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 workmen 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 consider it, proposed to punish by fine and imprisonment any person who required more than ten hours for a day's work from any one in his employ. When the committee brought in its report a substitute bill was offered, which simply stated that ten hours should constitute a legal day's work. In this form the measure met with but slight opposition, passing, and receiving the Governor's approval on May 17, 1853. The law in its weakened form seems to have been effective. We have been unable to find any complaints of its violation, and at a later period the effectiveness of this early law was cited as a strong argument in favor of the eight-hour legislation.3

1 San Francisco Herald, May 11, 1853.

2 Assembly Journal, 4th Sess., p. 573.

3 Alta, February 11, 1866.

Statutes of California, 1853, p.

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. 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 eighthour 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 suggested the calling of a mass meeting for the agitation of an eight-hour law. At this meeting a petition asking for the passage of such a law was adopted, and Kenaday was authorized to bring it before the local delegation of members of the legislature.5 He also went to Sacramento as the representative of the San Francisco trade-unions to present their petition and lobby for the bill. The Sacramento trade-unions, which were quite active at this time, ably seconded all the efforts of their fellow-workers in San Francisco.

Assemblyman Wilcox, "the Mariposa blacksmith," who was

4 Haskell, in McNeill, The Labor Movement, etc., p. 608.

5 Pacific Union Printer, December, 1890, speech of Kenaday.

• Ibid. McNeill, Labor Movement, etc., p. 608.

8

regarded as the champion of the working classes, presented the bill with its accompanying petition. The joint committee to whom the matter was referred were deeply impressed by the petition which had been signed by eleven thousand of the citizens of San Francisco. Their favorable report stated that, since the petition emanated from a large body of intelligent citizens who were presumed to know their best interests, the committee did not feel disposed even to attempt to controvert its arguments. The report continues, "As an evidence of the earnestness of the petitioners, it may be cited that the document has been submitted to large assemblages of citizens directly interested in the subject, in the cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, and Marysville, its merits freely canvassed, and after careful deliberation, adopted as an expression of their respective wishes. In the public press, also, the matter has been extensively discussed, and your Committee are not made aware of a single public journal that has opposed the measure, nor indeed has opposition raised its head from any quarter.""" An attempt was made in the assembly to add an amendment requiring that wages be paid in gold coin, but this failed. The bill with an amendment made in committée 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 conditions 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 probable 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,

↑ Sacramento Daily Union, January 25, 1866; Alta, January 25, 1866. Assembly Journal, 16th Sess., p. 252.

8 Alta, June 4, 1867. (Speech of Wilcox.)

9 Assembly Journal, 16th Sess., p. 304.

10 Ibid., p. 317.

and that such a reduction in hours must be followed by a corresponding decrease in the earnings of the workers. The difficulty of competing with places having a much longer workday was emphasized, and it was asked, "Is it prudent for California,considering the fact that the price of labor is already so high that manufactures struggle for existence, while millions of acres of rich virgin soil cannot be cultivated,-to lead every other State in the Union on this labor question?" The workingmen were warned that wages were destined to decline, and advised to make the most of their present advantages."

This was the first general labor movement in California, and the accounts of the demonstrations in support of the eight-hour law indicate that at this early date the working people of the state were quick to respond to an appeal for united efforts to promote their class interests. The resolutions adopted at the San Francisco mass meeting claimed that this law had the overwhelming 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 sufficient evidence of the value of such legislation. Should the law prove injurious, the clause allowing contracts for a longer workday provided an easy remedy.12

The argument claiming that it would be impossible for California 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 petition against the law which had been recently sent to Sacramento had only eighteen signatures, and that it had been promoted by a manufacturer 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.

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 California eight-hour law should take effect when Massachusetts passed a similar measure.13 This killed the bill; its friends permitting it to die on the files.

14

After the failure of the eight-hour law in the legislature, many of the workingmen determined to obtain the shorter workday 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 eighthour day. The other building trades also set dates for the inauguration of the new system. The journeymