. 651.
48 Ibid., pp. 695-6.
4» Ibid., p. 739.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 153
Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, requesting that they also*
memorialize the President of the United States and the Senate
for a modification of the Burlingame Treaty.50
The right of the states, by virtue of their police power, to
pass laws for the protection of the public from the criminal and
diseased had been fully recognized in the various decisions. In
the first section of the proposed article of the constitution pre-
sented by the committee, it was intended to make an extensive
use of this right. This section read, ' ' The legislature shall have
and shall exercise the power to enact all needful laws, and pre-
scribe necessary regulations for the protection of the State, and
the counties, cities, and towns thereof, from the burdens and
evils arising from the presence of aliens, who are or who may
become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids
afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, and aliens other-
wise dangerous or detrimental • to the well-being or peace of the
State."51 It is obvious that the last class enumerated might be
construed to include all the Chinese in the state. Gen. Miller,
the chairman of the committee, claimed that as many as five
thousand Chinese could be sent away each year by such pro-
visions. He suggested that they be collected in San Francisco,
and then returned to China, or sent to the eastern states as an
object lesson showing the evils complained of in California.52
This section was generally accepted by the convention, and was
adopted as a part of the constitution.
The measures restricting the employment of the Chinese
applied to the public, to corporations, and to individuals.
No one questioned the passage of the section providing that
"No Chinese shall be employed on any state, county, municipal,
or other public works, except in punishment of crime."53 It
was pointed out that the state had the same right as an indi-
vidual to employ such persons as suited its purposes.
The right to prohibit the employment of the Chinese by
corporations was more open to debate. It was argued that since
so Debates and Proceedings, etc., p. 708-9.
si Ibid., p. 627.
52 Ibid., pp. 628-630.
ss Constitution of California, Art. XIX, See. 3.
University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
corporations are created by the state, and since the right is
reserved to amend or alter their charters, the legislature could
specify the conditions under which they were permitted to do
business in the state.54 Not all of the members were convinced
of the wisdom of such a prohibition. Overton bluntly declared
that it was not worth the paper on which it was written, claim-
ing that under the "most favored nation" clause of the treaty,
the Chinese were privileged to seek the employment open to
immigrants from other countries. However, the measure was
finally adopted in preference to any of the substitutes offered
during the debate.55
Among the most radical remedies proposed in the convention
were those wrhich undertook to prevent all employment of the
Chinese by the people of the state.50 Miller, in presenting this
part of the report, characterized it as "starvation by constitu-
tional enactment," and did not hesitate to express his strong
disapprobation of any such measure, saying, ' ' If the Chinese are
not to be employed by anybody, are not permitted to labor, they
cannot live, and if you deprive them of the right to labor they
must starve. That is the logical sequence of the position as-
sumed by the advocates of this prohibition against the labor of
these people. It is indefensible, for it deprives the prohibited
people of the right of life." He declared that such a plan
was against the spirit of the age, and the laws of air civilized
nations, and that it also struck at the liberties of the citizens
of the United States, as by it their right to choose freely such
labor as they wished to employ was abridged.57
Another plan for depriving the Chinese of opportunities to
work was that of the amendment to the section on employment
by corporations, offered by Beerstecher of San Francisco. This
provided that, "All persons of foreign birth, before engaging
in any manner of employment on their own account or for
others, within the State, shall first procure a certificate of author-
ity; such certificate shall be issued to any applicant of a race
5-t Constitution of California, Art. XIX, See. 2. Debates and Proceed-
ings, etc., p. 658.
55 Debates and Proceedings, p. 664.
se Ibid., pp. 77, 80, 82.
57 Ibid., p. 630.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 155
eligible to citizenship under the -laws of the State, without cost
by any court of record of the State, etc. ' '58
It seems almost incredible that these measures intended to
deprive a hundred thousand men of their means of livelihood
could have been seriously entertained. Those who advocated
them frankly avowed their character as war measures. Bar-
bour, a San Francisco attorney who had defended the leaders
of the Workingmen's Party, agreed that much of the legislation
suggested resembled that of the Dark Ages, or, as some one had
expressed it, "Hottentot legislation," yet he declared that he
favored it because of the necessities of the situation. He wanted
to shock the sensibilities of the people of the East, so that they
would realize that the Californians were in earnest, even if
barbarous and cruel. If sufficiently startled. Congress might
be driven into doing something, — anything was better than what
he characterized as "this eternal contempt of the demands of
the people of the Pacific Coast."50 Other members were, .how-
ever, unsparing in their denunciation of such a course, and
measures of this character were finally abandoned.
Exclusion by taxation was suggested, but this was rejected
because of its doubtful constitutionality.60 The refusal of all
licenses to do business was also urged, but was open to the same
objections as those against refusing employment.61 A section
which prohibited the Chinese from fishing or from holding real-
estate, was another of these efforts at depriving them of the
means of earning a living. This section was reported from the
committee of the whole, but on the second reading of the article
it was struck out by a vote of 64 to 56.02 No effort was made
to defend the proposal that the Chinese be excluded from the
courts,03 as this was obviously in conflict with the treaty and
with -the civil rights statute.
Many members of the convention were in favor of a bold
declaration of the right of the state to determine who should
c>8 Debates and Proceedings, p. 656.
59 Ibid., p. 651.
eo Ibid., p. 728.
61 Ibid., pp. 98, 627-8.
62 Ibid., p. 1428-1431.
es Ibid., pp. 627, 714.
156 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
be allowed to become residents. The instances where Illinois
and Indiana had excluded free negroes were cited as prece-
dents.04 Barnes, who was an able lawyer, declared that this
was the only manly course, that the measures proposed were
disgraceful and evasive, and that he did not want to go to the
Supreme Court with provisions that would make California the
laughing-stock of the country. He concluded, "If you are going
to keep the Chinaman here, give him the privileges of every
other man, and let him earn his living the best way he can.
But if we believe, as I think we do, that his presence is inju-
rious and destructive to the very form of government under
which we live ; destructive to private rights and public morals ;
injurious to every interest in the State, there is no other way
for men to do but to come squarely up and say to him, "You
must go!" He presented a substitute measure which required
all the Chinese to remove from the state within four years.
While he did not advocate nullification, or any refusal to recog-
nize the authority of the Supreme Court, he did not believe the
states should be deprived of legislation for their welfare through
fear of a possible conflict with the Constitution. The results
of the existing treaty with China violated the fundamental prin-
ciples of the original compact between the states and the Federal
government, and it was right for the state to test the validity
of the treaty.05
There were others who endorsed states rights doctrines. ™
Not all the members had learned the discretion of one South-
erner, who said he had thought that way once, and had fought
to maintain his beliefs, ' ' but knew when he was licked ! ' ' When
the patience of the members who had insisted that the matter
was outside the jurisdiction of the state was exhausted, they
tried ridicule. Rolph proposed as a substitute for one of the
unconstitutional measures, "The Constitution of the United
States and the laws and treaties made thereunder, so far as
they may conflict with the Constitution of this State, are hereby
declared null and void, and any Judge of any Court who shall
Debates and Proceedings, pp. 705-7, 1436.
Ibid., pp. 686-690.
Ibid., pp. 634, 635, 651, 697, 698.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 157
hold otherwise shall be punished by death or imprisonment for
life."67
The report of the committee of the whole recommended a
section declaring that "No person who is not eligible to become
a citizen of the United States shall be permitted to settle in this
State after the adoption of this Constitution."08 When it came
to the final vote 'on the Chinese article of the constitution, the
motion to strike out this section because of its conflict with the
authority of the Federal government was carried by one vote,
the count showing 61 for and 60 against the motion. The
legislature was, however, charged with the duty of doing all
in its power to discourage Chinese immigration, and required
to provide the necessary legislation to prohibit their introduction
after the adoption of the constitution. Thus the convention
passed back to the legislature the task which had proved quite
beyond its powers.00
Though unable to devise any plan for checking the immi-
gration of the Chinese, the convention sought to mollify the
residents of cities and towns who were the chief complainants
by a local option control of their places of residence. Incor-
porated cities and towns were authorized to remove the 'Chinese
without their limits, or to prescribe the limits within which
they should live.70
During the earlier debates there were gloomy forecasts of
the deeds of violence that might follow' the failure to find ade-
quate remedies for the evils due to the presence of this objec-
tionable race,71 but while the convention was sitting news came
of the first action of Congress to restrict Chinese immigration.
The hope of Federal legislation reconciled the more radical
members to the defeat of all extreme measures.
The first legislature convening after the adoption of the
constitution had a strong majority of Republicans, with the
Workingmen's Party second in numbers. The laws necessary
67 Debates and Proceedings, p. 728.
os Ibid., p. 1428.
69 Ibid., p. 1519. Constitution of California, Art. XIX, Sec. 4.
70 Debates and Proceedings, pp. 653, 1519. Constitution of California,
Art. XIX, Sec. 4.
71 Debates, etc., pp. 653-4, 677, 701.
158 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2
for enforcing the sections of the constitution dealing with the
Chinese were enacted. The penal code was amended by adding
sections forbidding the employment of Chinese by the corpor-
ations of the state;72 a statute was passed providing for the
removal of the Chinese outside the limits of cities and towns ;73
the measure which had been rejected by the constitutional con-
vention, prohibiting the Chinese from fishing in the waters of
the state, became a law;74 and the earlier exclusion of the Chi-
nese from employment in a drainage district was made generally
applicable.75
Governor Irwin, in his message, remarked upon the fact that
the convention had charged the legislature with the duty of
devising some means of stopping the Chinese immigration, and
asserted, "It is my opinion that all hopes of getting rid of the
Chinese, or of stopping Chinese immigration which are based
on the assumed power of the State to deal with the question
will prove illusory."70 The people of the state were beginning
to realize this, so that for the next ten years they devoted their
energies to devising wrays of influencing Congress.
By the authority of an act of the legislature, approved
December 21, 1877, the people of the state were called upon to
express themselves upon the subject of Chinese exclusion in the
election of September 3, 1879. The results of this vote indicate
a very remarkable unanimity of opinion throughout the state;
of the 161,405 votes cast, 154,638 were opposed to the admission
of the Chinese, and 883 favored it, 5,884 failing to vote on the
question.77 In his message transmitting the results of this elec-
72 Penal Code, Sees. 178, 179. Kepealed, Statutes and Amendments,
1905, p. 652.
73 Statutes of California, 1880, p. 22.
7-t Ibid., p. 123.
75 Ibid., Chap. 117, p. 131, Sec. 28.
7« Appendix, Journals Senate and Assembly, 23d Sess., Vol. 5, Doc. 20,
p. 35.
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 Immigration (New York,
1909).
1910] . Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 159
tion, Governor Irwin laid great emphasis on the 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 wrere 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 our 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. T8 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 cheap 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 Mills where three hundred
Chinamen were discharged, it became 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.
Congressional Eecord, Vol. XI, p. 709.
I
160 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
also kept this law before the public by a series of demonstrations
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.70
The validity of this provision of the constitution and of the
subsequent act of the legislature was tested in the case of
Tiburcio Parrott.80 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-
™ Alta, February 12-15, 1880.
so In re Tiburcio Parrott, 1 Fed. Eep. 481. Alia, March 7, 21, 23, 1880.
1910] 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 OF THE LABOE 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. [Vol. 2
CHAPTEK VI.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGULATING CHINESE
IMMIGRATION, 1871-1902.
NATURALIZATION 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-won 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.1 The
Revised Statutes of 18732 — 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.3 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 Eevised Statutes, Sec. 2165.
s Also Brooks, Brief on the Legislation, etc., p. 96.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 163
a clause was added "excepting the right to become naturalized
citizens. ' '4
LAWS PROHIBITING CONTEACT LABOE.
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.5 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;0 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.7
EARLY EFFOBTS OF WESTERN CONGRESSMEN TO SECUEE
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, 8 when serving
*28 Statutes at Large, 1211, Art. IV.
s Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 16, 350, 593, 838, 855.
e 'Revised Statutes, pp. 2158-2163.
7 18 Statutes at Large, 477-8.
s We have been unable to find this speech, thpugh 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. [Vo1- 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 1879, of the first congressional
measures restricting Chinese immigration.9
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 known the demands
of their constituents. In February, 1876, Senator Booth pre-
sented the resolutions of the California legislature calling for
9 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 Globe, 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 Eecord, 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 Eecord, III, 43d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 224, 1561.
Representative Luttrell of California, Bill to prevent naturalization
of Chinese and Mongolians. Congressional Eecord, IV, 44th Cong., 1st
Sess., p. 477. .
Representative Piper of California, Bill to restrict immigration of
Chinese. Ibid., p. 3121.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 165
a modification of the Burlingame Treaty.10 Sargent11 in the
Senate and Page12 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 Senate13
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.14 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.15
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 Government. 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.16 The report stated that, while the resources of
the Pacific Coast could be more quickly developed with the help
10 Congressional Eecord, IV, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 901.
11 Ibid., p. 2850.
12 Ibid., pp. 3087, 3763.
is Ibid., p. 4421.
" Ibid., pp. 4678, 4705.
. is 44th Cong., 2d Sess., Rept. No. 689. (Published in a separate vol-
ume, Serial No. 1734.)
10 Report of the Joint Committee, 44th Cong., 2d Sess., No. 689, pp.
v-viii, Serial No. 1734.
166 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 2
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.17
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 \vho 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.18
.Report of the Joint Committee, etc., p. iv.
Senate Mis. Doc. No. 20, 45th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4, Serial No. 1785.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 167
THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION,— THE FIFTEEN
PASSENGER 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 California19 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 Davis20
from San Francisco, and Luttrell21 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,22 and Shelley from Alabama
proposed a plan which not only prohibited further immigra-
tion,23 but undertook to transport and colonize the Chinese
already here.24 The California Senators also busied themselves
with the Chinese legislation. Sargent presented a bill for the
restriction of immigration,25 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
wTith China and Great Britain20 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
19 See above, pp. 30, 150.
20 Congressional Record, VII, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 383.
21 Ibid., pp. 98, 271.
22 Ibid., p. 318.
23 Ibid., p. 68.
s* Ibid., p. 320.
25 Ibid., 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. tVo1- 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.27 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.28
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. ' '29
27 House Keport No. 240, 45th Cong., 2d 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 Record, XIII, p. 1481.
20 H. of R. Eeport No. 62, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Serial No. 1866.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 169
Willis, the chairman of the committee recommending the
bill, was one of the ablest 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."30 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. 31
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 such 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.32
In the debates33 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
so Congressional Eecord, VIII, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 799.
31 Ibid., pp. 791-2, 793, 793-800.
32 Ibid., p. 1072.
33 Ibid., pp. 1299 ff.
170 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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 yet provided some means by
which the measure so odious to him wrould 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.34
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,35 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.30 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
si Alia, February 26, 1879 (report of Sargent's speech).
ss Ibid., February 25.
36 San Francisco daily papers of February 27 and 28, 1879. The Alta
publishes a list of 82 merchants who closed their places of business during
tne meetings.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 171
denunciation was justified only by a great necessity. He also
pointed out that the abrogation of a part of the treaty might
invalidate the whole and thus leave American interests in China
unprotected.37
BITTEE RESENTMENT OF THE VETO OF THE BILL.
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 Elaine 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. ' '38 All good citizens were called upon to assist in restoring
order, and to be prepared to prevent any outbreak of violence.
37 Congressional Record, 45tii Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 2275-6.
38 Alia, March 9, 1880.
172 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.39
For many years 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-
risings.
NEGOTIATION OF A NEW TEEATY 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.40 At last the Presi-
dent appointed commissioners41 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 Alia, 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 Eecord,
X, 46th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 143, 151, 221, 286, 646, 678, 1438. H. R. Misc.
Rep. Doc. 5, Serial No. 1928.
41 The commissioners were James B. Angell, John F. Swift, Wm. H.
Treseot.
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."42
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 them43 in a
substitute bill which was reported back with their recommen-
dation.44 But it soon became evident that the Senate with its
stronger Democratic membership would take the lead in legis-
lation of this kind.45 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 States, pp. 182-3. Sen. Ex.
Doc., 48th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. I, Pt. 2, Serial No. 2262.
43 Berry and Page of California and Willis of Kentucky introduced
the bill in the House. Cong. Record, XIII, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 89,
90, 217, 561. See also H. R. Sept. No. 67, 1017.
44 Congressional Record, XIII, pp. 645, 737, 1899.
4f> Senators Miller and Farley of California and Grover of Oregon in-
troduced bills in the Senate. Ibid., pp. 5, 630, 2599, 2639.
174 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.46 Provisions were made for the identification of
46 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 Eepresentatives 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 a term not exceeding one year.
Sec. 3. — That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese
laborers who were in the United States on 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 guilty 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 conflict 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 Record, XIII, 47th Cong.,
1st Sess., pp. 1480-1.
1910] 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 Affairs.
He 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. ' '4T
The other Senators from the region west of the Rocky Moun-
tains were, of course, equally ardent in their support of the bill.
Senator Grover 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.48
47 Congressional Record, XIII, Senate debates, pp. 1481-1488, 1515-
1523, 1545-1549, 1581-1591, 1634-1646, 1667-1675, 1702-1717, 1738-1754.
Passed, 1753.
48 Congressional Eecord, XIII, p. 1545.
176 University of California Publications in Economics. tT°l- 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 effort 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 wrhich we now propose to enter bring us to shame, to
weakness, and to peril."49 Dawes, Platt, and Edmunds also
did all in their power to defeat or amend the bill. Platt 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.50
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 almost entire unanimity desired its passage. Second, be-
cause it would really and truly protect American labor.51 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-
49 Congressional Record, XIII, pp. 1515-1523.
so Ibid., pp. 1702-1707.
si Ibid., p. 1637.
1910] 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.52
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;53 Senator Grover
added the definition of ' ' laborers ' ' as including both skilled and
unskilled workers.54 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. 55 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 66.56
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.57 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 Eecord, XIII, pp. 1638-1644.
ss Ibid., p. 1481.
s* Ibid., p. 1480.
55 Ibid., p. 1753.
56 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. [Vol. 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 our 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, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 1990.
191°] 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,59 and
another convention was called in April to protest against the
action of President Arthur in vetoing the bill.60 At both of
these meetings emphasis was laid upon the duty of the working
people of the Pacific Coast to take matters in their own hands
in case 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
59 Bulletin, February 16 and 17, 1882.
GO mid., April 25, 1882.
180 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
extensive boycott of Chinese-made goods.01 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.62 When a similar case came
before a court of the same rank in California, Justice Field
reached an opposite conclusion.03 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
si San Francisco Daily Eeport, December 7, 1885, speech of Haskell.
ez U. S. v. Douglass, 17 Fed. Eep. 634.
63 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.64 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.05 The
California newspapers complained bitterly of what was charac-
terized as the "process of nullification" of the exclusion law.60
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."07 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 YicTc Dew, 19 Fed. Eep. 490. In re Chin A On, 18 Fed.
Eep. 506. In re Tung Yeong, 19 Fed. Eep. 184.
os 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 483. House Ex. Doc. 214, 48th Cong., 2d Sess.
so See editorials, Bulletin, August 23, 1883.
07 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. [Vol. 2
shall apply to all subjects of China and Chinese whether subjects
of China or any other foreign power."68
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.09
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. 70
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. ' m
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.72
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
es 23 Statutes at Large, 118.
eo Congressional Eecord, 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.73
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,74 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.75 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.70 The people of California were dismayed
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 Chew Heong v. U. S., 112 U. S. 536; 112 U. S. 543. Also in Opinions
and Papers of S. J. Field, Vol. II, No. 32.
74 Congressional Record, XIX, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 6568-9.
75 E. B. Eept. No. 255, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3042.
76 Bept. of Spaulding, Ex. Doc. 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. (To1- 2
CHINESE ARRIVING IN SAN FRANcisco.77
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 election
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
'7 H. E. Eept. No. 2915, p. 17, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2815.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 185
towns where they came into more direct contact and competition
with the white 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
were 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.78 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.79 One hundred and seven of
the two hundred members of the convention voted on this reso-
lution, which \vas 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.
7» Ibid., December 3.
186 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
few weeks later in which they advocated absolute exclusion of
the Chinese.80
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 Congress81 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.82
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.
«i 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 Labor 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.83 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.84 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 laws restricting immi-
gration. The press and public speakers had explained fully to
the remotest settlement just what harm could or wrould 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 which 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.85 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, 72 Gal. 125, 129. Ex parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 275. Bul-
letin, February 16, 1886.
84 Among the places taking such action were Eureka, Truckee, Red-
ding, Santa Cruz, Bloomfield, Boulder Creek, Nicolaus, in California;
Tacoma in Washington. Seattle attempted it, but was restrained by
Federal troops.
85 Congressional Eecord, 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 OF 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 with 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.80
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.
1910J Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 189
sular representative of the Chinese Government stationed in the
United States at the port of departure.87
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*8
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.80 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.90
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.91
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. 545, 582.
88 1 Sup. Eev. Stat. 625.
89 2 Sup. Eev. Stat. 141. Sections 2, 4, 15, declared invalid U. S. v.
Long Hop (1892), 55 Fed. Eep. 58; Sec. 12 not binding, Li Sing v. U. S.
(1901), 180 U. S. 486.
»o Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 were included. 32 Statutes
at Large, 176.
9i 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. [Vo1- 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.92
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 number
increased to one hundred and seven thousand.93 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.94 It has been impossible to prevent
this comparatively small immigration, which continues to the
present time.95
92 in re Chae Chan Ping (1888), 36 Fed. Rep. 431. Opinions and Papers
of S. J. Field, Vol. Ill, Doc. 20.
" 93 The Census shows the Chinese population to have been as follows:
1880, 105,465; 1890, 107,475; 1900, 106,659.
94 Ralph, J., "Leak of Chinese into the United States" (through
Canada), Harpers' Magazine, 82, 515. H. R. Rept. No. 255, 52d Cong.,
1st Sess., Serial No. 3042.
as San Francisco Chronicle, February 26, 1908, reports 26 brought to San
Francisco for deportation.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 191
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.90 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.97 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 seems 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 by 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.98 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
i>« See the Call and other San Francisco papers, December 1, 4, 5, 1891.
or Statutes of California, 1891, p. 186.
98 Ex parte Ah Cue, 101 Cal. 197; 35 Pac. 556.
192 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
of the question, 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 continually
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, Avere 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.100 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.101 Rep-
resentative Morrow had also made a great effort to pass a similar
law two years before.102 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-
99 Congressional Eecord, XXIII, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 33, 788, 1271,
1312.
100 Ibid., p. 1285, 2911. H. E. Kept., 407, Serial No. 3043.
101 Congressional Eecord, 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 H. B. Eept.
No. 2915, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 2815.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 193
ful enumeration of the Chinese population, which was to be
accompanied by the issuance of certificates to all such resi-
dents.103
The Geary bill ' ' to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese
persons into the United States," as originally passed in the
House, was much more severe in its provisions than the measure
that was finally adopted.104 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.105
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,106 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.107 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,108 which is commonly known as the Geary
Act, continued all laws then in force for a period of ten years.
103 E. E. Sep. No. 486, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (February, 1890), Serial
No. 2808.
104 Congressional Eecord, XXIII, p. 2911.
105 H. E. Eep. No. 407, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3043.
ice Congressional Eecord, XXIII, pp. 3236, 3438, 3475, 3522, 3608, 3829,
3832, 3862, 3922.
107 Ibid., pp. 3925, 4191.
108 Act of May 5, 1892, Cli. 60, 27 Statutes at Large 25.
194 University of California Publications in Economics. EVo1- 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."109 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.110
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.111
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 such
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
100 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.
no U. S. v. Hing 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 Tuk,
53 Fed. Eep. 781.
in Congressional Record, XXIII, 2915. 27 Statutes at Large 25, Sec. 5.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 195
that this registration requirement was unconstitutional.112 On
the fifteenth of May, ten days after the time for registration had
expired, the United States Supreme Court declared that this
section was valid.113
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 were 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.114 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.115
This was more than any one had bargained for, and Congress
hastened to pass another bill relieving the officials from the duty
of executing this portion of the law.110
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.117
112 They had opinions from Messrs. Choate, Carter, and Ashton, all of
whom declared the provision unconstitutional. (H. R. Rep. No. 70, 53rd
Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3157.)
us Justice Gray wrote the affirmative decision, and Justices Brewer,
Field, and Fuller wrote dissenting opinions. Fong Yue Ting v. U. S.
(1893), 149 U. S. 698. There were a number of decisions sustaining the
deportation provision, e.g., In re Ny Look, 56 Fed. Rep. 81.
114 H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 9, 53d Cong., 1st Sess.-, Serial No. 3150. H. R.
Rep. No. 70, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3157.
us H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 10, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3150. Sen.
Ex. Doc. No. 13, 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 3144.
us November 3, 1893, Ch. 14, 28 Statutes at Large 1.
117 Ibid., Sec. 2, p. 8.
196 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 2
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.118
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.119
EENEWAL 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.120 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.121
us December 8, 1894 (28 Statutes at Large 1, 1210).
us Act of April 30, 1900, Ch. 339, Sec. 101, 32 Statutes at Large 161.
120 Act of April 29, 1902, Ch. 641, 32 Statutes at Large, 176.
121". . . 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 territory 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.)
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 197
CHAPTER VII.
THE LENGTH OF THE WORK-DAY IN CALIFORNIA.
THE TEN-HOUR 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 country, 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.1 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 Gov-
ernor's approval tm May 17, 1853. 2 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.3
1 San Francisco Herald, May 11, 1853.
2 Assembly Journal, 4th Sess., p. 573. Statutes of California, 1853, p.
187.
s Alta, February 11, 1866.
198 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
THE EIGHT-HOUR MOVEMENT OF 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 success of the
Australian law of 1857.4 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.5 He also went to Sacramento as the representative of
the San Francisco trade-unions to present their petition and
lobby for the bill.0 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
4 Haskell, in McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., p. 608.
s Pacific Union Printer, December, 1890, speech of Kenaday.
o Ibid. McNeill, Labor Movement, etc., p. 608.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 199
regarded as the champion of the working classes, presented the
bill with its accompanying petition.7 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.8 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."9 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.10
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,
7 Sacramento Daily Union, January 25, 1866; Alia, January 25, 1866.
Assembly Journal, 16th Sess., p. 252.
»AUa, June 4, 1867. (Speech of Wilcox.)
9 Assembly Journal, 16th Sess., p. 304.
10 Ibid., p. 317.
200 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 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.11
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.
They 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.12
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.
1910] 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 wrhen Massachusetts
passed a similar measure.13 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.14 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 I.15 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.16
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
is Senate Journal, 16th Sess., p. 673. See also Alia, January 23, 1868.
(Speech of Lupton.)
i4 Bulletin, June 3, 1867 ; report of the meeting says the resolution was
adopted April 9, 1866. See also Alia, June 4, 1867.
is Industrial Magazine, January, 1867, p. 48.
IB Ibid., February, 1867.
202 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
would not permit the adoption of an eight-hour system.17 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 workingmen's convention called by the Industrial
League held meetings during the three months prior to the date
set for the change.18 As the day approached, several large mass
meetings were held to complete the education of public opinion
in support of the new system.19 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 fhe movement predicted
IT Minutes of meetings of December 30, 1865; January 27, April 27,
1867; February 28, 1870.
i8 The San Francisco papers report meetings from April 1 to June 28.
iu Alta, June 2 1867. Bulletin, May 15.
1910] 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";20 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 celebrants.21 Two thousand and sixty-six22
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:23 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 system 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 Ibid., 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. IT01- 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.24
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 Alta claimed that he found
many instances where plans to build had been abandoned because
of the increased cost of labor.25
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 working-men's convention had passed
resolutions to the effect that the men there represented would
vote for no candidate who would not pledge himself to the
support of the eight-hour movement.26 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,27 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.28 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
24 Alta, July 20, 1867.
25 Ibid., July 22, 1867.
26 Bulletin, April 3, 1867.
27 San Francisco Daily Times, April 10, 1867.
28 Davis, Political Conventions of California, pp. 249, 260, 265-6.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 205
cases 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, viticultural, and do-
mestic labor were excluded from the operation of the law.29
This last section was proposed by Dwinelle, 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.30
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.31 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 authority 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.32 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
2» Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 63. Alia, January 23, 1868.
so Sacramento Daily Union, January 23, 1868.
31 Assembly Journal, 17th Sess., pp. 221, 312, 477.
32 Sacramento Daily Union, January 22, 23; February 14, 1868. Alta,
January 23, 1868.
206 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
good.33 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.34 The Oakland trade-unions sent
over a large delegation to swell the ranks of the torchlight pro-
cession,35 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.36
EFFOBTS TO ASSIST THE PASSAGE OF THE FEDERAL EIGHT-
HOUR 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.
s* San Francisco papers, February 21 to 24, 1868. The Times gives a
particularly good account.
s-r> The Oakland delegation was reported to number about 450. This
is the first 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, Riggers, Wood Turners,
Metal Roofers, House Painters.
July, 1867 — Plumbers and Gas Fitters.
191°] 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.37
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 Eight-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.38
ENFOECEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA EIGHT-HOUR LAW.
The new law was to take effect sixty days after its passage.
On May 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.39 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.40
We have seen that the ship caulkers and carpenters were
37 Alia, November 30, 1867.
38 Winn, Valedictory Address.
so Alia, May 8, 1868.
40 IUd., May 10, 1868.
208 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 2
among the first of the organizations to secure the shorter
work-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,41 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. ' '42
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 Exchange43 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.
42 Ibid., May 13, 1868.
43 This was a free employment agency supported by the city and state.
See later chapter on employment agencies.
191°] 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.44
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 wrould 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."45 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.
44 Bulletin, August 3, 1869.
45 Alta, August 5, 1869.
210 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 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.40 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.47
Justice Sawyer, in delivering the opinion of the court, based
his argument on a strict interpretation of the actual language
*« Alta, August 21, 1869.
47 Drew v. Smith, 38 Cal. 325.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 211
of the statute, which merely required the insertion of a stipu-
lation that eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work.
The statute allowed contracts for a longer working-day, and
did not provide a penalty for its violation for those engaged
on public work.
The concurring opinion of Justice Sanderson stated this
right to contract for a longer working-day in yet stronger terms.
He said that he did not understand the words of the statute
as intending to prohibit, either directly or indirectly, the labor-
ing man from working more than eight hours in one day if he
desires or his necessities require him so to do. He thought such
a prohibition might be considered an unwarrantable and unreas-
onable interference with the natural rights of persons as enum-
erated in the constitution. There was nothing in the statute
to prevent a man working extra hours for more pay.4S
Justices Sprague and Crockett based their arguments on the
manifest intent of the legislature in the enactment of the second
section of the law. If the right of contracting for longer hours
was intended to apply to public work, there was no need of
adding the second section, as the whole subject would have
been covered in the first providing that eight hours shall be a
legal day's work unless a contract for a longer day had been
made. They claimed that it was the manifest intent of the
legislature to prohibit public officers from entering into any
agreement by which the hours of a day's labor should be ex-
tended beyond the limits fixed in the law. Justice Sprague
also held that it was competent and proper that, as security
for the performance of such stipulation on the part of the
contractor, a penalty should be prescribed in the contract itself
for the failure to comply with the terms of the stipulation.49
As a result of this decision the eight-hour law of 1868 be-
came little more than the enunciation of a principle, or a
recommendation without power of enforcement. However, the
chances of its enforcement in a part of the public work were
increased by the passage in 1870 of a law requiring that "All
work done upon the public buildings of this State shall be done
48 Drew v. Smith, 38 Gal. 3l!9.
40 Drew v. Smith, 38 Cal. 332.
212 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
under the supervision of a superintendent or state officer or
officers having charge of the work, and all labor employed on
said buildings, whether skilled or unskilled, shall be employed
by the day, and no work upon any of said buildings shall be
done by contract."50
This law was recommended by the committee on public
institutions, and promptly passed under a suspension of the
rules.51 Shortly after the passage of the law an opportunity
came for its enforcement. The Regents of the State University
had advertised for bids on a building to be erected. The
Mechanics' State Council protested vigorously and had decided
to get out an injunction, when the Regents, after consulting
with the attorney-general, changed their plans to conform with
the new statute.52 For a while the workingmen were watchful
in the enforcement of the law, but as the different trades were
gradually forced by the hard times to yield the advantages
gained during the sixties, the efforts to enforce the laws in
public works were relaxed, so that the eight-hour requirement
was often ignored.
LOSS OF THE SHOETEE WOEK-DAY, 1870-1877.
The advances of the forces of labor may be accompanied
by brass bands and torchlight processions, but the retreats are
conducted under cover, with as much secrecy and quiet as pos-
sible. Between 1870 and 1877 all the trades in which the eight-
hour rule had been established were obliged to return to the
longer work-day. In a few cases the change was the result
of a strike or lockout, but in most instances the necessities of
the workmen and their employers brought about a change by
private agreement. The Bulletin describes the process which
was well under way in 1870: "Work among artisans who are
or have been united in the Eight-hour Leagues is uncomfortably
slack, and in many instances the workmen acknowledge the
necessity for a change. Contractors hold consultations with
so Statutes of California, 1869-1870, p. 777. Pol. Code, 3233. The law
applies only to state buildings. BabcocJc v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 510.
si Assembly Journal, 18th Sess., p. 710.
52 The Attorney General declared the statute constitutional. See
Winn, Valedictory Address.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 213
workmen, and after amicable discussion, matters are satisfac-
torily adjusted."53 The bricklayers held out until 1875, then
met defeat in a controversy over the work on the Palace Hotel.
The contractor offered them six instead of five dollars a day
if they would work the extra two hours.54 But they refused
this offer, and one hundred men were brought out from the
East to take their places. Haskell says the plasterers lost their
eight-hour day in 1877. 55 It must have been quickly regained,
for in later accounts they claimed that they had retained it
through this period.56
CONTINUED AGITATION IN FAVOR OF THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY.
In giving up their shorter work-day the men felt that
they were yielding a temporary concession to the unfortunate
economic conditions of the times ; they hoped to avail themselves
of the first favorable opportunity to regain the lost advantages.
The educational work was continued so that when the time
arrived a large number of workmen would be prepared to make
the change. The Mechanics' State Council organized a new
Eight-hour League in 1872, of which all mechanics and laboring
men could become members by signing the following pledge :
"I have signed my name to this obligation and thus become a
member of the Eight-hour League. I do pledge my sacred
honor that when the Mechanics' State Council shall fix a time
for my trade to commence working eight hours a day, I will
quit work at my trade until my employer shall accept eight
hours for a day's work, or until the council shall release me
from the obligation. I will promptly attend all general meet-
ings of the league that may be called by the council and will
abide by and support its rules, regulations, and by-laws."57
An executive committee of the council was appointed to circu-
late this pledge. The organizations represented in the council
also undertook to obtain members throughout the state.58
ss Bulletin, July 19, 1870.
54 San Francisco Daily Report, May 11, 1886.
55 Haskell, in McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., p. 608.'
se Examiner, May 2, 1890, p. 3.
ST Bulletin, June 11, 1872.
, August 9, 1875.
214 University of California Publications in Economics. [Yo1- a
It is interesting to find that at this early date the California
trade-unionists suggested a plan for a national eight-hour move-
ment similar to the one carried out by the American Federation
of Labor fifteen years later. The difficulties of enforcing the
eight-hour day in 1866 to 1870 had shown the necessity of a
more general effort to secure the shorter work-day. The
Mechanics' State Council sent a communication to the Indus-
trial Congress, meeting in Chicago in 1875, requesting that the
centennial anniversary of the Declaration of Independence be
designated as the day for the inauguration of a national eight-
hour system of labor.59 This request was complied with; J. H.
Wright, the president of the Industrial Congress, wrote saying
that July 4, 1876, had been designated as the day when the
trade-unions in all the large cities of the United States were
to demand the eight-hour day. The letter recommended that
the workmen start upon the principle that less wages be taken,
rather than permit themselves to be deprived of the necessary
time for social and mental improvement.60
In accordance with this plan the Mechanics' State Council
passed resolutions endorsing the action of the Industrial Con-
gress, and recommending that the mechanics of the state prepare
for this occasion by "active, energetic, and harmonious organ-
ization," and that journeymen be called upon to sign a pledge
of honor, promising that they would not work more than eight
hours after that date. These resolutions declared, "We are
well convinced from observation that the perfect and immense
amount of labor-saving machinery now in use makes it impos-
sible to keep our labor force employed more than eight hours
per day. It is a national necessity that workingmen have more
time for study and mental improvement, so as to insure a greater
degree of intelligence for their personal advantage and the
general good of the country."01 At a- subsequent meeting Winn
recurs to this explanation of the economic depression of the
time. He said, "Splendid labor-saving machinery, long days
of ten and twelve hours, with hard work of men and women in
See action of the house painters in the same number of the Bulletin.
Alia, August 9, 1875.
Ibid., Ees. 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. ' 'G2 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-HOUK LAW ADVOCATED BY THE WORKINGMEN'S
PARTY.
The shorter work-day was a frequent subject of discussion"
in the fervid oratory 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. ' '°3
62 Alia, January 14, 1876.
os Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 380.
216 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 2
THE EIGHT-HOUE PEOVTSION 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.64 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.05 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. ' '6G
TEADE-UNION EFFOETS TO SHOETEN THE WOEKING-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
«4 Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Califor-
nia, p. 92.
es Ibid., pp. 177, 262, 560, 1422, 1423.
co Constitution of California, Art. 20, See. 17.
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.07 The new time-schedule went into effect
on May 1 with very little opposition.68 The Los Angeles car-
penters obtained the nine-hour day a year later.69 At about
this time a number of the other building trades succeeded in
obtaining this reduction in their working hours.70
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,71 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.72 At this
meeting it was recommended that eight-hour 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 Eight-hour
League.73 The latter grew out of a mass meeting called by the
67 Call, March 31, 1883, 3-6; April 28, 1883, 3-5.
68 Organized Labor, February 24, 1900.
co 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 Report 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.
•7i Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 17-18.
72 Report 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. !To1- 2
Federated Trades Council on June 2, 1889.74 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.75 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.70 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 wras 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 trades77 and
the brewery workmen were prepared to demand a reduction in
their hours at this time, though the president and some of the
7-4 Coast Seamen's Journal, Minutes of Federated Trades Council, May
22, 27, June 5, 1889.
75 Ibid., July 2, 1889, February 26, 1890.
7c 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
make 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,78
so it is evident that the change was made there without friction.
Such was also the case in San Francisco and Oakland.79 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.80
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.81
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.82
EENEWED EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE EIGHT-HOUR 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.83
78 Examiner, April 7, 1889.
™ Ibid., May 2, 1890.
so Ibid., May 4, 1890, p. 6.
si Ibid., May 2, 1890, p. 2.
82 Coast Seamen 's Journal, Minutes Federated Trades Council, Septem-
ber 17, October 1, 1890.
ss Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 325, 327, 339,
340. Compare with the Seventh Biennial Eeport of 1895-6, p. 92.
220 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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 wrhich 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."84
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.85
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.80
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
s* Ex parte Kubach, 85 Cal. 274.
SB Minutes of Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen's Journal,
March 5, July 23, 1890; October 30, August 9, 1891.
so Inaugural Address, Appendix, Journal Senate and Assembly, 29th
Sess., 1st Vol., p. 5.
191°] 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 work87 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. ' '88
* AMENDMENTS TO THE EIGHT-HOUE LAW, 1899-1901.
When in 1899 to 1900 the trade-unions regained their
strength and influence, 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 BabcocTc v. Goodrich, 47 Gal. 488.
ss Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 92 ff.
222 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.89
The eight-hour legislation received further re-enforcement in
1901. The law of 1899 had not yet been tested in the courts,90
but an earlier decision had declared that a contract was not
invalidated by the omission of the eight-hour stipulation,91 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. ' '92
In order to remove all doubts of the validity of the eight-hour
legislation, this session of the legislature also passed a consti-
tutional amendment which was to be submitted to. the people
for ratification at the next election.93 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 cases of extraordinary
emergency caused by fire, flood, 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. 94
w Statutes of California, 1899, p. 149. Coast Seamen's Journal, Vol.
XII, 18-7, 27-7.
so Ninth Biennial Report, Bureau Labor Statistics, pp. 64-66.
01 Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488.
02 Statutes of California, 1901, p. 562, Sec. 2.
93 Ibid., pp. 959-960.
»4 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.95
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.90 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.97 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.98 The Superior Court
cases of 1901 were not taken to the Supreme Court.
The adoption of the amendment to the constitution in No-
vember, 1902,99 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
on Penal Code, 653c, Statutes of California, 1905, p. 666.
96 Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 32.
97 Ex parte Kubach, 85 Gal. 276.
98 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. [Vol. 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.100
LAWS EESTRICTING THE HOURS OF LABOR OF CERTAIN
SPECIAL CLASSES OF 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 action.101
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,102 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.103 Attempts to pass
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 ibid., 1905, p. 28.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 225
laws giving the eight-hour day to the women workers of the state
have been unsuccessful.104
RECENT PROGRESS OF THE EIGHT-HOUR 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,105 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.100 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,
1901.107
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. 108 It is estimated that fifty thousand men took part in
this strike.109 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 Eeport, Bureau Labor Statistics, p. 98 ff.
ice Organised Labor, August 18, 1900.
107 Ibid., October 27, November 10, 24, December 15, 1900; February
23, 1901.
108 Ibid., May 25, 1901.
loo Ibid., June 8, 1901.
226 University of California Publications in Economics. ITo1- 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.110
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.111 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.112
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.113 At what was
known as the Syracuse Convention, an agreement was made
no Labor Clarion, March 10, 1903; April 10, 1903, p. 9.
in A good summary of the history of this struggle is given in the
Labor Clarion, September 1, 1908, p. 4.
112 Labor Clarion, November 27, p. 8; December 4, p. 8; Coast Seamen's
Journal, December 9, 1908, p. 6.
us Labor Clarion, August 4, 11, 1905.
1910] 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.114 Acting under instruction from the International, the
San Francisco Union decided to inaugurate the nine-hour day
on October 1, 1900.115 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, 1905.110
The Citizens' Alliance was quite active at this time, and it
was generally believed that the influence of this organization for
checking 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 show^s that the printers in all the cities of the state
except Los Angeles have the eight-hour working-day.117
The brewery workers are also among the groups of trade-
unionists enjoying the standard work-day. The large brew-
ii4 Organized Labor, May 19, 1900.
us Ibid., September 1, 1900.
no Labor Clarion, June 2, 1905. See also June 7, 9, 14, 21, July 28.
H7 Twelfth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 88-150.
228 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
eries of San Francisco and Portland granted the eight-hour day
to their workmen in April, 1901. 118 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.119
The establishment of strong labor organizations throughout
the state has resulted since 1900 in a general movement 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.120 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.121 It seems probable that in a few
years all the wage-workers of California will attain that long-
desired blessing — the eight-hour day.
us Organized Labor, April 20, 1901.
us Twelfth Biennial Report, Bureau Labor Statistics, pp. 99, 109, 115.
120 Eleventh Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 96.
121 Twelfth Biennial Eeport, Bureau Labor Statistics, pp. 99, 109, 115.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 229
CHAPTEE VIII.
LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WAGES OF
LABOR.
GENEEAL HISTOEY OF THIS CLASS OF 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
subcontractors, 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. (To1- 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. ' '
i The Alia 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.
191°] 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."2
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 :3 ' ' 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 any 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 were 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.4
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 Alia, June 2, 1867.
3 Ibid., August 21, 1869.
4 Constitution of California, Art. XX, Sec. 15.
232 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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.5
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 OF 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 the 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 amendmentr 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 Pae. 478.
191°] Eaves: California Labor 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.6 The
law of 1853 added "bridges, ditches, flumes, or aqueducts con-
structed to create hydraulic power, or for mining purposes,"7
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."8 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."9 In 1857 the bridges, ditches,
flumes, and aqueducts were once more subject to liens,10 and
fences and machinery were added to the list in 1862. X1 Two
important lines of work, the construction of wagon roads and
railroads, received this protection in 1864,12 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.13 It would seem that this should have been sufficiently
inclusive, but it was found necessary to add "well" in 1899. 14
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
o Statutes of California, 1850, p. 211.
? Ibid., 1853, p. 202-3.
s Ibid., 1855, p. 156.
» Ibid., 1855, Sec. 2.
10 Ibid., 1857, p. 84.
11 Ibid., 1862, p. 384.
12 Ibid., 1864, p. 465.
is 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.
I* Statutes of California and Amendments to tlie Codes, 1899, p. 33. The
courts have held that this applies to wells for oil and also for water.
(Parlce # L. Co. v. Inter Nos 0. $• D. Co., 147 Cal. 493.)
234 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
shall at the request of the owner15 of any lot in any incorporated
city or town, grade, fill in, or otherwise improve the same or the
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."16 In 1885 this
was amended by the addition of "sidewalk in front of or ad-
joining the same, ' '1T 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."18
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 185019 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 185620 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.21 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.22
The theory behind all these lien laws is that such claims
is 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. ' '
IB Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 591, Sec. 9.
IT Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 145.
is Statiites 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 Eoclc P. Co. v. Lyons, 117 Gal. 213.)
19 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 212, Sec. 6.
20 Ibid., 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,23
a cook who prepares food for the men making the improve-
ments,24 and the teamster who hauls the material to the building25
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.26
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 wrhole
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,27 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.28 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.20 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.30
The courts will not enforce mechanics' liens against public
property.31 The laws also limit the application of the lien
allowed under certain conditions. Where the work is in charge
23 Williams v. Hawley, 144 Cal. 97, 99.
24 McCormiclc v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 40 Cal. 185.
2s Wilson v. Nugent, 125 Cal. 280, 284.
26 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1903, p. 84-6;
Jurgenson v. Diller, 114 Cal. 493; Eeese 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 Pac. 47.
20 Pac. Rolling Mill Co. v. Bear Valley Tr. Co., 120 Cal., pp. 94, 100-1.
so Cox v. Western E. E. Co., 44 Cal. 18, 28. Bringham v. Knox, 127 Cal.
40, 43.
si Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 112. Bates v. Santa Bar-
bara, 90 Cal. 543.
236 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
of a contractor the liens for improvements can be enforced only
to the extent of the contract price.32 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.33 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.34
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.35 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.36
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, p. 143, Sec.
1183.
ss 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, Sec. 1192.
s* Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 577, Sec. 1192.
33 For what constitutes a valid contract see Statutes and Amendments,
1885, p. 143, 1887, p. 152, Sec. 1183.
SB Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 590, Sec. 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.
1910] 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.37
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,38 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 mortgages and other encumbrances unre-
corded at the time such work was commenced or the first of such
materials were furnished,"39 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 with 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,40 and so a number of measures have been passed which
37 Statutes of California, 1856, p. 203-4
ss Ibid., 1857, pp. 58, 178.
39 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 California Publications 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.41 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.42 If the owner were prompt
in his payment of the contractor,43 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 puEpose 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
4i Statutes of California, 1850, pp. 211-2. Also Statutes of 1855, 1856,
1858, 1862.
*- 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 sufficient 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.
(Me Alpine 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.44 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."45 This section was omitted from the codes
of 1872, but was re-enacted in 1874.46 However, it did not meet
the difficulty, for the courts continued to enforce the rule that
no lien could be collected except from the unpaid balance due
the contractor,47 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 Legislature shall provide by law for the speedy
and efficient enforcement of such liens."48 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.49 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
44 Statutes of California, 1862, p. 387, Sec. 10.
« /6 id., 1867-8, p. 592, Sec. 11.
4« Amendments to the Codes, 1873-4, p. 411.
47 Whittier v. Wilbur, 48 Gal. 175 (1874). Eenton v. Conly, 49 Gal. 185
(1874). Wells v. Calm, 51 Gal. 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 Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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.50
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
cases 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.51
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 be payable thirty-five days after the com-
pletion of the work. Any payment made before it is due by the
so Whittier v. Hollister, 64 Cal. 283. 0 'Donnell v. Kramer, 65 Cal. 353.
si Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 143,
Sec. 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.
(Seed 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.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 241
terms of the contract is not valid to defeat liens on the prop-
erty.52
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.53
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."54
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
52 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 144,
Sec. 1184. Merced Lumber Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, is a recent case
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 case, relieve the owner from the penalty imposed
for the benefit of one who was not paid by the contractor.
ss 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 nptice 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
Cal. 149.)
Under the mechanics' lien law prior to the amendment adopted in
1885, service of notice did not affect the rights of the parties, nor impose
upon the owner the duty of retaining a portion of the contract price to
satisfy any lien which the sub-contractor might subsequently file. (Mc-
Cants 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. Euss L. $• M.
Co. v. Garrettson, 87 Cal. 749.)
"4 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1884-5, p. 145.
242 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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 affected by
the contract.55 This section of the law was repealed in 1887,56
and reenacted in 1893. 57 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.58
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.59 The law passed in
1899 required a similar bond for all contracts for street and
sewer work in municipalities.60
The decision of the Supreme Court which refused to sanction
ss Statutes of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 147.
Be Ibid., 1887, p. 155.
57 Ibid., 1893, p. 202.
ss Gibbs v. Tally, 133 Cal. 373, 377. Shaughnessy v. Am. S. Co., 138 Cal.
543, 545.
59 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1897, pp. 201-2.
oo Ibid., 1899, p. 23.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 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 officials 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 1862,61 and was also a part of the law of 1868.62 It
was omitted from the code of 1872, but was re-enacted as an
amendment in 1874.03 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.6*
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.
ei Statutes of California, 1862, p. 384.
62 Ibid., 1867-8, p. 589.
ea Amendments to Codes, 1873-4, p. 412, Sec. 1196.
64 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1196.
244 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
THE LEGAL PEOCESS BY WHICH MECHANICS' LIENS AEE
OBTAINED AND ENFOBCED.
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."05 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.06
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 briefly
outline the more important amendments which have made it
easier for laborers and material-men to obtain the protection of
65 Statutes of California, 1850, p. 212, See. 4.
60 Statutes of California, 1855, p. 157.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 245
the law.67 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 such
completion, or cessation from work.68 Many liens have been
lost because of the failure to file the claim at the right time.69
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 just 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
67 The courts have decided that the actual performance of the work
entitles a person to such a lien. In Ah Louis v. Harwood, 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 cases where the owners have not filed the notice of
completion. (Buell v. Brown, 131 Cal. 158.) Code of Civil Procedure,
Sec. 1187.
69 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. [Vol. 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.70
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 days 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.71
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
TO Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1886-7, p. 155.
71 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
Oal. 158, 161.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor 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.72
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.73
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.74
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 Gal. 9.
73 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1187.
74 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. Harwood,
140 Cal. 504. Corbett v. Chambers, 109 Cal. 184.
248 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 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."75
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 him upon inquiry as to such matters.1*
(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.77
(4) The costs of securing wages by means of mechanics' 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-
75 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 858, Sec. 1203a.
7e Ibid., 1887, p. 154. Code of Civil Procedure, See. 1184. "Any of the
persons mentioned in Sec. 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 sufficient to inform
the reputed owner of the substantial matters herein provided for, or to
put him upon inquiry as to such matters."
TT Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1190.
1910] 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.7S 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."79 Later laws
stipulated that the amount of the attorneys' fees should not
exceed one hundred dollars.80 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, such 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."81 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.82
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,83 but this judgment has been reversed in a recent case
in the supreme court.84 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
78 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 592, Sec. 10.
™ Ibid., 1855, p. 156, Sec. 8.
so Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1184.
si Statutes of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 146, Sec. 1195.
Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1195.
82 Ibid., 1907, p. 322, Sec. 1207.
ss PecJcham v. Fox, 82 Pac. 92. DeCamp v. Tolhurst, 99 Cal. 635. Eeid
v. Clay, 134 Cal. 215.
s* Builders ' Supply Co. v. 0 'Connor, 150 Cal. 265.
250 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
allowed 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."85 Sub-
sequent decisions in mechanics' lien cases have accepted this
ruling in the matter of attorneys' fees.86
FOKFEITUKE 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.87 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.88
Neither the instituting of procedure to establish a lien, nor
the forfeiting of the lien, has any effect on the right of the
ss Builders' Supply Co. v. O'Connor, pp. 268-9.
se Morris v. Wilson, 97 Cal. 646. Spinney v. Griffith, 98 Cal. 149.
87 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.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 251
person attempting to collect the debt to commence a personal
action against the debtor.89
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.90 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 condi-
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.
PEEFEEENCE GIVEN THE LIEN FOE 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.91
The statute of 1868 was most explicit in its directions giving
so Palmer v. White, 70 Cal. 221. Bates v. Santa Barbara Co., 90 Cal. 548.
so Statutes of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 146. Code of Civil
Procedure, Sec. 1201. Not applicable where contract price is less than $1000.
si 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. ITo1- 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."92
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.93 The courts have refused, however, to recognize
the validity of this attempt to create preferred claimants.94
92 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 591.
93 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1885, p. 145, See. 1194.
94 Sec. 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) Sub-contractors.
(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.," an.d 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. (Organized Labor,
December 8, 1900.)
1910] Eaves: California 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 VARIOUS 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. (4)
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.95
This section of the civil code was amended in 1907, extending
the application of the provision, and decreasing the time allowed
for payment.90 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 in the
Civil Code, Sec. 3052.
so Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, pp. 85-6, Sec. 3051, 3052.
254 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
while lawfully in possession of an article of personal property,
renders any service to the owner thereof, by labor or skill, em-
ployed for the protection, improvement, safe-keeping, 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 livestock, 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. The
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, 9T and has been amended and re-enacted
in 1880,98 1887," 1901,100 1905.101 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 prece-
dence 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, while such logs, bolts, or timber are in
the county in which such labor was performed." To retain the
lien, suit must be brought within twenty days.
A similar law is the one granting liens on threshing machines
and barley crushers to any person who performs labor in their
operation. This was another of the numerous measures for the
protection of wages enacted in 1885.102 To enforce this lien,
»7 Statutes of California, 1877-8, p. 747.
»8 Ibid., 1880, p. 38.
so Statutes of California and Amendments, 1886-7, p. 53.
100 Embodied in the revised code of 1901, but declared unconstitutional
because of a defect in the enacting clause.
101 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1905, p. 619. Civil Code,
Sec. 3065.
102 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1884-5, p. 109. Ibid., 1905,
p. 618. C. C., Sec. 3061.
1910] Eaves: 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.103 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. ' '104
LAWS MAKING WAGES PREFERRED 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. ' '105
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,100 constitute preferred claims. In case of the death of
the employer, such wages must be paid before any other claim,
i«3 civil Code, Sec. 3056.
104 lUd., Sec. 2052.
105 Statutes of California, 1867-8, pp. 213-4.
loo 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.107
If the claim for wages is disputed, the claimant must com-
mence an action within ten days,108 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.109 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.110
When it can be shown that a man's earnings are necessary
for the support of his family, his earnings are exempt from
execution.111
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.112
A minimum rate of two dollars per day has been fixed for all
such work. The law requires that a stipulation to that effect
shall be made a requirement of the contracts for state and
municipal work.113
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
107 Code of Civil Procedure, Sees. 1204, 1205, 1206, as amended by Code
Commissioners and adopted in 1907.
108 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 589, Sec. 3, C. C. P., Sec. 1206.
100 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1883, p. 47.
no Ibid., 1901, p. 192.
in Code of Civil Procedure, 1872, p. 165, Sec. 690.
112 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1905, p. 667. Pol. Code, Sec.
653d. See also Statutes, 1871-2, p. 951.
us Statutes of California and Amendments, 1897, p. 90.
1910] 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.114
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. Enos found
that only patrons of the company boarding-house could retain
their places with a certain firm.115
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,110 some of the lumber
companies 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
in Statutes of California and Amendments, 1901, p. 660. Pen. Code,
Sec. 680.
us The "Truck System," Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics, p. 332.
no Collection of Wages, and Time-Check System, Seventh Biennial Re-
port, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 72, 83.
258 University of California 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 pay 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. ' '11T 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. 11-s
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, (4) 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.119
When brought before the Supreme Court the law was de-
clared unconstitutional for a number of reasons, the chief of
which were the following:120
(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.
us Seventh Biennial Ecport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 91.
us Statutes of California, etc., 1897, pp. 231-2.
120 Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co., 127 Cal. 4-17.
1910] 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 other 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 wrhile 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.121
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 property. 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,122 "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 money payments. The section of the mechanics'
lien law123 which provides that, "As to all liens, except that of
121 Skinner v. Garnett Gold Mining Co., 96 Fed. Eep. 735.
122 Ibid., p. 745-6.
123 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1184.
260 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.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 wrhich 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.124
Flans 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. \. Bmun, 136 Cal. 124-5.
1910] Eaves: 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."1 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 effort
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,2 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. [Vo1- 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, ' '3
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."4 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,5 and
the latter not only acts for, but may also act in the place of his
principal.0 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.
(4) Obligations of the servant or employee.
(5) Obligations of the master, and his liability for the in-
jury to his servant.
(1) TERMS OF THE LABOR CONTRACT.
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, Sec. 2009.
4 Ibid., Sec. 1965.
5 Soswell v. Laird, 8 Cal. 489.
« People v. Treadwell, 69 Cal. 236. Sumner v. Nevin, 87 Pac. Rep. 1105.
1910] Eaves: California 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."7 "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."8
In case there is a definite contract covering the length of
the service, either party is liable for damages for its violation,9
though the law will not .enforce such a contract against the
employee for a longer time than two years.10 Under the pro-
visions of the code as amended in 1907,loa 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.11 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.12 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.13
(2) TERMINATION OF SERVICES.
When the employment is for no specified term, it may be
terminated by either party on notice to the other.14 The courts
i Civil Code, Sec. 2010. Sosenberger v. Pac. Coast R. Co., Ill Cal. 318.
s Civil Code, Sec. 2011.
» The employee is liable to damages, though he cannot be forced to
fulfill a contract of personal services.
10 Civil Code, Sec. 1980.
ioa Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, p. 120.
11 Civil Code, Sec. 2012. Gabriel v. Bank of Suisun, 145 Cal. 266; Stone
v. Bancroft, 139 Cal. 81-2 ; Hermann v. Littlefteld, 109 Cal. 432.
12 Civil Code, Sec. 1980; Stone v. Bancroft, 139 Cal. 81-2.
13 Cany v. Halleck, 9 Cal. 198.
i* Civil Code, Sec. 1999.
264 University of California Publications i)i Economics. [Vol.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.1"'
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. 1(!
(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.17
(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 employed him.18 The employee
also has a right to terminate the service at any time, if the
master commits a willful or permanent breach, of his obliga-
tions.1"
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."-1
Other ways in which the service may be terminated are:22
( 1 ) By the expiration of its appointed term ;
is Lord v. Goldberger, 81 Cal. 596. Davidson \. Laughlin, 138 Cal. 320.
16 Civil Code, Sec. 2000.
i? Ibid., Sec. 2015.
is Ibid., Sec. 2015.
19 Ibid., Sec. 2001.
20 Ibid., Sec. 2002. Hartman v. Eogers, 69 Cal. 646.
21 Civil Code, Sec. 2003.
22 Ibid., Sees. 1996, 1997, 1998.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 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 without the aid of the deceased person.23 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.24 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.25
(3) DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OP THE LABOE CONTRACT.
There are two principles which regulate the recovery of
damages for violation of the contract of employment :26
( 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.27 If the
employee violates the contract, and his employer is obliged to
pay more than the contract price in order to have the wrork done,
then this extra sum is the amount of the damages sustained.28
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.
2-t/bid., Sec. 1998; Weithoff v. Murray, 76 Cal. 508.
-•> Louis v. El felt, 89 Cal. 547.
20 Utter v. Chapman, 38 Cal. 662.
2? Ibid., p. 554. Cedcnberg v. Oobison, 100 Cal. 93.
28 Utter v. Chapman, 38 Cal. 664.
266 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- ^
the duty of an employee who is .wrongfully discharged to seek
other opportunities to work, and thus lessen the amount of dam-
ages sustained.-0 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,30 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.31
(4) OBLIGATIONS OF THE SERVANT OE 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.32 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.33 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."34
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."35 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. McGrath, 38 Cal. 666. Bosenberger v. Pac. Coast By. Co.,
Ill Cal. 318. Stone v. Bancroft, 139 Cal. 81. Utter v. Chapman, 38 Cal. 659_
30 Bosenberger v. Pac. Coast By. Co., Ill Cal. 318.
31 Webster v. Wade, 19 Cal. 291.
32 Civil Code, Sec. 1979.
S3 Ibid., Sees. 1978, 1983, 1984.
34 Ibid., Sec. 1975.
35 Ibid., Sec. 1977.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 267
by such negligence, and he can recover payment only for such
services as are properly rendered.30
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.37 In the absence of instruc-
tions he must do the work in conformity to the usage of the
place, unless this is manifestly impracticable, or injurious to
the employer.38
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.3" All that he acquires by virtue of his 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.40 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.41
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";42 while the latter is only
se Civil Code, Sec. 1990.
37 Ibid., Sec. 1981.
••* Ibid., Sec. 1982.
3'J Gower v. Andrews, 59 Cal. 119.
40 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.)
41 «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
case 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. tVo1- 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.43
(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. While 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 :44
(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.40 Different degrees of responsibility
of the employer for the safety of the implements of work are
recognized in the opinions of the courts :
•M Civil Code, Sees. 1986, 1987.
44 Ibid., Sees. 1969, 1971.
43 Out of fifty-eight decisions for the employee, thirty-four were
granted because of this failure.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 269
(1) Where suitable materials have been furnished for con-
structing safe appliances and 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,46
unless the latter was acting as a vice-principal.47
(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,48 unless the neglect was that of an employee acting
as a vice-principal.49
•IG In an accident due to the failure of the employee to put in the
necessary staples to hold a load on a flat-car 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 Ey. Co., 138 Cal. 511. Leishman v. Union Iron Works, 148 Cal. 274.
Burns v. Sennett # Miller, 99 Cal. 373.)
•*7 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 e.n-
phasize the doctrine of vice-principal. In the case 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 such 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 o£ 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 $ Cantrel, 138 Cal. 526.)
48 "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
Helling 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 <Jf the act. That is to say, if it be an act
"270 University 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.50
These requirements of reasonable care to provide safe condi-
tions of work do not mean that the master insures his servant
against injury.51 The decisions clearly recognize the possibility
•of unavoidable accidents,52 or of latent defects in the machinery
the duty for the performance of which belongs in law to the master, if
the performance 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.)
•~«o « 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 other is a superior
officer, agent, or servant, or a subordinate or inferior agent or servant."
(Mullen v. Cal. Horseshoe Co., 105 Cal. 83.)
' ' The duty of inspection is affirmative 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 Lumber and Milling Co., 104
Cal. 539.)
See also Bowman v. White, 110 Cal. 23; Jager v. Cal. B. Co., 104 Cal.
546; Pacheco v. Judson Mfg. Co., 113 Cal. 545.
si Malone v. Haidey, 46 Cal. 409.
D2 In Lindell v. 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.53 Nor
•does the law require that the employer shall adopt every new
invention or improvement, even though they might have given
igreater security to his workmen.54
(2) Care in the selection of fellow-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 want 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.55 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.30
(3) Obligation to give instructions 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 employees. 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.
ns « 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.
si "The master is not bound to adopt every latest improvement in
machinery, nor is he liable for an accident which 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. E. Co., 91 Cal. 57.)
55 Holland v. So. Pac. Co., 100 Cal. 240.
so 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 known 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. r>8 The courts emphasize most strongly
this obligation of instruction and warning in cases where minors
are exposed to injury from dangerous machinery or conditions
of labor, as their youth and inexperience render them peculiarly
liable to accidents.39
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOE IlsURY TO THE EMPLOYEE.
When the employer 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 necessarv 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. Eoberts, 44 Cal. 193.)
as "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 approval from a Wisconsin case, Mansfield \. Eagle Box, et:'., Co.,
136 Cal. 625. See also Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410; Ryan v. Los An-
geles Ice # C. S. Co., 112 Cal. 244; VerdeW v. Gray's Harbor Com. Co., 115
Cal. 517.
r.u " 'Where the servant has equal knowledge with the master of the
danger incident to the work, he takes the risk upon himself if he goes
on with it.' This doctrine presupposes that the servant has sufficient
discretion to appreciate the dangers incident to the work, and has no
application to the case of young and inexperienced children. In such a
case it is the duty of the master not only to warn the child, but to in-
struct him as to the dangers of the employment and the means of avoid-
ing them.'' (Fisk v. Cen. Pac. E. E. Co., 72 Cal. 43; MitUin v. Cal. Horse-
shoe Co., 105 Cal. 77; O'Connor v. Golden Gate Woolen Mfg. Co., 135 Cal.
537; Grijalra v. S. P. Co., 137 Cal. 569.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 273
inevitable, then he becomes liable to damages if injuries result
from such negligence.
In the early days of placer mining, and individual ownership
of the commercial and manufacturing enterprises of the state,
very few cases of employers' liability were brought to the Cali-
fornia courts. Only twelve of these cases are found in the
Supreme Court records prior to 1880. Since then there have
been great changes in the economic conditions of the state.
The deep mining carried on by blasting, an increased use of
high-power machinery, greater difficulties connected with the
supervision of the larger factories, the utilization of less intel-
ligent and skillful workmen made possible by the minute division
of labor, the impossibility of fixing responsibility in the vast
industries, or systems of transportation controlled by corpor-
ations, and the growth of an intricate system of sub-contracting,
have each tended to multiply the risks of the employees, and to
increase the difficulty of establishing claims of damages for
injuries.
It is probable that the increased number of cases is also due
to the employees attaining a greater knowledge of their legal
rights and a stronger disposition and greater ability to maintain
them, as a result of the extensive development of the trade-
unions.
As already pointed out, the sections of the California codes
dealing with the relations of master and servant were taken
from the English common law, as embodied in the New York
codes. Aside from some unimportant changes made in 1874,
no valid amendments00 were made to these sections until 1903.
These laws were the product of an economic system charac-
terized by the use of hand tools, and an intimate personal
relationship between the master and servant. It has been neces-
sary to depend on the decisions of the courts to adjust them
to the more complex conditions of modern industry. While
these decisions show development in favor of the better pro-
tection of the employees, definite statutory enactment was needed
to overcome the defects to which were due many decisions which
00 The amendments of 1901 were declared unconstitutional. (Lewis
v. Dunne, 134 Cal. 291.)
274 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2
have failed to give the legal protection that civilized people now
expect from the state.
The rulings of the courts refusing to permit the recovery of
damages for injuries due to the negligence of fellow-employees
who had the right to direct the injured servant, or who worked
in a different department from him, and the decisions refusing
redress because the danger was known to the person injured,
have given rise to the greatest criticism. We will examine some
of these cases for the purpose of making clear the evils whi&h
the legislation of 1903 and 1907 sought to remedy.
EECOGNITION OF THE DOCTEINE OF VICE-PEINCIPAL BY THE
CALIFORNIA COUETS.
The first case01 presenting to the California Supreme Court
the question of liability for the negligence of a fellow-employee
who was also in charge of the work, or who was acting in the
capacity of a vice-principal, occurred in 1876. A man named
McLean, in the employ of the Blue Point Gravel Mining Co.,
was injured by a blast fired by one Kegan, a foreman of the
company, who had the power to hire and discharge employees.
In deciding this case the court declared, "The law of the state
respecting this subject, as set forth in the Code referred to,02
recognizes no distinction growing out of the grades of employ-
ment of the respective employees ; nor does it give any effect to
the circumstance that the fellow-servant, through whose negli-
gence the injury came, was the superior of the plaintiff in the
general service in which they were, in common, engaged, and the
alleged distinction in this respect insisted upon by the appellant 's
counsel, founded, as he claims, on general principles of law and
adjudged cases, requires no examination at our hands. ' 'G3
The same question came before the Supreme Court again in
«i There are several cases involving the question of liability for the
acts of a simple fellow-servant prior to this time. Conlon v. S. F. $• S. J.
B. B. Co., 36 Cal. 404; Yeoman v. Contra Costa S. N. Co., 44 Cal. 72; Col-
lier v. Steinhart, 51 Cal. 116.
02 Civil Code, Sec. 1970, prior to the amendment of 1903, read: "An
employer is not bound to indemnify his employee for losses suffered by
the latter in consequence of the ordinary risks of the business in which
he is employed, nor in consequence of the negligence of another person
employed by the same employer in the same general business, unless he
has neglected to use ordinary care in the selection of the culpable em-
ployee." Taken from Sec. 811 of the New York Code of 1862.
03 McLean v. Blue Point Gravel Co., 51 Cal. 255.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 275
1880. The widow of a man- whose death was due to the neglect
of the superintendent of a mine to make safe an appliance
constructed under his supervision,04 had been awarded eight
thousand dollars by the lower court. The defendant appealed
from this decision. The counsel for the respondent called at-
tention to the criticism of the California decisions under Sec.
1970 of the Civil Code in a work on negligence, in which it
was declared that they were not in accordance with the views
of many American courts as to what the common law is. These
had held that, "Where the master delegates to an agent the
entire control of the business, including the power to employ
and discharge servants, such agent is not a fellow-servant with
those whom he employs, but is the representative of the master
in such a sense that his negligence is the master's negligence."65
The court adopted this view, and held in this case that where
the business was in charge of an employee, then the principal
was liable for the negligence of such a middleman, and declared
that the superintendent was not a fellow-servant of the men
whom he employed to work in the mine.06 Following this de-
cision, there have been a number of cases where the courts have
held that a person who has entire charge in the absence of the
principal, and who has the right to employ and discharge, is
not the fellow-servant of his subordinates.07
c4 It will be seen that the point at issue in the two cases is not quite
the same. In McLean v. Blue Point Gravel Co. the accident was due to
the negligent performance of an act in the course of the business, while
in the later case the superintendent failed to exercise care in the per-
formance of a duty which the law charges to the employer. But in both
cases the doctrine of vice-principal is clearly stated and ruled upon by
the court. Beeson v. Green Mt. Gold Mining Co., 57 Gal. 20.
es Beeson v. Green Mt. Gold Mining Co., 57 Gal. 24.
66 "Whenever the nature of the business is such as to involve the
appointment of subalterns by middlemen, and to withhold the principal
from the management of the business, then the principal is liable for the
negligence of the middleman in making the appointments, on the ground
that the negligence is that of the principal, and not of a fellow-servant
of the plaintiff. A fortiori is this the case where the middleman has the
direct authority to make such appointments; otherwise it is hard to see
in what case a corporation, which appoints and dismisses only through
a general superintendent, can be liable for negligence. ' ' (Beeson v. Green
Mt. Gold Mining Co., 57 Gal. 30.)
e? Brown v. Sennett, 68 Gal. 229; McCune v. Col. 8. B. Co., 66 Gal. 305;
Ryan v. Los Angeles I. $• C. S. Co., 112 Gal. 254; Higgins v. Williams, 114
Gal. 182.
In Foley v. Cal. Horseshoe Co., 115 Gal. 195, it was held that an assist-
ant foreman and a boy under his control, subject to his orders, were not
fellow-servants so as to relieve the common employer from damages for
injuries due to the neglect of the assistant foreman.
276 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
We have already pointed out the recognition which the Cali-
fornia courts have given to the doctrine of vice-principal in
cases of the negligence of an employee in the discharge of duties
which are a part of the legal obligations of the employer. When
it is a question of furnishing suitable appliances, or a safe place
of work, or of giving information of the dangers incurred in
the business, then the person discharging such duties is not a
fellow-servant, but acts for the principal.08 This is true even
in the case of an employee who in all other respects holds a
subordinate position.
The California courts refused to extend the application of
this doctrine of vice-principal so that it would include all em-
ployees who had the right of direction or control. They repeat-
edly held that a foreman was the fellow-servant of the men under
his control. In cases where the neglect of the foreman to give
notice of blasting, or to close an open switch, or to put proper
timbers in a tunnel, resulted in the death or serious injury of
68 " If the act was one which it was the duty of the employer to per-
form towards its servants, and one of them negligently performed it to
the injury of another servant in the same common employment, then the
offending servant in the performance of such duty acted as the repre-
sentative or agent of his employer, for which the employer is responsible.
. . . Was then the act or omission which caused the injury a per-
sonal duty which the defendant corporation owed to the deceased while
he was engaged in the performance of his duties as its employee? If
it was, then the deceased was not at fault, then the corporate defendant
is liable, otherwise not." (Daves v. Southern Pac. Co., 98 Cal. 24.)
A carpenter who makes the scaffold used by his fellow-workmen is not
their fellow-servant in so far as the construction of the scaffold is con-
concerned, but represents his employer who is liable for negligence in the
making of such a scaffold. (McNamara v. McVonough, 102 Cal. 582.
Compare froyes v. Wood, 102 Cal. 393, a case where the court refused to
allow recovery for the negligence of a foreman of painters in construction
of a scaffold.)
' ' 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 acci-
dent. It is the character of the act. That is to say, if it be an act the
duty for the performance of which belongs in law to the master, if the
performance be delegated to the least of his servants or to the greatest,
in either case, and in any case, the master is responsible, unless that act
be performed with due care; ... if the act be one which it was the
duty of the employer to perform, and one of the servants negligently
performs it to the injury of another servant in the same common employ-
ment, then the offending servant in the performance of this duty acts as
the representative or agent of his employer, and the employer is respon-
sible. " (Skelton v. Pac. Lumber Co., 140 Cal. 511.)
See also Congrave v. Southern Pac. Co., 88 Cal. 369 ; Elledge v. National
and 0. R. Co., 100 Cal. 291; Nixon v. Selby S. # L. Co., 102 Cal. 458; Bee-
son v. Green Mt. G. M. Co., 57 Cal. 20.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 277
the workmen under his control, the Supreme Court refused to
allow damages, on the ground that the law permitted no recovery
for accidents due to the negligence of a fellow-servant.00
GREAT EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF THE FELLOW-SERVANT
RULINGS.
The refusal to hold the employer liable for injuries due to
the negligence of a fellow-servant has also worked great hard-
ships in many cases in which men have been injured through
the negligence of others employed in a different line of work,
or in another department of the same general business. The
laborer shoveling snow from the railroad track was held to be
the fellow-servant of the conductor of the train that ran over
him;70 the miners working in the bottom of the shaft were
fellow-servants of the careless. engineer who let the buckets or
timbers fall upon them;71 the man hired to repair an elevator
shaft was the fellow-servant of the heedless operator who started
the elevator without warning;72 the ignorant child was the fel-
low-servant of the thoughtless workman who sent him to dan-
gerous and unaccustomed work;73 the employee in the steward's
department was the fellow-servant of the ship's mate;74 as the
industries of the state have grown in extent and complexity
of organization, the workmen have multiplied their associates,
until in many instances they are exposed to accidents due to the
negligence of one or more of an army of fellow-servants, whose
characters and abilities are necessarily unknown. The time-
worn legal fiction that justifies exemption from liability in such
cases by the claim that the workmen know the conditions under
which their work must be done, and have voluntarily assumed
the risks, has no justification in the facts, when applied to the
vast, highly organized, industries of modern times.
eo Stephens v. Doe, 73 Cal. 26 ; Donovan v. Ferris, 128 Cal. 48 ; Daves v.
S. P. Co., 98 Cal. 19.
TO Fagundes v. Central Pac. Co., 79 Cal. 97.
7i Collier v. Steinhart, 51 Cal. 116; Trewaltha v. Buchanan G. M. $• M.
Co., 96 Cal.' 494.
^Mann v. 0 'Sullivan, 126 Cal. 61.
73 Fisk v. Cen. Pac. E. E. Co., 72 Cal. 38.
7* Livingston v. Kodiak P. Co., 103 Cal. 258.
278 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
DECISIONS WHERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER PREVENTED
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.
Another ground on which the courts have frequently refused
to permit the recovery of damages is found in the ruling that,
where the servant knows the danger, and yet continues to incur
the risk of accident, the master is not liable for injuries.73 This
is based on the code provision declaring that "an employer is
not bound to indemnify his employee for losses suffered by the
latter in consequences of the ordinary risks of the business. ' '70
In cases where the danger is not necessarily incident to the
business, but due to defects in the appliances or other conditions
that could have been remedied by the employer, the California
courts have shown a growing reluctance to enforce this rule
that knowledge of danger debars from recovery. In a number
of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the injured
workman can recover damages, if he was not fully aware of the
personal risks that he ran.77
75 "Where a party works with, or in the vicinity of a piece of ma-
chinery insufficient for the purposes for which it is employed, or for any
reason unsafe, with a knowledge or means of knowledge of its condition,
he takes the risk incident to the employment in which he is thus engaged,
and cannot maintain an action for injuries sustained.'' (McGlynn v.
Brodie, 31 Cal. 379.)
An employee accepting employment, knowing of certain defects in
the machinery, knowing the extent of danger therefrom, and knowing
that the complement of men to perform the work was insufficient, and of
the danger therefrom, accepts the risks of such employment, and cannot
recover for injuries occurring thereby. (Long v. Coronado E. Co., 96 Cal.
273.)
Limberg v. Glenwood L. Co., 127 Cal. 603. Murdock v. Oakland E. L. <$•
H. E. B. Co., 128 Cal. 27.
76 Civil Code, Sec. 1970.
7? Thus in 1880 it was held in the case of an engineer whose death was
due to the failure of the railroad company to fence its tracks, that his
knowledge of the danger prevented recovery. (Sweeney v. Central Pac.
E. E. Co., 57 Cal. 18.) Nine years later this decision was overruled in a
similar case. (Magee v. N. Pac. Co., 78 Cal. 437.)
' ' 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 follow from such defects; although he is
in no better position if he is ignorant of the defects and the risks and
dangers by reason of his failure to exercise ordinary common sense and
prudence in the examination of the instruments and appliances placed in
his hands with which to labor." (Alexander v. Cent. L. $• M. Co., 104
Cal. 539.)
The only exception to the rule that the servant, when aware of the
danger he runs in using defective appliance, takes the risk thereof, is
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 279
Even when the employee is fully aware of all the risks in-
curred by continuing work under unsafe conditions, he is not
always obliged to leave his place immediately on discovery of
such dangers. He must notify his employer of the defects, and
on receiving assurance that the matter will be remedied, may
wait a reasonable time for the fulfillment of such promises, with-
out forfeiting his right to recover damages for injuries.78 It
is important that the servant give this notice of all defects
which he may discover in the appliances, for if the employer is
not aware of the unsafe conditions, and could not have learned
where he was not aware of the danger incident to the defect. (Limberg
v. Glenwood L. Co., 127 Cal. 600.;
' ' It has been often said that the master is not liable for defects in
such things to a servant whose means of knowledge thereof were equal
to those of the master. But this is an erroneous statement. The master
has no right to assume that the servant will use such means of knowl-
edge, because it is not part of the duty of the servant to inquire into
the sufficiency of these things. The servant has a right to rely on the
master's inquiry, because it is the master's duty so to inquire; and the
servant may justly assume that all these things are fit and suitable for
the use which he is directed to make of them. The true definition is,
that when circumstances make it the duty of the servant to inquire, it is
contributory negligence on his part not to inquire. A servant is charge-
able with actual notice as to matters concerning which it was his duty to
inquire. (Shearman and Eedfield on Negligence, Sec. 287, cited in Magee
v. N. P. C. E. B. Co., 78 Cal. 437.)
' ' And when it is claimed that the injured employee was himself guilty
of such negligence as to bar him from recovering damages for his in-
juries, it must appear that he not only knew, or had the means of knowl-
edge, of the unsafeness of the place, appliance, or machinery, but also
that he knew, or ought to have known, of the danger to which he was
himself personally exposed. ' ' (Mullen v. Cal. Horeshoe Co., 105 Cal. 83.
See also Mansfield v. Eagle Box Co., 136 Cal. 625; Lee v. S. P. B. B. Co.,
101 Cal. 122; Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410; Eyan v. Los Angeles etc.
Co., 112 Cal. 244; Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor etc. Co., 115 Cal. 517.)
78 Where the employee upon discovery of defect in appliance or place
of work at once makes complaint to his employer, and has been promised
that it should be remedied, he will be justified in continuing work for a
reasonable time in the expectation that the promise will be kept. (Mur-
doch v. Oakland, S. L. $ H. E. B. Co., 128 Cal. 26.) If the exercise of ordi-
nary prudence demands that the employee stop work at once upon dis-
covering defect or danger in apparatus or place of work, he must stop,
but if otherwise, he should make complaint to the master of defect, and
for a reasonable time thereafter cannot be held as matter of law, to have
assumed risk. (Ibid., p. 27.)
Mere continuance of the servant in his work in the face of known
danger only raises a question for the jury (as to whether he was guilty
of contributory negligence in so doing). Magee v. North Pac. C. B. Co.,
78 Cal. 436.
Where a servant makes complaint to his master of defect in appli-
ances and the master remains silent, and the servant continues to use the
defective appliances beyond a reasonable time thereafter, he assumes the
risks incident to the defects. (Limberg v. Glenwood L. Co., 127 Cal. 601.)
280 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
of them by the exercise of ordinary care, then he is not liable
for any injury that may result.79
DAMAGES ALLOWED FOR INJURIES OR DEATH.
The first California law providing for the payment of dam-
ages for death or injury due to negligence was passed in 1862,
and was intended chiefly for the protection of pedestrians from
defective sidewalks or wharves.80 This act was embodied in
the Code of Civil Procedure of 1872.81 Two years later the law
was made more general in its application by striking out the
specific references to sidewalks. It was also brought into closer
conformity to the law in other parts of the country by the
omission of the part allowing the jury to fix exemplary damages,
or damages that would serve as a warning or punishment, in
addition to those covering the pecuniary loss of the plaintiff.82
™ There have been several cases where judgment has been given for
the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had the better opportunity
to learn of the danger. (McGlynn v. Brodie, 31 Cal. 382, 385. Thompson
v. Cal. Const. Co., 148 Cal. 35.)
' ' The master is not liable for dangers existing in the place where the
servant is assigned to work, unless the master knows of the dangers or
defects, or might have known thereof if he used ordinary care or skill
to ascertain them. This rule applies with greater force in cases where
the conditions surrounding the place of work are constantly changing,
owing to the progress of the work. The rule is further modified by the
proposition that where the servant is under the same obligation as the
master is to look for dangers in the place of work, and has equal facil-
ities for ascertaining them, and under these conditions continues the
work, the master is not liable for any injury caused by the dangers thus
existing, unless in some manner he urges or coerces the servant to con-
tinue the work after he himself is aware, or should have been aware, of
the danger." (Thompson v. Cal. Cons. Co., 148 Cal. 39-40.)
so Statutes of 1862, p. 447-8.
si ' ' When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or
neglect of another, his heirs or personal representatives may maintain an
action for damages against the person causing the death; or when the
death of a person is caused by an injury received in falling through any
opening or defective place in any sidewalk, street, alley, square, or wharf,
his heirs or personal representatives may maintain an action for dam-
ages against the person whose duty it was, at the time of the injury, to
have kept in repair such sidewalk or other place. In every such action
the jury may give such damages, pecuniary or exemplary, as under all
the circumstances of the case, may to them seem just." (C. C. P. (1872),
377.)
82 The amended section which has been the law since 1874 reads:
' ' When the death of a person not being a minor is caused by the wrong-
ful act or neglect of another, his heirs or personal representatives may
maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death, or
if such person be employed by another person who is responsible for his
conduct, then also against such other person. In every action under this
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 281
In estimating damages for injuries, the judges and juries
must consider the costs of medical attendance, and the pecuniary
loss due to temporary inability to work, or to permanent inca-
pacity or lessening of earning power, and also the physical and
mental suffering of the plaintiff.83
When damages are sought for the death of a relative, these
last factors do not enter into the estimate of the amount to be
awarded, as the injury to be measured is not that sustained by
the deceased person, but by the surviving heirs.84 While in
such cases the law does not allow damages for mental suffering,
the Supreme Court has sustained instructions to the jury which
permitted a consideration of harmonious personal relations in
estimating pecuniary damages claimed by a widow for the loss
of her husband."5
The amounts awarded by California juries in employer's
liability cases have varied from a few hundred dollars for slight
injuries, to twenty-five thousand dollars for permanent maiming
or death.
and the preceding section, such damages may be given as under all the
circumstances of the case may be just." (Amdts. to Codes, 1873-4, p.
294.)
The damages for injuries not resulting in death are allowed in sections
1969 and 1971 of the Civil Code. The latter section reads as follows:
' ' An employer must in all ca'ses indemnify his employee for losses caused
by the former's want of ordinary care."
83 ' ' The jury should have been told that in estimating the damages
they might consider what, before the injury complained of, was the
health and physical ability of the plaintiff to maintain himself and
family, if he had one, as compared with his condition in these particu-
lars afterwards; his loss of time, and how far the injury was permanent
in its character and results, as well as the physical and mental suffering
he had sustained by reason of the injury, and that they should allow
such sum for damages as in their opinion would fairly and justly com-
pensate him for all the loss and injury sustained." (Malone v. Hqwley,
46 Cal. 415.)
84 Pecuniary damages are limited to the probable value of the life of
the deceased to relatives. (Morgan v. S. P. B. Co. 95 Oal. 510.)
ss < < We are of opinion that the Court erred in including in the instruc-
tions the words 'sorrow, grief, and mental suffering occasioned by the
death of the son to his mother. '.'•.. The damage should be con-
fined to the pecuniary loss suffered by the mother ana tne loss of the
comfort, society, support, and protection of deceased. ' ' (Munro v. P. C.
Dredging $• B. Co., 84 Cal. 527.)
"If husband and wife had lived together, in concord, each rendering
kindly offices to the other, such facts might be taken into consideration;
not, as the books say, for the purpose of affording solace in money, but
for the purpose of estimating pecuniary losses. ' ' (Beeson v. Green Mt.
G. M. Co., 57 Cal. 20.)
282 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE'S LIABILITY LAWS, 1903, 1907.
In our study of the supreme court decisions we have indi-
cated the chief defects of the early laws defining the responsi-
bility of the employer for the safety of those engaged in his
service; we have also shown the growing disposition, in recent
cases, to interpret more and more strictly the legal obligations
of the employer. The amendments to the employer's liability
laws made in 1903 and 1907 first gave statutory sanction to these
recent Supreme Court rulings, and then took a definite step in
advance by defining and extending the application of the doc-
trine of vice-principal, and by limiting the number of persons
who could be included in the exemptions under the fellow-
servant rulings.
As in the case of other important labor legislation, the em-
ployers' liability bills originated in the San Francisco Labor
Council, and were endorsed by the State Federation of Labor.
The 1903 bill proposed to add a clause to Sec. 1970 of the Civil
Code, so that it would read: "The employer is not bound to
indemnify his employee for losses suffered by the latter in
consequence of the risks of the business in which he is employed,
nor in consequence of the negligence of another person employed
by the same employer in the same general business, unless in the
course of the employer's business such other person has the power
of ordering or directing said injured employee in the perform-
ance of his work,SG or unless the employer has neglected to use
ordinary care in the selection of the culpable employee."
This first attempt to modify the employers' liability laws of
the state met with vigorous opposition. When the measure
came up for consideration in the senate, an entire session was
given to the spirited debate, during which a number of amend-
ments were offered and rejected. The mining interests claimed
to be most endangered by the proposed changes in the law,
though it was declared that it was aimed chiefly at the railroad
companies. One of the bitterest opponents of the bill asserted
that its passage would put an end to the mining industry of the
*>« The amendment proposed is in italics.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 283
state.87 The mine owners hastened to send in a petition which
claimed that the passage of such a law would necessitate the
closing down of many, if not all, low-grade mines. They pointed
out that "Under the proposed laws, at different times in the
active operation of mines, nearly every man employed about a
mine would become a vice-principal and the company or owner
thereof be liable for his acts. ' '8S
An amended bill was finally passed which, in place of the
substantial gains proposed in the original measure, merely gave
statutory sanction to what had already been fully recognized in
the Supreme Court decisions. The clause holding the employer
liable for the negligence of all those who had the right to direct
or command was stricken out, and a substitute inserted to the
effect "unless the negligence causing the injury was committed
in the performance of a duty the employer owes to the em-
ployee. ' '80
In 1905 the Labor Council returned its original bill which
amended Sec. 1970 of the Civil Code, making the employer
liable for the negligence of a vice-principal, and also proposed
the addition of two new sections to the code defining vice-
principal and fellow-servant.90 Owing to the delay of the man
entrusted with the introduction of these measures, they died on
the files.
These unsuccessful efforts to amend the employer's liability
laws only called attention to the demand for legislation on this
«7 Sacramento Becord-Union, February 6, 1903.
ss Ibid., February 13, 1903.
&o Ibid., February 20, 1903; also Labor Clarion, March 27, 1903.
0° Sec. 1972. — All persons engaged in the service of any person or
firm, or any corporation, foreign or domestic, doing business in this State,
who are entrusted by such person, firm, or corporation with the authority
or superintendence, control, or command of other persons in the employ
or service of such firm, or corporation, or with authority to direct any
other employee, are vice-principals of such person, firm, or corporation,
and are not fellow-servants with such employee.
Sec. 1937. — All persons who are engaged in the common service of
any person, firm, or corporation, and who while so engaged, are working
together to a common purpose of some grade neither of such persons
being entrusted by said person, firm, or corporation, with any superin-
tendence or control over their fellow-employees, are fellow-servants with
each other; provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to make
employees fellow-servants with other employees engaged in any other
department or service of such person, firm, or corporation. Employees
who do not come within the provisions of this section shall not be con-
sidered fellow-servants.
284 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
subject, and helped prepare the way for more radical changes
than had been attempted in the first bill which met with such
vigorous opposition. In 1907 bills intended for the limitation
of the application of the fellow-servant rulings in cases where
railroad employees were injured through the negligence of supe-
rior officers, or those in a different department of labor, and
also the employer's liability and fellow-servant bills of more
general application, were introduced.01 The railroad employer's
liability bill passed the assembly, and was held in abeyance
awaiting the fate of a similar measure which had been intro-
duced in the senate. This latter bill, which had been proposed
by Senator Leavitt, was finally passed.92
A part of the amendments of 1907 were like those of 1903
in that they merely embodied in the statutes principles already
recognized in the Supreme Court rulings. In addition, two im-
portant new points were gained which had been refused in 1903
and 1905. The new law holds the employer responsible for
the negligence of a co-employee who has the right to direct the
person injured, and also refuses to permit the fellow-servant
ruling to apply to those working in a different department, or
on some other machine or appliance than that where the injured
employee was working.93
It will be well by way of review to analyze our employers'
liability law as it now stands, in order to discover the sources
of its various clauses. The new provisions were all added to
Sec. 1970 of the civil code, which was originally taken from
the New York code, and enacted in the California Civil Code
in 1872. This oldest part of the law reads: "An employer is
not bound to indemnify his employee for losses suffered by the
latter in consequence of the ordinary risks of the business, in
which he is employed, nor in consequence of the negligence of
another person employed by the same employer in the same
general business, . . . unless he [the employer] has neg-
9i Assembly bill No. 60, introduced by Lemon. Senate bill No. 162,
by Leavitt. Assembly bills Nos. 76 and 77, by Eshleman. Substitute
bill No. 736, by Leavitt. For full history of bills, see Senate and Assem-
bly Journals.
02 Senate bill No. 736.
ss Statutes of California and Amendments, 1907, pp. 119-120.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 285
lected to use ordinary care in the selection of the culpable em-
ployee." The omitted section is the amendment of 1903, which
is as follows: "unless the negligence causing the injury was
committed in the performance of a duty which the employer
owes by law to the employee. "
The real gains are contained in the proviso added in 1907 :
"Provided, nevertheless, that the employer shall be liable for
such injury when the same results from the wrongful act, neg-
lect, or default of any agent or officer of such employer, superior
to the employee injured, or of a person employed by such em-
ployer having the right to control or direct the services of such
employee injured, and also when such injury results from the
wrongful act, neglect or default of a co-employee engaged in
another department of labor from that of the employee injured,
or employed upon a machine, railroad train, switch signal point,
locomotive engine, or other appliance than that upon which the
employee who is injured is employed, or who is charged with
dispatching trains, or transmitting telegraphic or telephonic
orders upon any railroad, or in the operation of any mine, fac-
tory, machine shop, or other establishment." It will be seen
that by these additions the fellow-servant plea is limited in its
application to cases where the negligence is that of a person of
equal rank, and in immediate association with the injured work-
man.
In the next paragraph of the law we again recognize the
court rulings. It provides, "Knowledge by any employee in-
jured of the defective or unsafe character or condition of any
machinery, ways, appliances, or structures of such employer
shall not be a bar to recovery for any injury or death caused
thereby, unless it shall also appear that such employee fully
understood, comprehended and appreciated the dangers inci-
dent to the use of such defective machinery, ways, appliances
or structures, and thereafter consented to use the same, or con-
tinued in the use thereof."
This is followed by further amendments taken partly from
the code of civil procedure,114 and partly from decisions : ' ' When
death, whether instantaneous or otherwise, results from an in-
'•>+Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 377; embodied in the C. C. P. of 1872,
as a substitute for Act of 1862, p. 447.
286 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
jury to an employee received as aforesaid, the personal repre-
sentative of such employee shall have a right of action therefor
against such employer, and may recover damages in respect
thereof, for and on behalf, and for the benefit of the widow,
children, dependent parents, and dependent brothers and sisters,
in order of precedence as herein stated, but no more than one
action shall be brought for such recovery."
The workman cannot contract to forego any of the advan-
tages which this law allows him, as it contains a stipulation:
"Any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any
such employee to waive the benefits of this section, or any part
thereof, shall be null and void, and this section shall not 1/e
construed to deprive any such employee or his personal repre-
sentative, of any right or remedy to which he is now entitled
under the laws of this State. The rules and principles of law
as to contributory negligence which apply to other cases shall
apply to cases arising under this section, except in so far as the
same are herein modified or changed."
These amendments have done away with the most unjust
features of the old common-law rulings, but we still fall far
short of the protection given by the industrial insurance laws
of a number of the great nations of Europe. Moreover, such
benefits as these California laws confer can be gained only by
costly and lengthy litigation. That the employee is far less
able than the employer to maintain an extended fight for his
rights, is shown by the fact that seventy-five per cent, of the
Supreme Court cases of this kind were appealed by the employer.
The costs of the law-suits contesting the rights of the em-
ployees to the payment of damages are so great that, with these
recent enactments extending his liability, the California em-
ployer must soon be brought to a realization of the fact thai-
it would be cheaper, as well as more humane, to insure his em-
ployees against all accidents, not due to gross negligence on the
part of the injured person. Thus the amendments to the em-
ployers' liability laws are significant not merely because they
give greater protection to the working people of the state, but
also because they are paving the way for that completer insur-
ance against industrial accidents that is now provided by the
laws of the other great civilized nations.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 287
CHAPTER X.
LAWS REGULATING THE LABOR OF CHILDREN.
There are but few states in the Union where the labor of
children has been so little utilized as in California. Women
and children did not come with the first great influx of popu-
lation; and, in later years when the number of growing fam-
ilies multiplied, the Chinese monopolized the lighter tasks that
usually fall to the boys and girls. From its inception the
California labor movement has stood for the protection and
education of the children of the wage- workers ; and the trade-
unions have exerted the greatest influence on public opinion in
the sections of the state which have offered the greatest tempta-
tions for an early entry into the ranks of the wage-earners.
The enforcement of this policy restricting child labor has also
been promoted by the good economic conditions that have been
characteristic of the state. It has rarely been necessary for
young children to contribute to their own support, and ambitious
parents have usually been able to give their children extended
educational advantages.
LAWS FOR THE REGULATION 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, 1 though several bills dealing
with the subject were presented to the legislature prior to this
time.2 During the sixties amendments were made to the ap-
prentice law authorizing charitable societies and public officials
to apprentice dependent children.3 The main features of these
1 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 134.
2 Assembly Journal, 1852, p. 55. Ibid., 1857, p. 898.
s Statutes of California, 1860, p. 37; 1862, p. 515; 1863, p. 59; 3870,
p. 334.
288 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
early apprentice laws were embodied in the civil code of 1872. 4
Four years later the apprentice regulations were revised.5 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.6
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 payment of the cost of his passage to
California. This section was applicable only to minors, but
permitted the year of service to extend beyond 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.7 These provisions were contained in the civil
code of 1872, but 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. ' 's
Subsequent legislation allowed apprenticeship "to any mechan-
ical trade or art, or to the occupation of farming."9 All the
laws provide that the child shall be fourteen years old or over10
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, 1872, Sees. 254-276.
5 Statutes of California, 1875-6, p. 842.
0 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 560.
Civil Code, 264.
7 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 135, Sec. 11.
8 Ibid., p. 134, Sec. 1. The 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.)
191°] 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.11 He
is a party to the suit which the master may bring for the viola-
tion of the contract, and may be compelled to pay the costs of
such a suit after he attains his majority.12 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.13
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,14
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.15
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,10 the super-
11 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 134, Sec. 3; 1860, p. 37; 1875-6, p.
843; Civil Code, Sec. 266.
12 Civil Code, Sec. 274.
is Ibid. Sec. 273.
i* 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.)
is Civil Code, Sec. 265.
16 Statutes of California, 1860, p. 37; 1862, p. 515; 1863. 59; 1870,
334-5.
290 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
visors of counties,17 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.18
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.19
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.20
(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.21
(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.
is "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
orphan 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, Sec.
268 of Civil Code.)
10 "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.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 291
been bound, he may ask the court to discharge him from his
obligations to the apprentice.2-
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.23 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.24
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.25 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.26
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.27
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.
24 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. ' ' Alia, 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. [Vo1- 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.28 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.29
Wm'le 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.30
Both in his chapter on the decay of apprenticeship31 and in
the report of his investigation of the printers of San Francisco
and Oakland,32 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 particularly 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 Ee-
port of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1883-4), p. 13.)
2» The trades having such regulations were: bricklayers, bag and
satchel makers, calkers, cigar-makers, cigar-packers, coopers, glass blow-
ers, hatters, iron molders, pattern makers, stone cutters, tailors, printers,
and wood carvers. Third Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp.
216-218.
so Native-born artisans, 6,644; foreign-born, 5,960. (Ibid., p. 211.)
si Ibid., pp. 193 ff.
32 Ibid., pp. 349-353.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 293
instruction of the young 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.33
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 'Ho 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, ' '34
he became subject to the penalties of the act.35 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 sawr 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 myself 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."30 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.
36 Third Biennial Eeport, 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 con-
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.37
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.38
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.
ss ' ' 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
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 295
LAWS EEGULATING THE CONDITIONS UNDER 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; tnird 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 years 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 Biennial Report, 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 by 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."39 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.40
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 employment 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.41
This provision limiting the hours of labor of minors was
embodied in the penal code of 1872, where it has remained ever
since.42 It is hard to understand why the law has been so
so Statutes of California, 1868, p. 63, Sec. 3. Alia, January 23, 1868.
40 Sacramento Daily Union, February 14, 1868.
41 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 Alta 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.
191°] 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.43
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.44
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.45
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. tVo1- 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 drygoods 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.46
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 years, 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 awrare that such a law was
in existence."47
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 days was also added.48 This act passed both
branches of the Legislature by a unanimous vote,49 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
4e Pacific Union Printer, July, 1892, p. 2.
47 Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 40.
48 Statutes of California, 1901, p. 631. As originally drafted for the
Labor Council, the age limit of employment was placed at fourteen years.
4o Senate Journal, Sess., p. 829. Assembly Journal, p. 1121.
so Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 42-3.
1910] 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 lawr.51
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.52 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;53 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 Avith 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 Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 44-5.
52 Labor Clarion, January 23, 1903, p. 12.
ss Fourth Biennial Eeport, 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. [Vo1- 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,54 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 assembly55 that its friends finally withdrew it,
rather than forfeit advantages already granted in the earlier
law.56
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.57 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.58 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.
se 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.
ss For the report of this work, see the article on Women and Children
Wage Workers, in Eleventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
pp. 11 ff.
1910] Eaves: California Labor 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.59
As yet the children of California are not extensively employed
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.60 It was felt that,
«» Statutes of California, etc., 1905, 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 in
302 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol.2
in the absence of any 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, because 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 ' ' ;G1 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."02 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 officer 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.)
ei Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1901, p. 631,
Sec. 2.
62 Ibid., 1905, p. 11, Sec. 2.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 303
bition of night work03 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.04
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 Francisco 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.03
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., 1905, p. 11, Sec. 2.
e-i Ibid., Sec. 3.
03 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. R. 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. tVo1- 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 wrent 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.60
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 requirements, 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.
1910] 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 continuances 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."67
J. M. Spencer, one of these employers who was charged
in four different cases with 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,68 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. ' 'oa
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
«' Labor Clarion, April 13, 1906.
68 ' ' 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 Cal. 400.)
69 In 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 employed 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 cases 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."70
It was held that the section permitting a judge of a juvenile
court to grant permits allowing children over twelve to Avork
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 ;
by these enactments all children under fourteen are required
to attend some school for a period corresponding with the
session of the public schools.71
TO In re Spencer, 149 Cal. 402-404.
7i Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 388.
1910] Eaves: California 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 \isually
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."72
The larger part of the work of prosecuting the violations of
the child-labor law fell to J. M. Eshleman, the deputy Labor
Commissioner.73 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.74
COMPULSORY 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."75 The first compul-
sory education law was passed in 1874.76 This provided that,
72 In re Spencer, 149 Cal. 404.
73 See resolutions of appreciation of the S. F. Labor Council, Labor
Clarion, July 27, 1906.
74 Statutes of California, etc., 1907, p. 598.
75 Civil Code, 1872, Sec. 196, N. Y. C. C., 1862, Sec. 77.
TO Statutes of California, 1873-4, pp. 751-2.
308 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.77
EFFECTS OF THE ENFORCEMENT 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 w^ere 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.78 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.79
LAWS PROTECTING WORKING CHILDREN 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
77 Statutes of California, etc., 1905, p. 388.
78 Labor Clarion, April 13, 1903.
'» Twelfth Census, Manufactures, Part II, p. 51.
191°] 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.80
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.81 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.82
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.83 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.84
NEED OF BETTER ENFOECEMENT 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
"0 /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. Penal
Code, Sec. 272.
82 Ibid., 1877-8, p. 813. This law was declared constitutional in In re
Weber, 149 Cal. 392.
83 Enacted in 1887, Sec. 1389, of Penal Code, Statutes of California, etc.,
1905, p. 760-1.
8-t 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 California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 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.
191°] 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 wrere 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 wrorkers, he
added that the demand for wromen 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,1 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
1 Alta, 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. [Vol. 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 five 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."2
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.3
The public school teachers were the first women workers in
California to receive legal protection.4 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.5
2 Call, December 1, 1869, p. 3.
s "Women at the case," Bulletin, November 15, 1870, p. 3.
4 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 in
1905, as under the decision Ex parte Maguire, they were held to be uncon-
stitutional. (Statutes of California and Amendments, 1905, 658, 657.)
s Statutes of California, 1873-1874, p. 938.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 313
EFFORTS TO SECURE CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF
WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
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.6 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.7 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."8 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.9
e California Constitutional Convention, pp. 97 and 104.
7 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."
Four 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. ITo1- 2
It was contended that the inhibition of the ordinance was
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 XX."10
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 the
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.11
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.12 We find the girl shirt makers sending a dele-
1° Ex parte Maguire, 57 Cal., 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; AprH 29, October 9.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 315
gation to the men's unions to call attention to their label.13
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."14
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.13
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.16
PASSAGE OF THE LAWS PROTECTING WOMEN WORKERS, 1889.
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
is Minutes of the Coast Seamen's Union for March 12, 1888, and July
21, 1890.
i* Two of the women were promptly appointed members of one of the
committees.
i-' Alta, March 16, 1888, p. 4.
ie Fourth Annual Eeport of the U. S. Com. of Labor, Working Women
in Large Cities. Third Biennial Eeport of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(1887-1888), p. 14.
316 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
sixteen or female under eighteen should be required or per-
mitted to work more than sixty hours in one week.17 This was
amended so that it would apply to all minors under eighteen,
thus avoiding the constitutional prohibition of discrimination
between the sexes.18
The act to provide for the proper sanitary condition of
factories and work shops was the second measure introduced
at this time for the protection of the women workers. This law
requires that the places of work shall be in sanitary condition,
and properly ventilated. When workers of both sexes are em-
ployed, separate toilet facilities must be provided. Section 5
of this law read : ' ' Every person, firm, or corporation employ-
ing females in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile
establishment shall provide suitable seats for the use of the
females so employed, and shall permit the use of such seats by
them when they are not necessarily engaged in the active duties
for which they are employed."19 In 1903 this was amended
by a specification that the number of seats must be at least one-
third of the number of women so employed.20
The State Labor Commissioner is charged with the duty of
enforcing these laws. His inadequate force has made it impos-
sible to meet this obligation effectively. At more or less irreg-
ular and lengthy intervals the places of business in and near
San Francisco have been inspected. We have been unable to
find any record of a prosecution for the failure to comply with
the laws, though undoubtedly there have been many violations.
Notwithstanding the fact that the peculiar provision in the
Constitution of California in regard to women workers would
probably result in it being declared invalid, two unsuccessful
attempts have been made to secure a law limiting the hours of
labor of adult women. In both the 1905 and 190621 sessions of
the legislature bills of this kind were introduced. While these
measures were endorsed by the State Federation of Labor, no
active campaign to secure their passage was undertaken.
i? Coast Seamen's Journal, December 12, 1888.
is Statutes of California and Amendments, etc., 1889, p. 4.
19 Ibid., p. 3.
20 Ibid., 1903, p. 16.
21 Senate bill No. 479, Assembly bill No. 512, Senate and Assembly Jour-
nals, 1906.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 317
Undoubtedly many of the women workers of the state suffer
from excessive hours of labor. In large establishments where
their hours necessarily conform to those of the men and children,
this evil is not so common ; but there are many cases of excessive
hours of labor in the smaller places of business. The bakeries,
delicatessen stores, and candy shops afford examples of the most
flagrant abuses of this kind. These are generally open seven
days in the week, and the girls often serve fifteen hours or more
a day, with a half-day off once in two weeks.22
As yet the trade-unions have furnished the only effective
protection from this evil. Many of the women have made sub-
stantial gains through their unions.23 The laundry workers and
telephone operators of San Francisco afford striking examples
of the possibility of remedying particularly bad conditions of
work by this means. Among the other organized trades are the
garment workers, waitresses, the workers in boot, shoe, glove, and
paper-box factories, cigar workers, bottle-caners, tin-can factory
employees, and various other trades where the women are ad-
mitted to membership in the men's unions. While the women
trade-unionists rarely take an active part in the general labor
movement, they are represented in the central bodies. Their
delegates vote on all the questions that come before these bodies,
and sometimes serve on the committees.
22 While acting as special agent of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics
in the fall of 1904, the author found many such cases in San Francisco and
Oakland.
23 Prof. Jessica B. Peixotto has presented an able discussion of the sub-
ject of "Women of California as Trade-Unionists" at the annual meeting
of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae; see Serial III, No. 18, of the
Publications of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae.
318 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
. CHAPTER XII.
LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIFE AND
HEALTH OF EMPLOYEES.
In California we still have the marked individualistic ten-
dencies that have always been characteristic of the Western
frontier. Her citizens do not turn naturally to the state for
protection, but assume the ability of every grown man to look
out for his own interests. The severer competition that comes
with more crowded conditions and the development of the highly
organized industries has not yet been felt to any great extent.
Not only the character of the people and the relatively simple
economic conditions, but also the climate, have made less urgent
the necessity for legislation for the protection of the health of
employees. As a result of these conditions, there has been but
little legislation of this kind, and such laws as have been enacted
have been enforced in a somewhat desultory manner.
BOILER INSPECTION.
The first law of this kind, that requiring care in the handling
of steam boilers, was for the protection of the general public
rather than of the fellow-employees of the engineers in charge.
The need of such legislation was first made evident by the reck-
less manner in which the river steamers were sometimes run.
Though an attempt was made to pass such a law in 1866, l the
sections inserted in the Penal Code in 1872 seem to have been
the earliest enactments on this subject.2
Section 349 of the Penal Code provides that any engineer or
person in charge of a steam boiler, "who wilfully, or from
ignorance, or gross neglect, creates, or allows to be created, such
an undue quantity of steam as to burst or break the boiler,
engine, or apparatus, or cause any other accident whereby human
1 Bulletin, editorial, February 7, 1866.
2 Penal Code of 1872, Sec. 349. (Amended in 1874, Acts Amendatory of
the Codes of California, 1873-4, p. 431). Also Penal Code, Sec. 368.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 319
life is endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor."3 Two years
later this section was amended by making such mismanagement
a felony.4 If the accident causes the death of a human being,
the person guilty of carelessness or neglect is punishable by
imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not less than one nor
more than ten years.5
The legislature made provisions in 1876 for the appointment
of an inspector of steam boilers for San Francisco. This in-
spector was authorized to test all stationary boilers and steam
tanks, and also to examine and license engineers. The law
made it unlawful to employ any one to serve in such a capacity
unless he held a license. This law was repealed in 1880. Since
then the erection and inspection of boilers and the licensing of
engineers has been regulated by municipal ordinances.0
SAFETY OF MINERS.
The legislation for the protection of miners seems to have
been prompted by serious accidents in mines which suggested
the need of enacting laws that would give future protection.
In the fall of 1871 there was a fire in the Amador Mine. But
for the existence of a second shaft, eighty 'or a hundred miners
might have lost their lives. At the next session of the legis-
lature a law was passed which provided that when the shaft of
a mine was three hundred feet or more in depth, and as many,
as twelve men were employed, the owners of the mine must con-
struct a second shaft, or mode of egress, connecting with the first
at a depth of not less than one hundred feet.7
Two years later 300 coal miners sent in a petition to the
legislature stating that four men had recently been suffocated
by an explosion of gas in a mine from which there was but one
way of egress,8 and requesting that a law be passed for their
protection. The legislature promptly granted their petition, en-
acting a law which required the posting of a map of the mine
s Penal Code, 1872, Sec. 349.
4 Acts Amendatory of the Codes of California, 1873-4, p. 431.
s Penal Code, Sec. 368.
« San Francisco General Ordinances, pp. 38, 446, 447.
T Statutes of California, 1871-2, p. 413.
* Sacramento Daily Union, March 21, 1874, p. 8.
320 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
where the men could see it, the construction of two shafts or
methods of egress, the installation of an adequate system of
ventilation, and the employment of an inside overseer, who was
to be held criminally liable for accidents due to the neglect of
his duty.9
Both of these laws for the protection of miners are weak in
that no penalty accrues unless an accident causing injury to an
employee occurs, and then the law merely allows the injured
person to bring an action for damages.10
Thf legislature furnished further safeguards for the pro-
tection of miners by enacting a statute in 1893 providing a
uniform system of bell signals to be used in the mines of the
state, and prescribing rules for hoisting, lashing timbers, and
posting signals. As in the earlier laws, but slight penalties are
provided. Failure to comply with the law is sufficient ground
for the discharge of the employee, or when the employer is the
negligent party, he becomes liable for damages accruing.11
SANITATION OF WOBKSHOPS.
The first laws passed in California for the purpose of secur-
ing sanitary workshops were the ordinances regulating laundries.
These were intended primarily for the control of the Chinese
laundries, though they were applicable to all such establish-
ments. The San Francisco ordinances required, among other
provisions, that buildings erected for use as laundries after
March 1, 1880, should be one story in height and constructed of
fireproof materials.12 The ordinance of 1883 made it necessary
» Statutes of California, 1873-4, p. 727, Sec. 9.
!° Sec. 3. ' ' When any corporation, association, owner, or owners of any
quartz mine in this State shall fail to provide for the proper egress as herein
contemplated, and where any accident shall occur, or any minor working
therein shall be hurt or injured, and from such injury might have escaped
if the second mode of egress had existed, such corporation, association,
owner or owners of the mine where the injuries have occurred shall be
liable to the person injured in all damages that may accrue by reason
thereof; and an action at law in a Court of competent jurisdiction may be
maintained against the owner or owners of such mine, which owners shall
be jointly or severally liable for such damages. And where death shall
ensue . . . heirs or relatives surviving the deceased may commence an
action for the recovery of such damages as provided by an Act . . .
approved April twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two." (Statutes
of California, 1871-2, p. 413.)
11 Statutes of California, 1893, pp. 82-84.
12 This ordinance has since been repealed.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 321
for all laundries located within certain limits to obtain a certifi-
cate from the health officer showing that the premises were
properly drained, and also from the fire wardens stating that
the heating appliances were in good condition. Even then the
laundries were prohibited from doing washing and ironing be-
tween 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., or on Sunday. These ordinances were
fully tested in the courts, where they were held to be constitu-
tional as police and sanitary measures.13
The requirements of inspection and certification of laundries
are still enforced. Through the efforts of the Labor Commis-
sioner, the section" prescribing the hours of labor was amended
to read "between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m." A section has been added
which forbids any person suffering with an infectious disease
sleeping or lodging in a laundry.14
The Act of 1889 "to provide for the proper sanitary condi-
tion of factories and workshops, and the preservation of the
health of the employees," was suggested by the State Labor
Commissioner, and endorsed by the San Francisco Federated
Trades Council. While applicable to all factories, the measure
was prompted by the efforts made at that time to better the
condition of the women workers of the city. We have already
noticed the provisions of the law specifically applicable to
women.15 Among the more general provisions are the require-
ments of cleanliness, such ventilation as will remove noxious
gases and injurious dust, and freedom from the dampness and
darkness of underground apartments.16
is Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 33; Ex parte White, 67 Cal. 102; In the
matter of Tick Wo, 68 Cal. 294; In the matter of Hang Kie, 69 Cal. 149.
i* San Francisco General Ordinances in effect December 1, 1907, pp.
536-538.
15 See chapter on Women Workers.
16 Sec. 1. ' ' Every factory, workshop, mercantile or other establishment,
in which five or more persons are employed, shall be kept in a cleanly state
and free from the effluvia arising from any drain, privy or other nuisance,
and shall be provided, within reasonable access, with a sufficient number of
water-closets or privies for the use of the persons employed therein. . . .
Sec. 2. Every factory or workshop in which five or more persons are
employed shall be so ventilated while work is carried on therein that the
air shall not become so exhausted as to be injurious to the health of the
persons employed therein, and shall also be so ventilated as to render harm-
less, as far as practicable, all the gases, vapors, dust, or other impurities
generated in the course of the manufacturing process or handicraft carried
on therein, that may be injurious to health.
Sec. 3. No basement, cellar, underground apartment, or other place
322 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
" Section 4 of this law provides, "If in any factory or work-
shop any process or work is carried on by which dust, filaments,
or injurious gases are generated or produced, that are liable to
be inhaled by the persons employed therein, and it appears to the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics that such inhal-
ations could, to a great extent, be prevented by the use of some
mechanical contrivance, he shall direct that such contrivance
shall be provided, and within a reasonable time it shall be so
provided and used."
The attempt of Commissioner Meyers to enforce this section
brought the law before the courts in 1901. A metal-polishing
firm refused to furnish the suction exhauster ordered by the
Commissioner for the purpose of removing the dust generated
in the course of the work. The Police Court and Superior Court
held the firm subject to the fine provided in the law, but when
brought before the Supreme Court the law was held to be uncon-
stitutional.
In this decision the power of the legislature to require sani-
tary conditions and reasonable safeguards was not questioned.
But, as worded, the law permitted the Labor Commissioner to
be the judge, not only of the need of means for the removal of
the dust, but also of the character of the appliance to be in-
stalled. Thus he no longer merely enforced the law made by
the legislature, but became a lawmaker for individuals.17
In order to meet these objections Commissioner Meyers
drafted an amendment to the law which requires that all estab-
lishments where dust, filaments, or injurious gases are generated
which the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall condemn as
unhealthy and unsuitable, shall be used as a workshop, factory, or place of
business in which any person or persons shall be employed. (Statutes of
California and Amendments to the Codes, 1889, pp. 3-4.)
IT " Therefore, the power of the legislature by general law to provide
for the proper sanitation of factories, foundries, mills, and the like, does
not call for discussion. It is no invasion of the right of the employer
freely to contract with his employee, to provide by general law that all
employers shall furnish a reasonably safe place and reasonably wholesome
surroundings for their employees. The difficulty with the present law,
however, is that it does not so provide, but that it is an attempt to confer
upon a single individual the right arbitrarily to determine, not only that
the sanitary condition of a workshop or factory is not reasonably good, but
to say whether, even if reasonably good, in his judgment, its condition
could be improved by the use of such appliances as he may designate, and
then to make a penal offense of the failure to install such appliances. ' '
(Sclmezlein v. Cdbaniss, 135 Cal. 466, 468-9.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 323
in the process of the work, shall install exhaust fans and blowers
with properly adjusted hoods and pipes. This was passed and
at the same time the penalties for failure to comply with the
law were increased.18
In the same year the law creating the Labor Bureau was
amended by the addition of the section authorizing the Com-
missioner to inspect scaffolding. The object of the latter amend-
ment seems to have been not so much the requirement of such
inspection, as the furnishing of an authorized referee when any
question of the safety of scaffolding arises.19
The California legislators have always manifested a great
willingness to enact laws suggested as necessary for the safety
of workmen. These lawrs were all passed by a unanimous vote
or with very little opposition. However, they have always been
carelessly enforced. It will be necessary, as the industrial life
of the state becomes more highly organized, to give more careful
attention to the matter of regulating injurious trades, and to
the more efficient discharge of this duty of the state to afford
her citizens every possible guarantee of healthy conditions of
labor.
18 Statutes of California and Amendment to the Codes, 1901, p. 571.
19 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
324 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
CHAPTER XIII.
SUNDAY LAWS.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE VIOLATION OF THE
SABBATH.
The first California Sunday laws were passed in protest
against the immorality and irreligion that characterized the
early mining camps. In this mingling of all nations in a so-
ciety where the restraints of home life and established institu-
tions were lacking, there was a tendency to adopt the customs
of those who had the least regard for the observance of the
Sabbath. It was the day when the miners gathered in the nearest
town to buy their supplies for the coming week, and spend their
leisure in gambling, drinking, and attending the coarse enter-
tainments which such places afforded. When the first attempt
was made in 1852 to pass a law to prevent these flagrant viola-
tions of the Sabbath, the majority report of the committee to
whom the bill had been referred declared, ''The unbridled licen-
tiousness, and the prevalence of so much vice and immorality
within the borders of our state, have had strong tendencies to
retard the permanent settlement of the country, and depress the
minds of the emigrant families who have made this their perma-
nent home."1
But the members of the Assembly, where the bill was pre-
sented, were more disposed to adopt the views of the minority
report of the committee, which declared that, in a government
where the church and state were so completely separated, this
was not a suitable subject for legislation ; such a measure would
not receive the support of the public opinion of the state, and
its penalties were too severe.2 Attempts were made to strike
out various portions of the bill,3 and finally it was indefinitely
postponed.4
1 Assembly Journal, 1852, p. 276.
2 Ibid., 282.
s Ibid., 310.
4 Ibid., p. 311.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 325
In the following year the church people instituted a more
systematic campaign on behalf of the law. Petitions were cir-
culated throughout the state. These declared that most of the
crime and dissipation of the mining camps occurred on Sunday.
It was claimed that the American merchants, mechanics, and
bankers would gladly cease from doing business, if their Mex-
ican, French, and Jewish competitors were compelled to close
their places of business on Sunday. The classes of amusements
such as fandangoes, bull, bear, and cock fighting, horse-racing,
gambling, etc., were particularly offensive.5 In 1853 the bill
passed the Senate, but was again defeated in the Assembly.6
Those interested in the law continued to petition the legis-
lature,7 and finally in 1855 the first Sunday law was passed.
This undertook only to prevent the more flagrant violations of
the Sabbath. It provided that ''Any person who shall get up,
or aid in getting up, or opening of any bull, bear, cock, or prize
fight, horse race, circus, theatre, bowling alley, gambling house,
room or saloon, or any place of barbarous or noisy amusements
on the Sabbath, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and
on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not less than
fifty nor more than five hundred dollars."8 Persons patron-
izing such amusements were subject to the same penalty.
Three years later another Sunday law was passed, which
undertook to compel the suspension of ordinary business. As
originally drafted, this bill had a proviso which permitted any
one who believed that the seventh day should be observed as the
Sabbath, and who refrained from secular business or labor on
that day, to be exempted from the requirements of this law.
When the measure came before the legislature, the chief contest
was over this provision. It was claimed that it would defeat
entirely the object of the bill, — the closing of the stores and
cessation of business. So long as the Hebrew merchants kept
s The Pacific, January 7, 1853, p. 270.
6 Ibid., May 13, 20. See also February 4, 11, March 4, Assembly Jour-
nal, Petitions, 159, 163, 207, 350. Eeport of Committee, 328. Ap. 43, 54.
328, 350, 647. Senate Journal, 607, 613, 637.
7 Senate Journal, 1854, 446, 451. Assembly Journal, 1854, 210, 268, 288,
495, 507. Passed Assembly, died on Senate files.
* Statutes of California, 1855, p. 50.
326 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
their stores open on Sunday, the other merchants were compelled
to do so in order to compete with them. The object of the bill
was to set aside one day as a day of rest and recreation for all.
The day selected was the one observed by the great majority of
the people. It was also contended that such an exemption would
tend to emphasize and perpetuate race differences.9
As finally passed the law read, "No person or persons shall,
on the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday, keep open any store, ware-
house, mechanic shop, workshop, banking-house, manufacturing
establishment, or other business house, for business purposes;
and no person or persons shall sell, or expose for sale any goods,
wares, or merchandise on the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday,
etc."10 The law also made it a misdemeanor to disturb any
religious meeting.
AEGUMENT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW OF 1855.
The validity of the law was soon tested in the case of one
Newman,11 a Sacramento merchant. As Newman was a Hebrew,
great emphasis was laid upon the argument that the law inter-
fered with his religious freedom. It was claimed that it vio-
lated the Constitution by establishing a compulsory religious
observance. Such a law might be suitable for infants or per-
sons bound to obey others, but when applied to free agents it
was an unwarrantable interference with the right to regulate
their own labor. "If the Legislature could prescribe the days
of work for them, then it would seem that the same power could
prescribe the hours to work, rest, and eat."12 The opinion was
written by Chief Justice Terry and concurred in by J. Burnett.13
, Justice Field made an able dissenting argument. He main-
tained that this was a purely civil regulation, that the prohib-
iting of business did not conflict with the constitutional guar-
antee of freedom of worship, as there was no connection between
the sale of merchandise and religious worship.
o Bulletin, January 30, 1858, p. 3. Ibid., February 26, p. 3.
10 Statutes of California, 1858, p. 124-5.
11 Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 518.
12 Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 518.
13 S. J. Field was elected Judge of the California Supreme Court in
1857. He succeeded Judge Terry as Chief Justice in 1859. He was ap-
pointed Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1863,
which position he held until 1897.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 327
This early dissenting opinion has many of the brilliant qual-
ities that characterized Judge Field's work during his long term
as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. His
power of original thought is appreciated when one remembers
that the following argument was written fifty years ago :14 ' ' The
position assumes that all men are independent, and at liberty to
work whenever they choose. Whether this be true or not in
theory, it is false in fact ; it is contradicted by every day 's
experience. . . . Labor is in a great degree dependent upon
capital, and unless the exercise of the power which capital affords
is restrained, those who are obliged to labor will not possess the
freedom for rest which they would otherwise exercise. . . .
Its aim is to prevent the physical and moral debility which
springs from uninterrupted labor; and in ttyis aspect, it is a
beneficent and merciful law. . . . Authority for the enact-
ment I find in the great object of all government, which is pro-
tection. Labor is a necessity imposed by the condition of our
race, and to protect labor is the highest office of our laws. ' '
Judge Field also pointed out the universal acceptance of such
legislation in other states of the Union. He had examined the
statutes of twenty-five of these states, and had found similar
laws, whose validity had, in every case, been sustained by the
courts.
AMENDMENTS OF 1861-1872.
In 1861 the phraseology of the law was changed so as to
emphasize its civil rather than its religious aspects. As in the
earlier law, the exemptions from its operation were extended
to merchants dealing in perishable goods, and to some manu-
facturers,15 as well as to keepers of hotels, restaurants, and
i* Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 520-1.
!•" Sec. 1. "Any person who shall, hereafter, keep open on the first day
of the week, commonly called Sunday, any store, work-shop, bar, saloon,
banking house, or other place of business, for the purpose of transacting
business therein, except as hereinafter especially provided, shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not
less than five, nor more than fifty, dollars.
Sec. 2. The provisions of this act shall not apply to the keeping open
of hotels, boarding-houses, restaurants, taverns, livery stables, retail drug
stores (for the legitimate business of each), or such manufacturing estab-
lishments as are necessarily kept in continued operation to accomplish the
business thereof, nor to the sale of milk, fresh meats, fresh fish, or vege-
tables. (Statutes of California, 1861, p. 655.) In 1862 the sale of meats,
game and vegetables in San Francisco on Sunday was prohibited. (Statutes
of California, 1862, p. 90.) The same for Sacramento in 1868. (Statutes of
California, 1868, 538.)
328 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. a
taverns. When this act came before the Supreme Court, the
former decision was -reversed ; the majority of the judges adopted
the arguments of Judge Field's dissenting opinion, and sus-
tained the validity of the law.16 When one reviews the history
of the efforts to secure this legislation and the legislative de-
bates and reports, there can be no question that the chief motives
for the passage of the law were the religious ones, but its con-
stitutionality was upheld by the claim that the measure was
purely secular in character.17
Though upheld by the courts, the law was not very satis-
factory. Its friends found it difficult of enforcement,18 and its
enemies presented a bill at the next session of the legislature
for its repeal. The members of the Committee on Public Morals
to whom the bill was referred were unable to agree on its merits,
and sent in three reports.19 Two members favored the uncon-
ditional repeal of the law, declaring that it was inoperative,
and objectionable because of its interference with religious free-
dom, and that as a police measure and means of protecting the
laborer it was unnecessary and ineffectual. Two others were
equally positive in their assertion of its beneficial effects, and
the fifth member thought that public opinion sustained the
closing of places of business, but that the parts of the law ap-
plying to places of amusement should be repealed. By a vote
of 35 to 31 the bill to repeal was laid on the table.20
A supplementary measure requiring the San Francisco bath
houses, barber shops, and hair-dressing establishments to close
on Sunday at one o'clock,21 was passed at this session of the
legislature, and the sale of meats, game, and vegetables on Sun-
day was also prohibited.
The Sunday laws were again attacked in 1868. Assembly-
is Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 679. (July, 1861.) See also Ex parte Bird,
19 Cal. 130.
i? "The operation of this act is secular, just as much as the business on
which the act bears is secular; it enjoins nothing that is not secular, and
it commands nothing that is religious ; it is purely a civil regulation, and
spends its whole force upon matters of civil economy." (Ex parte Andrews,
18 Cal. 685.)
is Bulletin, October 6, 1862.
10 Appendix to Legislative Journals, 13th Sess., Vol. 3.
20 Assembly Journal, 13th Sess., p. 490.
21 Statutes of California, 1862, p. 479.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 329
man Broderson, who introduced the bills for their repeal, claimed
that some fifteen thousand petitioners wished the repeal of these
laws. It was generally claimed that the movement originated
in San Francisco with the foreign population, particularly the
Germans,22 who were not accustomed to a rigid observance of
Sunday. The part of the law which classed theatrical perform-
ances with " noisy and barbarous amusements" was particularly
objectionable to the advocates of the repeal bills. It was as-
serted that under this law a fine of $500 had been imposed for
the performance of Romeo and Juliet,23 and that the occurrence
subjected the state to ridicule.
The whole state was aroused by the controversy, and hun-
dreds of petitions on the subject were sent to the legislature.24
A special committee was finally appointed to relieve the Com-
mittee on Public Morals from the overwhelming mass of evi-
dence on the subject. This special Committee on Sunday Laws
finally reported a substitute bill which proposed to amend the
Act of 1855 so that theaters and concerts would be excepted
from the category of "noisy and barbarous amusements" pro-
hibited by the law.25 But this bill only passed the Assembly.
Two years later a similar measure was passed, in which the
concessions in favor of theaters and concerts were safeguarded
by a provision that the Sunday closing requirement should con-
tinue to apply to all such places of amusement where intoxi-
cating liquors were sold.26
While some of the citizens of Sacramento were among the
petitioners for the repeal of the Sunday laws, it is evident that
a majority favored the strict observance of the Sabbath, as
permission was obtained in 1868 for the town trustees to pro-
hibit by ordinance the keeping open of grocery stores and meat
markets within the city limits, for business purposes during any
portion of the Sabbath day.27
22 See report of the decision of Judge Provines, in Alta, May 12, 1868.
23 "Sunday Laws," in Sacramento Daily Union, February 21, 1868, p. 4.
24 Assembly Journal, p. 407; by following the references in the index
many more may be found.
25 Bill No. 616 passed Assembly, P- 817, by vote of 38 to 23.
ze Statutes of California, 1869-1870, p. 52.
27 Statutes of California, 1867-1868, 538.
330 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2
When the California Codes were drafted in 1872, the law of
1855, as amended in 1870, was embodied in sections 299 and 3.02
of the Penal Code, while sections 300 and 301 perpetuated the
law of 1858, as amended in 1861.
EFFORTS TO SECURE A SHORTER WORK-DAY FOR THE BAKERS,
The first trade-union efforts to promote Sunday legislation
were made by the bakers.28 The conditions of this trade were
peculiarly oppressive, as the bakers not only worked long hours
for seven days in the week, but also frequently boarded with
their employer, so that there was no escape from the unsanitary
conditions under which their work was often performed.
In 1880 the San Francisco Bakers' Verein, an organization
of German bakers incorporated as a sick-benefit society, suc-
ceeded in securing the passage of an act for the prevention of
Saturday night and Sunday work.29 This law went into effect
May 1, 1880, but was soon attacked in the courts, where it was
held to be unconstitutional.
•
In the Supreme Court decision it was declared that the law
was in conflict with the section of the Constitution which for-
bade the passage of local or special legislation. The law was
also criticized because it provided that the master be punished
because his employees performed labor in the forbidden time,
while it placed no restraint on workmen who were not em-
ployers.30
28 The San Francisco Labor Clarion for September 4, 1908, p. 36, gives
an excellent summary of the history of the Bakers' Union. The writer,
Emil Eisolt, says that the bakers first organized in 1864 to secure better pay
and a regulation of hours, though they did not at that time have the seven-
day work. This was introduced by the strike-breakers imported from Ham-
burg. In 1869 they again organized to secure a day of rest, and succeeded
in obtaining it for two months, and then returned to the old system. The
1880 law seems to have been their next attempt to obtain this concession.
sa Statutes of California, 1880, p. 80. Sec. 1. "It shall be unlawful
for any person engaged in the business of baking to engage, or permit
others in his employ to engage in the labor of baking, for the purpose of
sale, between the hours of six o 'clock p.m. on Saturday, and six o 'clock
p.m. on Sunday, except in the setting of sponge preparatory to the night 's
work; provided, however, that restaurants, hotels, and boarding-houses may
do such baking as is necessary for their own consumption. ' '
so Ex parte Westerfeld, 55 Cal. 550. See Memorial of the San Francisco
Bakers' Verein, Appendix, Journal of Senate and Assembly, 24th Sess., 3d
Vol., 16 Doc.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 331
REPEAL OF THE SUNDAY LAWS.
Soon after this unsuccessful attempt of the bakers, the older
Sunday laws were brought before the Supreme Court in three
cases where saloon-keepers had been arrested for their violation.
In the first of these cases the whole history of the legislation
and decisions on the Sunday question in this state was reviewed.
The court decided that the constitutional prohibition of special
and local legislation was not retroactive; it applies to all laws
made after the adoption of the new Constitution in 1879, but
does not operate to repeal laws passed prior to that time. The
Sunday laws extended over the entire state, and applied to all
persons, hence were uniform in their operation. The Supreme
Court had repeatedly held them constitutional in the past, and
again declared them valid.31
The third of these cases, decided in March, 1882,32 was argued
in a more exhaustive way before the entire Supreme Court sit-
ting in bank. The validity of these sections of the Penal Code
was again attacked. The title of this Chapter, ' ' Of crimes
against religion and conscience, and other offenses against good
morals," wras cited as evidence of the religious rather than civil
character of these sections. Of the seven Judges, four upheld
the constitutionality of the disputed sections, and three dissented.
Judge Sharpstein wrote a particularly vigorous dissenting opin-
ion. He asserted that no one who had lived in the state during
the twenty years since the passage of these laws would claim
that they had been even generally enforced.33
These decisions called attention to the possibility of enforc-
ing sections 299, 300, and 301 of the Penal Code, with the result
that those who were in favor of an "open" Sunday, particu-
larly persons interested in the liquor traffic, entered upon a vig-
orous campaign to secure their repeal. In the fall election of
1882, the repeal of the Sunday laws was one of the important
issues. All the political parties inserted planks on the subject
si Ex parte BurTce, 59 Cal. 6. Ex parte Carson, 59 Cal. 429 (1881). This
case was decided on the authority of previous cases without further argu-
ment.
32 Ex parte Koser, 60 Cal. 177.
33 Ibid., p. 214.
332 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- ?
in their platforms. The Democrats, who carried the election,
announced their opposition to all "sumptuary legislation," and
to "all laws intended to restrain or direct a free and full exer-
cise by any citizen of his own religious and political opinion,"
and made known their intention to "oppose the enactment of
all such laws, and demand the repeal of all those now exist-
ing."34 In less veiled language the Republican,35 Prohibition,36
and Greenback-Labor37 Parties declared themselves in favor of
preserving one day in seven as a day of rest, and of the main-
tenance of the Sunday laws.
The Democrats obtained a majority of the members and
promptly on the meeting of the legislature the bill for the repeal
of Sections 299, 300, and 301, of the Penal Code, was introduced
in both the Senate and Assembly.38 The passage of the bill in
the Senate seems to have been accepted as a foregone conclusion.
Aside from the sarcastic suggestion that the title be amended
to read, "An Act to encourage vice and immorality and to dis-
courage moral improvement,"39 it met with little opposition, the
final vote standing 22-9.40
There was a greater disposition to contest the passage of the
measure in the Assembly. The minority report of the Com-
mittee on Public Morals defended the Sunday laws on the ground
that, aside from any religious consideration, they protected social
customs that were highly beneficial. These laws had the same
significance as the laws preventing the sale of liquor on election
day, or in the vicinity of state institutions. It was expedient
to prevent excesses on days of unusual temptation.41 The bill
was referred back to the committee with instructions to strike
out the part which repealed the prohibition of such amusements
as bull, bear, and cock fighting, horse-racing, etc., on Sunday.
34 Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 433, Res. 5.
ss Ibid., p. 439, Ees. 5.
so Ibid., p. 448, Res. 5.
37 Ibid., p. 452, Res. 1.
ss Senate bill No. 1, and Assembly bill No. 5. Senate and Assembly
Journals, 25th Sess.
so Senate Journal, 25th Sess., p. 60.
40 Sacramento Daily Eecord-Union, January 22, 1883.
41 Ibid., January 24, 1883, p. 3.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 333
But this action was reconsidered, and the original bill as it came
from the Senate was passed by a vote of 47-2 1.42
It is surprising that the repeal of the Sunday laws met with
so little opposition from the churches and labor organizations.
While petitions were presented against their repeal, there was
nothing like the universal interest that had defeated a similar
movement in 1868. One preacher who attempted to arouse the
church members to their defense said that he could not explain
the general apathy on the subject.43 This total abolition of all
such restraints is particularly significant in view of the fact that,
owing to some of the peculiar provisions of the State Constitu-
tion, it seems probable that no new laws can be enacted on this
subject that will be upheld by the courts.
TBADE-UNION EFFORTS TO SECUEE A DAY OF REST.
Since the repeal of the Sunday laws, the trade-unions have
made two attempts to secure legislative protection for their day
of rest. The bakers continued their struggle against the adverse
conditions of their trade.44 Through their efforts a law was
passed in 1893 which provided that every person employed in
any occupation should be entitled to one day's rest therefrom in
seven, and made it unlawful for any employer of labor to cause
his employee to work more than six days in seven.45 This act
has never been brought before the state Supreme Court, but in
several Superior Court cases it has been declared unconstitu-
tional.
In 1895 the barbers secured a law requiring barber shops to
42 Statutes of California, 1883, p. 1. Sacramento Record-Union, Febru-
ary 7, 3883, p. 2.
43 The Pacific, February 7, 1883, p. 3.
44 See report on Bake-shops, Seventh Biennial Eept. of B. of L. S. (1895-
6), p. 127.
45 Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes, 1893 p. 54.
' ' Sec. 1. Every person employed in any occupation or labor shall be en-
titled to one day's rest therefrom in seven; and it shall be unlawful for
any employer of labor to cause his employees, or any of them, to work
more than six days in seven; provided, however, that the provisions of this
section shall not apply in any case of emergency.
' ' Sec. 2. For the purposes of this act, the term ' day 's rest ' shall mean
and apply to all cases, whether the employee is engaged by the day, week,
month, or year, and whether the work performed is done in the day or
night time. "
334 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
be closed at noon on Sunday. When brought before the Supreme
Court the law was declared unconstitutional, principally on the
ground that it was special legislation.46
48 Ex parte Jentssch, 112 Cal. 468, 473, 475. The court pointed out that
in this state Sunday laws had never been upheld from a religious point of
view. Ours was not a paternalistic government, and there was danger of
carrying the police power too far. "We think the act under question
gives plain evidence of such encroachment. It is sought to be upheld by
the argument that it is a police regulation; that it seeks to protect labor
against the oppression of capital. . . . It is a curious law for the
protection of labor which punishes the laborer for working. ' ' The law
was criticised because it did not apply to other classes, as street-car em-
ployees, or workers on a newspaper. ' ' When any one class is singled out
and put under the criminal ban of a law such as this, the law not only is
special, unjust, and unreasonable in its operation, but it works an inva-
sion of individual liberty, the liberty of free labor which it pretends to
protect. ' '
The Barbers' Sunday Law was repealed in 1905. (Statutes of Cali-
fornia and Amendments to the Codes, 1905, p. 658.)
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 335
CHAPTER XIV.
EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.
San Francisco has always been the great labor market of
the Pacific Coast. In early days, before the opening of the
transcontinental railroads, all the foreign immigrants and a large
portion of the population from other states of the Union landed
in San Francisco, from which point they were distributed to
other sections of the state and of the West. Not only have the
newcomers offered their services, but the unemployed of other
localities have continually returned to this natural focusing
point of the business interests of the state. The peculiar eco-
nomic conditions of California have produced a large floating
population. The great industries of the state do not furnish
steady employment for the entire year. The mines, the grain
fields, and the orchards all demand large accessions to their labor
forces at certain seasons of the year. This unattached laboring
population returns to the cities in periods of idleness to spend
the money earned and seek new opportunities for work. As a
result of these circumstances, the San Francisco employment
agencies, or "intelligence offices" as they were called in early
days, have flourished in business since the later fifties, and coin-
cidently aroused bitter complaints among the workingmen.1
EARLY SAN FRANCISCO INTELLIGENCE OFFICES.
Employment offices were first established in San Francisco
for the purpose of shipping sailors. During the period of the
rush to the gold mines, large sums were often paid to keepers
of sailors' boarding houses or employment agents for furnishing
i In this chapter I shall confine myself almost entirely to the San
Francisco offices, as most of the abuses and all of the legislation origi-
nated there. A good deal of attention has been given the subject in
Sacramento and Los Angeles, where free employment agencies maintained
at public expense have been established. For a full account of these
experiments see Conner. J. E., Free Public Employment Offices in the
United States, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 68, Jan-
uary, 1907, pp. 6-10.
336 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
the men necessary to enable a vessel to sail, as it was almost
impossible to obtain a crew at that port. This resulted in the
development of all sorts of nefarious methods of obtaining sea-
men. It is claimed that the term "shanghai" originated in San
Francisco at this time. An ordinance2 was passed in 1853 re-
quiring the shipping offices to be licensed, but no very vigorous
efforts seem to have been made to correct the flagrant abuses
charged to the unscrupulous agents.
About 1860 there was a rapid increase of intelligence offices
furnishing all sorts of land labor. These offices must have done
quite a profitable business, as even after the passage of a law
requiring the payment of a license fee of two hundred dollars
a year they continued to multiply.3 That these gains were often
at the expense of their unfortunate patrons is evident from the
testimony of the San Francisco Chief of Police, who declared
that every day brought complaints from parties who had been
swindled by being sent to distant parts of the state to seek
employers who existed only in the imagination of the unprin-
cipled intelligence-office keepers.4
ATTEMPTS TO EEGULATE THE BUSINESS IN 1861.
At the request of the city authorities, the state legislature
of 1861 passed a law for the regulation of the San Francisco
intelligence offices.5 The Board of Supervisors was authorized
to issue them licenses, collecting fees of fifty dollars per quarter.
The proprietors of these offices were required to keep a record
in English of the business they transacted. When receiving a
fee for a position furnished or information given, they must
furnish a statement specifying the "amount received, on what
account received, and what the Intelligence Office-Keeper agrees
to do for, and on account of, said payment, with the date thereof,
and to be signed by said Intelligence Office-Keeper with his
signature." The penalty for failure to comply with these con-
ditions was a fine of from fifty to five hundred dollars, and
2 San Francisco Ordinances, 1853-4, No. 316.
s Daily Alta Calif ornian, July 8, 1861.
* San Francisco Municipal Reports, 1861-2, p. 144.
s Statutes of California, 1861, p, 412.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 337
imprisonment from twenty to ninety days, or both such fine and
imprisonment.
The proprietor of the office was in turn protected by the
provision making its patrons subject to a fine if they gave out
information received at such office, or if they sent others to take
positions in their stead, with intent to defraud the keeper of
such intelligence office.6
Soon after the passage of this law the Board of Supervisors
exercised the discretion allowed them by refusing a license to
one Hall, who had been given a bad record by the chief of
police. Hall at once applied for a mandamus compelling the
issuance of the license, claiming that the first section of the law
was unconstitutional in that it gave the Board an arbitrary
power, as it was not required to issue the licenses to any but
persons whom it considered qualified. The Supreme Court sus-
tained the action of the Board by refusing to order the issuance
of the mandamus.7
In his next report after the passage of this law the chief of
police expressed himself as well satisfied with its^ effect, claim-
ing that it had been the means of protecting many strangers
and poor persons, and that there had been no serious charges of
abuses since it had been enforced.8 However, this improvement
does not seem to have been a permanent one, as the swindling
practices of the intelligence offices was one of the strongest argu-
ments advanced in favor of the maintenance of the free employ-
ment bureau which was established in 1868.
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR EXCHANGE, 1868-1872.
In the period following the Civil War, many immigrants
from older states, and also from European countries and Aus-
tralia, landed in San Francisco. Unlike the early arrivals, who
hastened to the gold mines, these newcomers had no definite
destination, but were in search of employment or an opportunity
to take up land. The labor forces supplied in this way tended
to accumulate in San Francisco. There was great need of some
Statutes of California, 1861, p. 413, Sec. 6.
Hall v. Supervisors of San Francisco, 20 Cal. 591.
Rept. of M. J. Burke, San Francisco Municipal Eeports, 1861-2, p. 144.
338 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol.2
means of distributing such persons to localities where their
services would be in demand, and of giving information to
prospective farmers about public land open for entry. Two
organizations supported by the voluntary subscriptions of public-
spirited citizens were formed to meet these needs. The Immi-
grants' Aid Society was short-lived, and seems to have accom-
plished very little,9 but the California Labor Exchange succeeded
in obtaining financial support from the city and state, and con-
tinued in operation for four years.10
The reports of the Labor Exchange, which the newspapers
of the time publish quite fully, are valuable not merely because
of the light they throw on the first California free employment
bureau, but 'because of the information given about the wages
and kinds of labor demanded at this time, and the character
of the incoming population. The fluctuations in the demand
for labor and the amount of wages offered also show plainly
the transition from the unusual prosperity of 1868 to the de-
pression and idleness of the seventies.
During the first year of the Labor Exchange there was a
practically unlimited demand for laborers to work on public
highways and railroads, on farms, and in the lumber camps and
mines. Of the more skilled workers house carpenters and black-
smiths were called for most frequently. No positions could be
found for clerks, book-keepers, or in other such light, indoor
occupations. Between April 27, 1868, and July, 1869, 14,662
men and boys were given positions, and many orders remained
unfilled for lack of applicants. Two-thirds of those seeking
work had arrived in the state in 1868. The larger number of
the applicants were able to find places near San Francisco; the
orders from more inaccessible sections of the state and from
Oregon and Nevada generally remained unfilled. About one-
third of those applying for work were Irish; Americans from
older states came next in numbers, then Germans, English,
French, and other Europeans.11
» Bulletin, October 6, 1869; Alia, June 20, July 11, 1868.
10 From April, 1868, to April, 1872.
11 Full reports of the work of the Labor Exchange can be found in the
Alia of April 15, 23, May 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 28, 31, June 2, 5, 6, 9,
16, July 8, 11, 21, August 28, November 12, 22, December 4, 10, 1868.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 339
The second and third annual reports of the Labor Exchange
show a rapid decline in the number of men and boys furnished
with positions.12 That this was not entirely due to the business
depression to which it was attributed seems evident from the
fact that similar private enterprises, paying heavy license fees,
and charging for services rendered, increased from seven in
1869 to thirteen in 1870.13 The first secretary of the exchange,
who seems to have been quite efficient and deeply interested in
the work, was discharged because of a disagreement with the
Board of Trustees in December, 1868, and his successor was evi-
dently a man of less zeal and ability.14
The Labor Exchange commenced business with a list of 104
subscribers, which included a number of prominent business
firms of the city. The first three months proved the public
utility of the work, and seemed to justify an appeal to the city
authorities for financial support. As the city attorney gave an
opinion declaring that the supervisors had no right to appro-
priate money for such a purpose, a three thousand dollar bond
was voted with the expectation that the expenditure would be
authorized at the next meeting of the legislature.15 Several
wealthy men were found willing to advance money on this pre-
carious security. The legislature meeting in 1869-1870 fulfilled
these expectations, and also passed a bill making an appropri-
ation for the exchange of $500 a month for two years.16 At
the end of this period the legislature refused to give further
financial support, and the exchange passed into private hands
in April, 1872.17
In reviewing the history of this first free employment agency,
we find that during the initial year, when it was a new enterprise
supported by volunteer subscribers, and managed by a secretary
who seemed efficient and devoted, it was quite successful. It
12 The numbers are: April 27, 1868, to July, 1869, 14,662; July, 1869,
to July, 1870, 3,173; July, 1870, to July, 1871, 1,735. (Alta, July 2, 1869;
July 8, 1870; July 7, 1871.)
is The San Francisco auditor reports 27 quarterly licenses in 1869 and
52 in 1870. The fee for these licenses was $50 per quarter.
i* Alta, December 4, 10, 1868.
is Ibid., June 16, July 21, 1868.
is Statutes of California, 1869-1870, 543.
IT Alta, April 5, 1872.
340 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
is probable that this success was also largely due to the fact that
there was no lack of work, 'the orders far outnumbering the ap-
plicants. The opening of the free employment bureau evidently
drove a number of private enterprises out of business, as the
number of .licenses issued to San Francisco offices in the year
ending June 30, 1868, decreased from twenty-five to eighteen.18
This decline was followed by a rapid increase in the following
years. In October, 1869, the secretary of the exchange reported
a falling off of fifty per cent, in the demand for men, though
the orders for women were as numerous as before.19 The reports
show that chiefly unskilled labor, engaged largely on temporary
work, was employed through this medium. The men were wanted
for work on wagon roads and railroads, as harvest hands, or in
lumber camps, and the women were sought for domestic service.
FREQUENT CHANGES IN THE NUMBER AND PROPRIETORSHIP
OF EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.
An interval of over twenty-five years elapsed before another
attempt was made to run a free public employment agency.
The 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.
Ain't.
Year
No.
Ain't.
Year
No.
Ain't.
1862
24
$1,200
1875
86
$1,290
1890
61
$915
1863
25
1,250
1876
70
1,050
1891
67
1,005
1864
24
1,150
1877
52
780
1892
75
1,125
1865
19
950
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
is These were quarterly 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.
i» Bulletin, October 6, 1869.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 341
The earlier reports do not show the variations in the proprie-
torship of these offices, 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.
EFFORTS TO COERECT 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,20 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. [Vo1- 2
(3) Kefusal 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.21
(2) Extortionate charges seem to have been a continuous and
common form of imposition. Commissioner Fitzgerald, who
made a thorough investigation of the 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. "22
(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 Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 74-5. See also
the Twelfth Biennial Report, p. 182.
22 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 54, 62.
1910] 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.23
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,24 and other commissioners
testify to frequent complaints of violation of this law.25
(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."26 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. Ee-enacted December
1, 1904. Ordinance No. 1336, p. 660, Ordinances of the City and County of
San Francisco.
24 Seventh Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 55.
25 Ninth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 73.
26 Twelfth Biennial Report, 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. [Vol. 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.-7 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.28
(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 affidavit 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.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 345
warfare.29 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.30 These classes
are generally too poor and friendless to defend themselves.
The second31 active campaign against the evils of the employ-
ment agencies in 1890-1 bore fruit in the San Francisco ordi-
nance32 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."33
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
•^ Organised Labor, August 13, 1904; June 30, 1900.
so 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.
32 Resolution 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. tVo1- 2
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 efficiency. ' '34
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.35
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.3*
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 Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 8.
ss Ninth Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 73.
36 Second Biennial Message, January 5, 1903, Appendix to Journalsf
35th Sess., Vol. 1.
191°] 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.37
ST Statutes of California, 1903, pp. 14-6. "See. 1. Any person, firm,
corporation, or association pursuing for profit the business of furnishing
directly, or indirectly, to persons seeking employment, information enab-
ling or tending to enable such 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.
' ' 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 seeking 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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. [Vo1- 2
The first of these laws begins by defining employment
agencies in such a way as to make the law applicable to all
registration offices 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
ss "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 to
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.
1910] 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.39 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.40
3» ' ' 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 Dickey, 144 Gal. 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. [Vo1- 2
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 much 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.41
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.)
4i 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.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 351
CHAPTEE 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
t 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.1 Vallejo quickly realized that
he had made a bad bargain, and hastened to secure his release,2
but Estell took over the ten-year contract and persisted in his
1 Statutes of California, 1851, pp. 427-8.
2 Ibid., 1852, p. 157.
352 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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.2a After his withdrawal,3
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.4 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. 5 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.
s Ibid., 1882, pp. 132-4; 1853, pp. 155-158.
4 Eeport of Prison Inspectors, Appendix to Senate Journal, 1855. Ee-
port of committee relative to the condition* and management of the state
prison, Appendix to Senate Journal, 6th Sess., 1855.
s Correspondence between Governor Bigler and Estell, Assembly Jour-
nal, 7th Sess. (1856), pp. 46-51.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 353
of assistants, three directors at a salary of $3500 each were
appointed.6 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.7 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 ac\ 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.8 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.9 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. ' no
Under this new arrangement the prisoners were employed
c Statutes of California, 1855, p. 292-6.
7 Report of Committee, Appendix to Senate Journal, 7th Sess., 1856.
s Statutes of California, 1856, pp. 48-9.
» Report 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. [Vo1- 2
chiefly in improving the prison grounds and in making brick.11
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 mechanics12 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.13 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.14
11 Report of Committee, February 25, 1857 (Appendix to Assembly Jour-
nal, 1867). The convicts made 7,000,000 bricks during the year.
12 Quoted in the article in the Daily 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.
I* 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 making an unexpected visit to San Quentin, this committee
found a most deplorable state of affairs.15 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 young16
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.17 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.18
A new plan for the government of the prison was now de-
vised. The extravagant and corrupt board of prison directors
had been abolished.19 The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and
Secretary of State were appointed prison directors.20 Under the
is 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.)
is 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.
IT Statutes of California, 1858, p. 32.
is Bulletin, February 26, 1858.
is Statutes of California, 1857, p. 74.
20 Ibid., 1858, p. 259.
356 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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 1861.21
THE CONTRACT SYSTEM OF PRISON LABOR.
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.22
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.23
21 Statutes of California, 1860, pp. 249, 348.
22 Report of the Resident Director (Appendix to Journals of the Senate
and Assembly, 18th Sess., 1st Vol.).
23 Report of the Resident Director (Appendix to Journals, 18th Sess.,
Vol. I). Report of the Board of Directors (Appendix to Journals, 23rd
Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 11, p. 17).
191°] 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.
EARLY EFFORTS TO SECURE 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."24 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. ' '25 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. [Vol. 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.26 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,27
' ' 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 Mechanics' State Council.28
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
20 Letter from Sacramento, Alia, February 24, 1866.
27 Bulletin, April 3, 1867; Alia, June 2, 1867.
28 Alta, September 30, 1873.
1910] Eaves: California 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.29
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.30 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."31
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.
29 Beport of Committee on Prison Labor, Appendix to Journals, 20th
Sess., Vol. VI, Doc. 6.
so Assembly bill, No. 246. Alia, March 19, 29; Call, March 19, 1874.
si Message of Governor Booth, Senate Journal, 1873-4, p. 75.
360 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
CHANGES OF POLICY INAUGURATED 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.32 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 Gov-
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.33 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 Constitution34 and the statute of 188035 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.
a* Ibid., Art. X, Sec. 6.
ss Statutes of California, 1880, pp. 67-75.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 361
SUMMAEY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTRACT SYSTEM OF
PRISON LABOR.
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 already
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 finding
employment for a large percentage of the convicts. In only
one year (1862)36 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.37
Of course this great irregularity or total lack of employment
had a very demoralizing effect on the prisoners. There wera
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
so The directors of this year were Leland Stanford, J. F. Chellis, and
Wm. H. Weeks.
ST 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. [Vo1- 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 foundation 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 OF PEISON INDUSTEIES UNDEE STATE
CONTEOL.
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 Report38
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 Eeport of the Board of Prison Directors, June 30, 1880,.
Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 24th Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 8.
191°] 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.39
In accordance with the Constitution and the law of 1880r
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."40 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.41 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.42
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
so Inaugural Message of Gov. G. C. Perkins, Appendix to Journals, 23rd
Sess., Vol. V, Doc. 19, pp. 4-5.
40 Statiitcs of California, 1880, p. 71.
41 Alta, December 3, 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 1881.
42 Third Annual Eeport of the Board of Prison Directors, Appendix to
Journals, 25th Sess., Vol. VI.
364 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
furniture factory to the making of chairs, and a committee was
appointed to investigate the advisability of manufacturing
woolen hats at the prison.43 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.44
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."45 In his first biennial
report, Commissioner Enos 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.46
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.47
43 Eeport of Prison Directors, Alia, December 16.
44 Biennial Message, Appendix to Journals, 25th 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.
47 Ibid., p. 165.
191°] 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.48 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."49 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.50
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.51
48 Second Biennial Eeport, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 134.
49 Eeport of the Prison Directors, November 1, 1886, Appendix to Jour-
nals, 27th Sess., Vol. II, p. 8.
so An account of the investigation is published in the Second Biennial
Report 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 x)f 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 Keport of the Prison Direc-
tors, November, 1886.
si 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 Publications in Economics. LVo1- 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.52
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 Avith
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.53 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 Report 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. ' '
53 Reports of the Prison Directors, Appendices to the Journals of the
Senate and Assembly, 28th Sess., Vol. II; 20th Sess., Vol. VII.
1910] 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.54
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 person
and the price are suspended between May 15 and October 15,
so that the Directors may then dispose of an accumulated stock
to the best possible advantage.55 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 Folsom. 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.56 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 5T
54 Statutes of California, 1893, pp. 54-5.
ss Ibid., 1905, pp. 532-3.
se Ibid., 1897, 99-101.
57 Ibid., 1901, pp. 272-3.
368 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- a
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.58
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 Council59 and the State
Federation of Labor60 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.61
ss In 1903 the Prison Directors were authorized to purchase California-
grown hemp as a substitute for jute. (Statutes of California, 1901, p. 515.)
59 Beport of L. C. Benham, Labor Clarion, April 5, 1907.
so Report of L. B. Leavitt, Proceedings of Eighth Annual Convention,
State Federation of Labor, p. 95.
6i Senate Joint Resolution, Statutes of California, 1901, p. 938.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 369
CHAPTER XVI.
THE STATE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
ATTEMPTS TO ESTABLISH A LABOE BUREAU 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.1 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. 2 It passed
both branches of the legislature but failed to receive the approval
of the Governor.3
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 work
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 Record-Union, February 27, 1878.)
3 Senate Journal, 138, 285, 459. Assembly Journal, 521. A pocket veto.
370 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
a section to the much overloaded new Constitution, requiring
the establishment of a Bureau of Labor and Labor Statistics.4
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.5 The two superintendents were
to be elected, and to have offices in Sacramento and San Fran-
cisco.6
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 by 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.7
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.
s 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. ' '
e Ibid., Sec. 4.
7 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 34.8
CEEATON OF THE BUREAU OF LABOE 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.9
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 most 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.10
8 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, pp. 1163-4.
» Assembly bill No. 30 (Assembly Journal, 25th Sess., pp. 18, 213, Senate
Journal, p. 300. Sacramento Daily Record-Union, February 3, 1883.) The
bill passed with little 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. tVo1- 2
SUMMARY OF THE WORK 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.11 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.12 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.13
4. In transportation on land and water.
5. In clerical and other skilled and unskilled labor not above1 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 Ibid., 1901, p. 12.
is Ibid., 1905, p. 109.
1910] 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.14 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
"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. [Vo1- 2
for the unsatisfactory results achieved by this branch of the
state government.
The first Labor Commissioner, J. S. Enos,15 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 fiascoes from which nothing could be learned except
a lesson of incapacity."16
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
is First Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 103.
is J. S. Enos was a State Senator from San Francisco from 1879 to
1882. He stumped the state for Governor Stoneman, speaking 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;17 The Eight-hour Law;18 Chinese Labor;19 Jap-
anese Labor ;20 Women Workers ;21 Strikes ;22 Convict Labor ;23
Apprenticeship;24 Child Labor;25 Industrial Education;26 Em-
ployment Agencies ;27 Trades Unions ;28 and Industries of the
State.29
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.30 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
B. E. 211-225; Second B. B. 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.
is 1st B. E. 196-204; 7th B. E. 92-101.
i'J 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; llth B. E, 72-
78; 12th B. E. 61-71.
21 3d B. E. 14-108; 9th B. B, 35-46; llth B. E. 11-17.
223d B. E. 149-181; 7th B. E. 149-160; 12th B. E. 183-214.
23lst 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.
25 nth B. E. 11-17; 12th B. B, 174-5.
26 3d B. B. 227-291.
27 7th B. E. 11-51; 52-71; 9th B. E. 73-83; 12th B. E. 177-182.
283d B. E. 109-192; 7th B. E. 136-149; 9th B. E, 84-122; 10th B. E. 67-
79; llth B. E. 30-72.
294th B. E, 11-101; 5th B. E. 15-31.
This is not an exhaustive list of the subjects treated in the Beports 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 Beports were published
in separate volumes and also bound in the appendices of the Legislative
Journals. The sixth and eighth biennial reports were never published.
so 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. [Vo1- 2
successor entered upon a bare office, and had no information of
previous actions except that contained in the printed reports.31
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.32 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. 33
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
si 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.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 377
interested.34 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,35 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.36 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
34 The chief subjects investigated were as follows: Seawall, Second
Biennial Report, 325-442; Coast Seamen, City Front Workers, Sweatshops,
San Pedro Strike, Printers, Third Biennial Report, 339-354; San Fran-
cisco and Oakland Laundries, Chinese Laundries, Napa Woolen Mill,
Stone-cutters' Strike, Fourth Biennial Report, 314-327; Labor and Cap-
ital, Shoe Trade, Breweries, Coast Seamen, Sweatshops, Fifth Biennial
Report, 27, 54, 101, 166, 133; Bakeshops, Time-check System, Collection
of wages, Seventh Biennial Report, 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 in the
work a staff of efficient agents, with sufficient funds to accomplish the
work, is absolutely essential. ' ' (Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, p. 6.)
se IUd., p. 52 ff .
378 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
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.37
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 wagp-
workers of the state.
ST This has already been more fully discussed in the chapter on child-
labor.
1910] Eaves: California 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 Avhich 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.1 A
bill providing for the appointment of such a board was drafted
by his successor, J. J. Tobin. It w^as 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 :2
(1) The political obligations incurred by the Governor would
prevent him appointing arbitrators entirely unbiased with regard
to labor disputes.3
1 Second Biennial Beport, 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.
s Ibid., December 19, 1888.
380 University of California Publications in Economics. CVo1- 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.4
(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.5
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."6
The Federated Trades Council also declined to endorse the
measure.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOARD IN 1891.
Two years 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 Governor is
authorized to make appointments and fill vacancies. In case
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.7
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 San Francisco Daily Report, December
3, 1888.
5 Coast Seamen 's Journal, December 12, 1888.
« Ibid., 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.8
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.9
The Board is also authorized to conduct public investigations
of complaints or grievances between employers and employees,
and to publish the results.10
Only one board of arbitration has been appointed for the
execution of this law.11 Two very trivial controversies were
s Statutes of California, 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.
"Sec. 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-
plained 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. ' ;
o Ibid., Sec. 4.
10 Ibid., Sec. 5.
n Oscar Lewis representing the employers, Charles Grambarth 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. [Vol. 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.12
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.13
FAILURE 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."14
They suggested that the work of the Board would be more
efficient 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.
is Ibid.
i* Ibid. Amendments suggested.
1910] 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.15
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. 16 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.17 As
is Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 30th Sess., Vol. 1, Doe.
16, p. 6.
iG Appendix to Journal of Senate and Assembly, 31st Sess., Vol. 6,
Doc. 13.
" Second Biennial Message of Governor Gage, Appendix to Journal of
Senate and Assembly, 35th Sess., Vol. 1, p. 58.
384 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 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.18
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
way. 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.
is A bill of this kind was introduced in 1907. G. 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 ol the labor organizations, the bill never even came to a vote
in the legislature.
1910J Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 385
CHAPTEE 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, l 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.2
FIEST USE OF MEANS OF IDENTIFYING PRODUCTS OF UNION
LABOE 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.
2 April 29, 1876, two years after the adoption of the label, the Alia
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. [Vol. 2
mills, that they may stamp their work so that we may know wrhat
material to put up and may avoid using the work got out by
the ten-hour mills. ' '3
The California Cigarmakers' Union adopted a white label in
1874 to indicate that only wrhite 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.4
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.
EFFOETS 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,5 for in 1887 three bills for the protection of
s Bulletin, August 3, 1869.
4 Brooks, J. G., Bulletin of the Department of Labor, No. 15, March,
1898, "Origin of the Union Label."
s 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.6
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.7 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.8
0 Senate bill 291, Senate Journal, 27th Sess., pp. 161, 336. Assembly
Journal, p. 439.
? Senate bill 343, Senate Journal, 27th Sess., p. 336. Assembly Journal,
p. 805.
s 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. [Vo1- 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.9 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.10
The Shoemakers' White Labor League directed their energies
to the preparation of public exhibitions of goods made by their
members, and to inducing public institiitions 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 affixed, 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 Cigarmakers' 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 Labor 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.
191°] 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.11
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.12 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 OF THE LABEL BY THE FEINTING TRADES.
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,13 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.14 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.15
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.16 *
11 Minutes of Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen's Journal,
November 9, 1887.
12 Ibid., December 17, 1890.
is Minutes of the Typographical Union, December 28, 1890.
i* Ibid., February 26, 1896.
is March 25, 1896.
is Minutes of the Typographical Union, October 25, 1896.
390 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
UNION LABELS ON PUBLIC PRINTING.
Evidently, the printers pressed the use of their label quite
energetical^. In October, 1896, 17 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,
1897,18 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,19
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.20 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
IT Minutes of the Typographical Union, October 25, 1896.
is Ibid., March 22, 1897.
is Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, Art. II, Chap. Ill,
Sec. 1.
20 Ibid., Sec. 5.
191°] 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.21
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 Stanley-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. Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, 135 Cal.
494.
392 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
writ of mandate will lie to correct illegal but not capricious
acts."22
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 RECOGNIZING 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 display 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 in 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
harder 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 Code24 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 injunction 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.25
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 $150.26
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. Citizens' Alliance; Case No. 90847,
Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
26 Burns et al. (Cigarmakers' Union) v. Mattheas $• Co.; Case No. 39578,
Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
394 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 2
CHAPTER XIX.
JUDICIAL EESTRAINT 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 GROWING OUT OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF TRADE-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 of 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.1
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.2
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 difficulty 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.3
1 Bulletin, November 4, 1862.
2 Ibid., November 6, 7, 10, 1862.
s Alta, September 30, 1884.
396 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- z
Two weeks 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 to1 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."4
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 bona fide."5
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
4 Otto v. Journeymen Tailors' Protective and Benevolent Union of San
Francisco, 75 Cal. 314.
s Herschl on Law of Fraternities, quoted in Otto v. Tailors Protective
and Benevolent Union, 75 Cal. 314-5.
1910] 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. "6 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.7
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.
o Otto v. Tailors' Protective and Benevolent Union, 75 Cal. 316.
? A similar case was Grand Grove v. Garibaldi 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
officers of the union.
398 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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."8 Thi^
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."9
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.10
Ten years later a similar case was tried in the San Francisco
s The case is reported and discussed in the Coast Seamen 's Journal,
June 16, 1888.
a Evening Post, May 29, 1888.
10 Alta, September 30, 1890. See also Pacific Union Printer, October,
1890, and Coast Seamen's Journal, October 8, 1890.
191°] 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.11
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. tVo1- 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."12
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
was compromised and the plaintiff decided to drop the case.
The instructions given the jury by Judge Daingerfield 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.13
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 cases were taken from the records in San
Francisco 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.
is Voice of Labor, February 4, 1899, p. 4. Ibid., July 29, 1899.
Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 401
workingmen voted was very bitter, and undoubtedly his defeat
was due to their opposition.14
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. The1 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.15
14 Organized Labor, October 13, 20, 27 ; November 3, 10, 1900.
15 Cole et al. v. McCarthy, Building Trades Council et al.; case No.
80044, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Decided May
22, 1902.
402 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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."16
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
affiliated 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 union 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-
1° Cole et al. v. McCarthy; Case No. 80044, Superior Court, City and
County of San Francisco.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 403
ment by the union in case he continues work and who, but for
such threats, would be willing to continue work."17
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 denned, 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 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA 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.18 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
IT Butcher v. Building Trades Council et al.; Case No. 84018, Superior
Court, City and County of San Francisco.
is See the chapter on the San Francisco Labor Movement, p. 41, note 110.
404 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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 cases."
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.19 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.20
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.21 These were unsuccessful, prob-
ably because of a realization of a lack of authority for such
i» Coast Seamen's Journal, December 26, 1888.
20 Minutes of the Federated Trades for November 27 and December 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.
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.22 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.23
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.24
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;25 (2) that
the good-will of a business is property;26 (3) that the defend-
ants were responsible for all injuries due to their willful acts.27
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.28 Since the
22 Alia, 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.
2* Alta, November 20, 1890; Coast Seamen's Journal, November 26, 1890.
25 Civil Code, Sec. 1708.
20 Ibid., Sees. 992, 655, 663.
27 Ibid., 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. [Vol. 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.29
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.30 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.31 Three months later the printers were still prosecuting
the boycott, and had appealed the case to the Supreme Court.32
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.33
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
20 Alia, November 20, 1890.
so Minutes of the Federated Trades Council of November 28, reported
in Coast Seamen's Journal of December 3.
31 Alia, 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.
191°] 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 3888 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.34 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, ^nd 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.35
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
34 Sherry v. Perkins (1888), 147 Mass. 212, 214.
ss Brace v. Evans (1888), 5 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 163.
408 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
at law for the circulation of libelous statements,30 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.37
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 indignation 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.38
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 injunc1
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.39
(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.40
(3) A Massachusetts court refused to permit a patrol of
so Mayer v. Journeymen Stone-cutters' Association (1890), 47 N. J. Eq.
(2 Dick.) 519.
37 Rogers v. Evarts, 17 N. Y. Supp. 264 (1891).
38 Casey v. Cinn. Typo. Union No. 3, 45 Fed. 135; 12 L. E. A. 193.
so Murdoch v. Walker, 152 Pa. St. 595.
40 Barr v. Essex Trade Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101.
191°] 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.41
• (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.42
(5) Mere persuasion to abandon employment, unaccompanied
by threats or acts of intimidation, was enjoined.43
(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,44 or to prohibit the use of the streets
for displaying malicious placards,45 or to forbid the inducing of
others, by entreaty and persuasion, to leave their employment.46
It is evident from this brief summary, that the decisions in
the state courts of the East 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 FOR THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION SET BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS.
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
41 Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92. See also Wick China Co. v. Brown,
164 Pa. St. 449.
42 Perkins v. Eogg, 28 Wkly. Law Bui. 32 ; Davis v. Zimmerman, 36 N. Y.
Supp. 303; Hamilton Brown tihoe Co. v. Saxey, 131 Mo. 212.
43 Beck v. Railway Teamsters ' Protective Union, 77 N. W. 13 ; 42 L. R.
A. 407.
44 Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers of America, 77 Hun. 215; 28
N. Y. Supp. 321.
45 Riggs v. Cinn. Waiters' Union, 5 Ohio N. P. 386.
46 Reynolds v. Everett, 144 N. Y. 189.
410 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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.47 In one of these eases 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.48
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. ' '49
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
47 in re Doolittle, 23 Fed. Eep. 544.
48 U. S. v. Kane, 23 Fed. Eep. 748.
40 Farmers ' Loan and Trust Co. v. N. Pacific Eailroad Co., 60 Fed. Rep.
803. For completer discussion, see the article by C. N. Gregory, Ear. Law
Rev., Vol. II, p. 495.
1910] 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."50
The Toledo, Ann Arbor and North Michigan Railroad Co. v.
Pennsylvania Co.51 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
so Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. 310.
si Toledo, etc., v. Pa. 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. [Vo1- 2
x
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."52
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.53 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. . . . "54 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.55
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.56
52 Southern California Railroad Co. v. Rutherford, 62 Fed. Rep. 798.
ss u. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. Eep. 726.
s* Ibid., pp. 726-7.
ss U. S. v. Agler, 62 Fed. Rep. 824. U. S. v. Elliott, 04 Fed. Rep. 27.
so Coeur d'Alene Consolidated and Mining Co. v. Miners' Union of War-
den, 51 Fed. Rep. 260. Decided in 1892.
191°] 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.57
(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.58
(4) The federal courts have repeatedly held that crimes may
be enjoined when they threaten a continuing injury to prop-
erty.59
(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.60
(6) A peaceful boycott of barrels made by machinery and
child-labor was enjoined.61
CALIFOENIA 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' Union62 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 U. S. v. Working men's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans, 54 Fed.
Eep. 994. Decided under the Anti-Trust Act of 1890.
ss Elder v. Whitesides, 72 Fed. Rep. 724.
5» Consolidated Steel and Iron Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. Eep. 811.
^MacTcall v. Eatchford, 82 Fed. Eep. 41.
si 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 Review, Vol. II,
pp. 492-501.
62 Davitt v. Am. Bakers' Union, 124 Cal. 99.
414 University of California Publications in Economics. LVo1- 2
the depression due to the vigorous attacks of the Employers'
Association, for in 1896 we find them again employing 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.63
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. He 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."64
Although decided on purely technical grounds, this verdict
was regarded as a victory for organized labor.65
In May, 1900, Rehfisch, 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,
es Pacific Union Printer, November, 1896.
64 Davitt v. American Bakers ' Union, 124 Cal. 99.
es Voice of Labor, April 1, 1899.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 415
and from trying to prevent new workers from entering the
plaintiff's employ.60 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.67 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 con-
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
GO Rehfisch v. Galway et al.; Case No. 72504, 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. tVo1- 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.08 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,69 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 AVaiters' 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-
68 Johnson v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees et al.; Case No. 76769,
Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. See also San Fran-
cisco Chronicle, July 27, 1901.
69 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.
1910] 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."70
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 Code71 which forbade the enticement of a
servant from his master. The law not only required that re-
™ Johnson v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees et al.; Case No. 76769,
Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
71 Civic Code, Sec. 49. This was repealed in 1903.
418 University of California. Publications in Economics. tVo1- 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"72 in the California Code precluded the use of the term
"unfair" or "unfair house."73
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,7*
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.75 The federal court decisions declaring peaceful boy-
72 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. Eetail Clerks' International Protective
Association.)
74 Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 107. This was a dissenting opinion.
75 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, English Appeal Cases, 1892, p. 25.
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."70
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. ' '77
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.78 In both cases the motion
of the attorney for the defendant striking out certain material
7« Johnson v. Eestaurant Employees et al.; Case No. 76769, Superior
Court, City and County ot San Francisco.
77 Daily v. Superior Court, 112 Gal. 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. Retail Clerks' Union et al.; Case No. 75466. Wolf v. Retail
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.79 In one of these
cases Judge Troutt granted an injunction pendent e 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.80 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
7» Ruediger et al. v. Bakers' Union et al.; Case No. 78387, Superior
Court, City and County of San Francisco. Weber v. Bakers' Union, Local
No. 24; Case No. 78387, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
so See report and criticism of the decision in the San Francisco Ex-
aminer, January 15, 1902.
191°] Eaves: California Labor 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.81 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 ease 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
Kullman, 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-
Labor Clarion, November 21, 19012.
422 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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 no.t
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.82
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. Organized Labor, January 3, 1903.
191°] 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.83 The American Federation of
Labor bill "to limit the meaning of the word 'conspiracy,' 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. ' '
83 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, but
was enacted in 1905. See Statutes of California and Amendments to the
Codes, 1905, p. 58.
424 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
Grove L. Johnson, the 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,84
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
Council85 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.86 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.87 Finally the motion of
»4 San Francisco Examiner, February 5, 1903, p. 1.
85 Walter Macarthur and E. I. Wisler were the representatives of the
Labor Council in Sacramento at this time.
86 Examiner, February 5, 1903. Labor Clarion, February 13, 1903.
8" 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
191°] 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,"88 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.89 The San Francisco Labor Council
also adopted resolutions in favor of the passage of the bill with-
out the objectionable phrase "or intimidation."90 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.91 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 21.92
.
INJUNCTION CASES SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSAGE OF THE
EESTKAINING ACT.
For over a year after the passage of this act, there were no
important injunction cases in the state courts.93 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
Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 Ted. Kep. 1014.)
ss Labor Clarion, February 20, 1903;
so Examiner, February 12, 1903.
so Labor Clarion, February 13, 1903.
si Examiner, February 10, 1903.
92 Labor Clarion, March 13, 1903. See also March 27, for final report
on the bills.
ss Several unimportant cases were allowed to lapse: Gentili v. Waiters'
Union, Local No. 30, Case No. 87835; Novelty Theatre v. Actors' Union,
Case No. 88890; Pundt v. Cooks' Union, No. 44, Case No. 89941. All in
the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
426 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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 ! " " You 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 threatened them with boy-
cott if they did not withdraw their business from the plaintiff.04
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 Hunt 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.95
04 pierce v. Stablemen's Union; Case No. 91122, Superior Court, City
and County of San Francisco.
»5 Labor Clarion, August 12, 1904, p. 2.
1910] 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 Hunt 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. tVo1- 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."96
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.97
One of these injunction cases was appealed to the Supreme
Court,98 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
96 Labor Clarion, August 12, 1904. Organised Labor, August 13, 1904,
p. 4.
»7 Hayes Valley Stables v. Stablemen's Union; Case No. 92135, Superior
Court, City and County of San Francisco. Injunction restraining the boy-
cott on the Arcade Stables, Labor Clarion, March 9, 1906.
os Goldberg Bowen \. Stablemen's Union, 86 Pac. Rep. 807, 149 Cal. 429.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 429
has for its purpose the destruction of his business by preventing
its operation through the intimidation of those who deal with
or work with him may be enjoined . . . the threat of a
boycott against others who may deal with such a person, in order
to compel them against their will to also refrain from patron-
izing or working with such person, is a species of intimidation. ' '"
The plaintiff had complained that at times there were as
many as six pickets in front of his restaurant, though the de-
fendant asserted that there had never been more than two, and
that these had done nothing but stand on the outer edge of the
sidewalk and say, "Non-union house. Please don't patronize
this restaurant. ' ' On the question of the right to use the streets
for picketing, Judge Murasky quoted with approval from a New
York decision to the effect that "A wayfarer upon the public
streets should be free for public travel. No man against my will
has the right to occupy the public street to arrest my course, be
he ever so polite and gentle in his insistence. There may be no
intimidation, yet an interruption of peaceful travel. There may
be annoyance without danger. ' '10° In accordance with this view
he held that "the maintenance of any obstruction in front of or
in the vicinity of plaintiff's establishment for the purpose of
working him an injury; the establishment of a systematic patrol
in the neighborhood of his premises, the stationing of a picket
with a badge or device, or bearing a banner, in front of or near
plaintiff's store with a view to injure his business, or which has
such results, is not such a use of the streets generally as is per-
mitted by law to any one, for it may be what is denominated by
the law as a private nuisance . . . the constant presence of
one man advertising his purpose outside the door of a retail store
or restaurant might constitute a most serious and potent private
nuisance, as the term is understood in law."101
This decision which absolutely prohibited what the members
of trade-unions regarded as a peaceful and lawful appeal for
public support aroused much indignant criticism. A year later
»» Kosta v. Cooks' Union et al.; Case No. 95461, Superior Court, City
and County of San Francisco.
100 Mills v. U. S. Printing Co., 91 New York S. 185.
101 Kosta v. Cooks' Union et al.; Case No. 95461, Superior Court, City
and County of San Francisco.
430 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
the San Francisco Labor Council passed resolutions calling upon
''all members of organized labor and all citizens favoring the
impartial administration of justice to work and vote with us to
frustrate the election of Judge Murasky. "102 These efforts to
prevent his re-election were not successful.
This ruling of Judge Murasky 's prohibiting all picketing of
a boycotted place of business was fully sustained by a decision
rendered in July, 1906, in the case appealed by the Stablemen's
Union.103 This is the first and only time that the California
Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of what actions in a
controversy of this kind are subject to judicial restraint, as the
only previous case of this kind was dismissed because of a de-
fective complaint.104 The decision, which was written by Justice
McFarland and concurred in by the other six judges of the
court, was based entirely on the rulings in similar cases of the
federal courts and the courts of Eastern states. It was held
that the complaint clearly established the existence of a boycott,
and the fact that the pickets and representatives of the union
carrying placards and transparencies intimidated the patrons
of the plaintiffs' business. "And such acts, having such effect,
undoubtedly interfered with, and violated plaintiff's constitu-
tional right to acquire, possess, defend, and enjoy property. ' '
It was shown that, in the cases cited, the boycott had been
repeatedly enjoined without reference to the means used to carry
it into effect. The complainants were entitled to ask for the
exercise of the restraining powrer of the court, first, because
relief in damages to be recovered by an action at law was entirely
inadequate ; second, because the injury was continuing and irre-
parable, and not capable of admeasurement according to legal
principles.
The argument that the injunction was forbidden by the Cali-
fornia statute of 1903 was dismissed with the assertion that this
law could not be construed as prohibiting the court from enjoin-
ing the main wrongful acts charged in the complaint, and if so
102 Labor Clarion, October 19, 1906, Minutes of the Labor Council for
October 12.
103 Goldberg Bou-en Co. v. Stablemen's Union, 149 Cal. 429, 432.
104 Davitt v. American Bakers' Union, 124 Cal. 99.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 431
construed was void, because violative of the constitutional right
to acquire, possess, enjoy, and protect property.
It was agreed that the part of the judgment which forbade
a mere expression of opinion at any time or place as to the
plaintiff and his business should be amended,105 but the injunc-
tion as finally confirmed restrained the union from "interfering
with, or harassing, or obstructing plaintiff in the conduct of his
business, ... by causing any agent or agents, representa-
tive or representatives, or any picket or pickets, or any person or
persons, to be stationed in front of or in the immediate vicinity
of said place of business, with a placard or transparency having
on it the words and figures as alleged in the complaint herein,
or any placard or transparency ... of similar import, and
from, at said places of business, or in front thereof, or in the
immediate vicinity thereof, by means of pickets or transpar-
encies, or otherwise, threatening or intimidating any person or
persons transacting or desiring to transact business with said
plaintiff; or being employed at said place or places by the
plaintiff."106
These five decisions rendered in the California courts be-
tween July, 1901, and July, 1906, show clearly the rapid devel-
opment of judicial restraint of trade-union activities. The first
of these decisions declared the enticement of a servant, and the
use of such terms as "unfair" unlawful on the ground that
they were forbidden in the Civil Code. Peaceful persuasion of
customers or possible future employees was permitted. In 1905
the section of the Civil Code protecting from the enticement of
his servant was repealed, and Judge Sloss also declared that,
owing to a decision of the California Supreme Court which
declared all restraint of freedom of speech unconstitutional, the
enjoining of slander was erroneus.
The other decisions are founded on the assumption that a
business is a property right, entitled to the protection of the
courts. The general phrase "enjoined from all interference with
the business of plaintiff," recurs frequently in the injunctions
io.r> Goldberg Bowen Co. v. Stablemen's Union, Local No. 8760, 149 Cal.
429, 434-5.
ice Ibid., 435.
432 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
issued by the California courts. The specifications of the acts
which the courts regard as unlawful interference vary from the
use of force or violence, or threats of force or violence, to the
mere giving of information by means of placards or word of
mouth. In Judge Troutt's injunction it would seem that the
"combining and conspiring together" is enjoined, and Judge
Murasky is clearly of the opinion that the union pickets have
no right to address any one on the street for the most polite and
peaceful persuasion. Finally the Supreme Court, without at-
tempting to argue the matter from the standpoint of previous
California decisions, or existing statutes, declared the boycott
to be an unlawful interference with property rights, and found
ample precedents for enjoining all forms of picketing. This
rapid development was promoted by the decisions in other parts
of the country which we have already reviewed, and also by the
fact that the California branches of the federal courts rendered
decisions during this period which showed the more radical ten-
dencies in the use of the injunction. Three important cases
-were decided in the United States Circuit Court of the Northern
District of California, in each of which precedents were estab-
lished for a restraint of trade-union activities such as had not
hitherto been attempted in the state courts.
CALIFOENIA FEDEEAL COUET INJUNCTION CASES.
Soon after the passage of the California law of 1903 restrain-
ing the issuance of injunctions in the state courts, several appli-
cations for such restraining orders were made to judges of the
federal courts on the ground that the plaintiffs were residents
of other states. The first of these cases, afterwards dismissed
because the complainant failed to press the suit, arose out of the
boycott of a certain rubber pad by the Journeymen Horse-
shoers' Union. The boycott was due to the fact that the pro-
prietor of this pad had refused to unionize his horseshoeing shop
in New York City. In granting an injunction pendente lite,
Judge Beatty declared the boycott unlawful, and characterized
the efforts of trade-unions to use it in the interests of their
members as illegal monopolies. He said, "Whenever any or-
ganization, even for the benefit of its members, through its
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 433
control over them by injunction or direction to them or its
influence upon the public, and upon patrons, takes steps to pre-
vent others from enjoying any lawful occupation in their labor
or business, or attempts by concerted action to disparage the
business or goods of another, or, in other words boycott said
goods, it acts in violation of the law. If such can be done as
to one man's trade and goods, it may be done as to another's,
and so continue until all competitors are out of the way; thus
entailing injury not only upon the individual but also upon the
public. This is a monopoly of the worst character, and is most
obnoxious to the law. ' '107
At about the same time two injunctions were granted re-
straining the activities of members of the Bag Workers' Union,
who were then conducting strikes against two San Francisco
firms.108 In his decision on the Gulf Bag Company case, Justice
Beatty conceded the right of peaceful persuasion, but claimed
that in this case, though there was no direct evidence proving
the defendants guilty, unlawful acts had been committed. He
held that "when any assemble in numbers for some object they
must be held responsible for what their associates do, whether
they approve of or advise it or not." The permanent injunc-
tion granted restrained the members of the Bag Makers' Union
from all interference with the remaining employees of plaintiff,
and from congregating and maintaining a picket or patrol in
front of or in the immediate vicinity of plaintiff's factory for
the purpose of molesting any person whatsoever, or of preventing
any person whatsoever from obtaining free and unobstructed
access to plaintiff's factory.109
In July, 1905, the question of the right of the California
labor organizations to conduct a boycott in the interests of strik-
ing members of an Eastern trade-union again came before the
federal court.110 After citing the numerous decisions in which
the boycott had been held to be unlawful, Judge Morrow con-
sidered the argument which, on the authority of the famous
107 Hallanan v. Storey et al; Case No. 13405, Circuit Court, Northern
District of California. Filed June 9, 1903.
108 Gulf Bag Co. v. Suttner et al; Case No. 13412, 124 Fed. Eep. 467.
loo Ames and Harris v. Bag Workers' Union, Case No. 13462.
no Loewe et al. v. Cal. State Federation of Labor et al., 139 Fed. Eep. 71.
434 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
English case, Allen v. Flood, held that an act not in itself action-
able does not become so because the motive is malicious or bad,
or because it is done in combination with two or more persons.
He pointed out that in a later English decision,111 where the
facts were similar to the case under consideration, such acts
were held to be illegal and unjustifiable, "in that they were not
performed in the line of legitimate trade competition, or for the
purpose of advancing the interests of the workmen themselves,
but for the sole purpose of injuring the plaintiff in his trade."
He also cited a recent decision of Justice Holmes in the United
States Supreme Court which declared that the liberty to com-
bine to inflict injury upon another, even upon such intangibles
as business or reputation, is not among the rights which the
Fourteenth Amendment was intended to preserve, and the de-
fense that motives are not actionable is true in determining what
a man is bound to foresee, but not necessarily true in determin-
ing the extent to which he can justify harm which he has fore-
seen.112
The writ as granted enjoined all combining or conspiring
together to injure the business of the plaintiff. Among the acts
specifically forbidden were the publication, either orally or in
writing, of statements calling attention to the strike in the com-
plainants ' factory, and all efforts to coerce or influence any
person not to wear or deal in the hats manufactured by the
complainant.113
A few months after the Loewe decision was rendered another
similar case114 came before the same court, growing out of the
boycott of a certain brand of beer. Judge Beatty delivered the
decision orally, without notes. Since 1892, when he issued the
injunctions in the famous Coeur d'Alene cases, Judge Beatty 's
decisions have been among those showing the more radical ten-
dencies in the development of judicial restraint of trade-union
activities, so it is not surprising to find that this late decision
marks another advance in the assertion of such powers.
in Quinn v. Leathern, A. 0. 1901, p. 495.
112 Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194.
us Loewe v. California Federation of Labor, 139 Fed. Eep. 71, 86.
114 Seattle Brewing and Malting Co. v. Hansen et al., 144 Fed. Rep.. 1011.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 435
The fundamental weakness of his somewhat haphazard dis-
cussion of the case in question seems to be due to a lack of ap-
preciation of obvious economic principles. In a competitive sys-
tem it is inevitable that in all economic contests one person or
set of persons must profit at the expense of another. He con-
cedes that it is commendable for the workingmen to strive to
better their conditions, but demands that no one shall receive
the slightest injury in this struggle to right wrongs or obtain a
larger share in the profits of business, or more favorable condi-
tions of work. He says of these efforts of trade unionists,
"They must not undertake to accomplish what they desire to
the injury or at the expense of other people, and there is where
the mistake is too often made. It is conceded by all that they
have the right to better their condition, but they must not do it
in a way to be oppressive of others. I think that is what they
have attempted to do in this case. Perhaps they have not so
intended, but the question is as to the results of their acts.
Beyond any question, what they are trying to do would be op-
pressive of the business of these complainants."115
Among the acts specified as unlawful interference with the
business of complainants wras the circulation of notices which
merely stated that certain saloon keepers were handling the boy-
cotted beer, because it was claimed that such notices would
intimidate these people and prevent them dealing in the beer.
He said, "It must be remembered that there are many timid
people in this world, who would be much influenced by danger
of even small losses. I have no doubt that many of these men
who have this notice would fear that by continuing to engage in
the selling of the beer there would be some loss to them, and that
far it would hurt their business." Of the use of the term
"unfair" he said, "Of course it does not say to the laboring
people, 'You shall not drink' such beer, but it says: 'To Organ-
ized Labor and Friends: Don't use this beer!' These organi-
zations, in the way they are trained, for they are as well trained
as any military force, understand these rules and know what
they mean. The very use of the term 'unfair' has a distinct
Seattle Brewing and Malting Co. v. Hansen, 144 Fed. Eep. 1013.
436 University of California Publications in Economics. tVo1- 2
meaning to them, and it is in the nature of a direction to the
members of these organizations not to use that beer, and it is
also an intimidation to those who are dealing in it." He con-
sidered that such notices tended to obstruct unfairly the busi-
ness of the complainant, and that it was the duty of the court
to restrain the defendants from ' ' doing anything that will inter-
fere with the complainant's business."110
The protectorate thus established was quite general in its
character. The injunction was to be enforced against the mem-
bers of the labor organizations and their associates without
service of summons upon all of them. The judge directed that
the writ of injunction should, in its terms, follow the precedent
set in the case of Loewe v. California State Federation of Labor,
and be directed to these organizations and then to different
individuals named as members of the organizations, and also
to include their attorneys, agents, employees, and all persons
acting in aid of or in conjunction with them.
The more recent injunction issued by Judge Morrow in the
case of the Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific
et al.117 is less general in its application, yet the defendants are
restrained not only from boarding the vessels of the plaintiff
and from threats of bodily harm to his emploj^ees, but also from
"in any wise interfering" with the crews or business of com-
plainant. This case was appealed to the United States Circuit
of Appeals, where the decision of the lower court in issuing the
injunction was sustained. An unsuccessful attempt was made
to have the decision reviewed in the United States Supreme Court
on a writ of certiorari.
SUMMARY OF THE CALIFORNIA INJUNCTION CASES.
This review of the California decisions between 1901 and
1906 shows the remarkable and rapid development in the use of
the injunction to restrain trade-union activities. The decisions
strike at what is most fundamental in the labor movement, that
is, the efforts to enlist numbers of workingmen in controversies
us Seattle Breiving and Malting Co., 144 Fed. Rep. 1014.
117 149 Fed. Rep. 577; appealed, 208 U. S. 615.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 437
with accumulated wealth. The actions enjoined are not gener-
ally those of the small group immediately concerned, but those
which enlist the sympathy of the public, or of the larger group
of organized workers, in support of some smaller body of trade-
unionists.
The injunctions have been so general in their terms that it
is easier to state the few remaining forms of trade-union activity
which the courts still permit, than to attempt a summary of pro-
hibited actions.
The efforts to enjoin the strike have been declared unconsti-
tutional in the United States Supreme Court, so the right of the
workman to quit work, whenever and for whatever cause he sees
fit, has been fully established.
The right of peaceful persuasion is allowed, though the value
of this concession is not great, since the means and opportunities
for persuasion are held subject to injunction. The press fur-
nishes the modern means of communication and persuasion, and
its use in convincing the public, or even in notifying those
already pledged to the support of their fellow-workers, has been
repeatedly enjoined. The courts have also decided that oral
persuasion must not take place on the public highway in the
vicinity of the place of business concerned in the controversy.
If properly introduced, and at a sufficient distance, it seems
probable that this right may still be exercised.
The use of labels to advertise work done under good condi-
tions, and their advertisement has not been enjoined.
This effort to restrain the activities of the California trade-
unions has been purely judicial; the state legislature has re-
peatedly refused to pass measures for this purpose. We have
already noticed the repeal of the section of the Civil Code which
made the enticement of a servant unlawful, and the passage of
the act of 1903 restraining the use of the injunction. In 1891
and again in 1905 vigorous efforts were made to pass anti-
boycott laws. The first of these bills was endorsed by the Sac-
ramento Chamber of Commerce,118 and favored by many promi-
nent San Francisco business men. A mass meeting was held in
Alia, February 13, 1891, p. 5.
438 University of California Publications in Economics. ["Vol. 2
San Francisco under the auspices of the Federated Trades
Council to oppose the passage of the measure,119 and a special
representative was sent to Sacramento to assist in securing its
defeat. The later bill was modeled on the Alabama anti-boycott
law, and was supposed to have been presented through the efforts
of the Citizens' Alliance. It was also defeated by the efforts of
the labor organizations.
us Ibid., p. 8. Report of mass meeting. See also the report of the
meeting of the Federated Trades Council, February 21.
191°] Eaves: California Labor Legislation, 439
CHAPTER XX.
REVIEW SUMMARY.
In the previous chapters of this book we have reviewed sixty
years of the organized activities of the wage-workers of Cali-
fornia in defense of what they have regarded as their economic
rights and interests. Two conditions present to an unusual
degree in California give this record peculiar interest: First,
these organized efforts to protect and benefit the working classes
have been made in an exceeding favorable environment; and
second, employer and employee started with a more equal
division of power than has ever been possible in the other great
industrial centers of this country.
As one goes more carefully into the actual history of this
important section of the American labor movement, its thor-
oughly democratic character becomes evident. The claim that
these activities have been the product of the agitations of discon-
tented, foreign — mostly Irish — demagogues is utterly superficial,
and entirely unsupported by the facts of history. Leadership
is of course necessary in any social movement, but the history
of the efforts by which the labor laws were passed certainly
proves that there has been no lack of activity and enthusiastic
support on the part of the rank and file. Instances where the
California trade-unionists have appeared fickle and ungrateful
in their repudiation of once-powerful leaders indicate that their
allegiance has been given to the cause rather than to the man
representing it. It is hard to decide who among the early
inhabitants of San Francisco were most entitled to be called
foreigners. The newly arrived Americans from the other side
of the continent no doubt felt that the native-born Spaniards
or Mexicans were foreigners. The great rush for the gold fields
brought people from every nation. The leadership of the labor
movement has been, like that of other activities of the state,
quite cosmopolitan. Among those who have been most influ-
ential we find native-born Americans, Englishmen, Scotchmen,
440 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 2
Germans, Norwegians, and last, but by no means most important,
the Irish.
The chief objects which the labor legislation of California
has sought to promote have been:
1. The prevention of race associations that were objection-
able to the working classes.
2. Protection from the competitors who for one reason or
another were able to work cheaply.
3. Wholesome conditions of labor, such as shorter work-days
and sanitary surroundings.
4. Security for the payment of what is justly due.
5. The right of organized efforts to safeguard and promote
the interests of the working classes.
It is evident as one studies the sources of the movements
to exclude negroes and Chinese from California that the motives
back of this legislation were not purely economic. We repeat-
edly meet with dignified discussions of the social evils due to
the presence of elements in the population incapable of assimi-
lation. Complex race antagonisms and resentment at the
thought of enforced association with what were looked upon
as inferior races gave increased determination and bitterness
of feeling to the efforts to exclude these competitors.
Undoubtedly the opposition to the Chinese was greatly
strengthened by the fear of economic competition, and this fear
was increased to a panic when the large numbers of incoming
Chinese forcefully reminded the Californians of the vast accum-
ulations of population from which this stream of immigration
flowed. The legislation excluding the Chinese is the product
of many years of determined effort on the part of the working
men of California backed by the full force of the American
labor movement. Those who have had an opportunity to gauge
the beliefs and feelings of the masses can not doubt the contin-
uation of this policy, as no political party could long survive
the announcement of a determination to remove the restrictions
on the immigration of Oriental labor.
Another type of legislation which has sought to prevent
cheap competitors is that regulating convict labor. California
is fortunate in that a satisfactory solution has at last been found
191°] 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-day has been
the chief measure undertaken for this purpose. Notwithstanding
the large amount of time and attention given to the eight-hour
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 acknowledged. 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
working-men alone. They are proverbially lacking in 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 completing this protection by
laws requiring a prompt money payment for services rendered
442 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vol. 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 truck 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
191°] 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. [Vol. 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, have disappeared. The Coast Sea-
men's Journal has a complete file running back to 1887. The minutes
of the San Francisco central representative body were first published
in the Journal 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.
Alia, 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, San Francisco
Chronicle, San Francisco, 1865-.
Cigarmakers' Appeal, The, San Francisco, 1879-1880 (f).1
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-.
Organised Labor, 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 Eecord Union, Sacramento, 1875- .
San Francisco Daily Evening News, San Francisco, 1853-1856 (?).
San Francisco Daily Report, 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 were destroyed in the fire of 1906. The valuable records
of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific and of the Coast Seamen's Journal
were saved. 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 Organised
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.
t
446 University of California Publications in Economics. [Vo1- 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 light on labor conditions.
California, Constitutions —
Brown, J. Eoss, 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 (Proposed), 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-.
1910] Eaves: California Labor Legislation. 447
San Francisco —
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, 1908.
General Ordinances, San Francisco, 1906.
Municipal Reports, 1859-.
Eeports 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, D. 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.
Bryce, 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 Labor, No. 15, p. 197, March, 1898, Washington, 1898.
Coolidge, Mary R., Chinese Immigration,- New York, 1909.
Cross, Ira, Labor Papers of the Pacific Coast, Labor 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. tVo1- 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 Eeport 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, Rev. O., 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-Unionists, a paper read
before the 1908 meeting of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae,
Serial III, No. 18, Publications of the Association of Collegiate
Alumnae.
Eosenberg, Edward, Unpublished manuscript.
Seward, Geo. F., 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 Francisco, 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.
Aglerr U. S. v., 412.
Ah Cue, Ex parte, 191.
Ah Fond, In the matter of ,146.
Ah Louis v. Harwood, 245, 247.
Ah Fong, 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., 235,
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., 235.
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. (Cigar makers' Union)
v. Mattheas & Co., 393.
Burns v. Sennett & Miller, 269.
Butcher v. Building Trades Coun-
cil, et al., 403.
Cany v. Halleek, 263.
Carson, Ex parte, 331.
Casey v. Cinn. Tvpo. 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. R, R. 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 R, R. Co., 235.
Cregan v. Marston, 269.
Daily v. Superior Court, 405, 419.
Daves v. Southern Pac. 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 v. National and O. 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 Railroad Co., 410.
Fisk v. Cen. Pacific E. E. 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. Eetail 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 Ey.
Co., 269.
Koser, Ex parte, 331.
Kosta v. Cooks' Union et al., 429.
Kubach, Ex parte, 187, 220, 223.
Lee v. S. Pac. E. 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.
McCall v. Pac. M. S. S. Co., 271.
McCants 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 E. 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
O 'Connor v. Golden Gate Woolen
Mfg. Co., 272.
O'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 Rolling Mill Co. v. Bear
Valley, Tr. Co., 235.
Palmer v. White, 240, 251.
Peckham v. Fox, 249.
Perkins, In re, 97, 98.
Perkins v. Rogg, 409.
Perry v. Brainard, 245.
Peirce v. Stablemen's Union, 426.
Polack v. McGrath, 266.
Pundt v. Cooks' Union, 425.
Quinn v. Leathern, 434.
Reed v. Norton, 240.
Reese v. Bald Mt. G. M. Co., 235.
Rehfisch v. Galway et al., 415.
Reid v. Clay, 249.
Renton v. Conly, 239.
Reynolds v. Everett, 409.
Riggs v. Cinn. Waiters' Union,
409.
Rogers v. Evarts, 408.
Rosenberg v. Pacific Coast Ry.
Co., 263, 266.
Roylance 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. R. R. Co.,
271.
Schaezlein v. Cabaniss, 322.
Schallert-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.
Skelton 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. Rutherford, 412.
Speer v. See Yup Co., 114.
Spencer, In re, 305, 307.
Spinney v. Griffith, 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. Red. 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. Retail 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.
Elaine, 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 0on 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 case, 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, Sunday 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
California, 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 Eailroad, 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 Francisco
ordinances, 142-145, 147, 149;
selective influence 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 traffic, 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, Eepresentative, 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; efforts 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 Foundrymen's As-
sociation, organization of, 51.
Estell, lessee of convict labor, 352,
353.
Eumenic 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 Rights 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'
strike, 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, R. 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 Reformers, 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 Archy Lee case, 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 Reform 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, Representative, 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.
McCreary Act, 195.
Maguire, Judge, consipracy 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: (a) en-
dorsement by employer, 244;
(5) 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.
Mining camps, government of,
111; 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.
Polities, 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.
Race 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, Frank, 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: (a) geograph-
ical, 2; (b) 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.
Schmitz, 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 ah, 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 case, 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 Workingmen, 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, Burlingame,
126; 1880, 172; 1894, 196.
Trescot, Win. 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 f 0^387; 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.
West 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 Party 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).
Workingmen 's Party of the
United States, 25.
Workmen, National Congress of,
16, 17.
Workshops, sanitation of, 320,
321, 322.
Wozencraft, on the MeCarver
amendment, 85.
Wright, J. H., president Indus-
trial Congress, 214.
5 10
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11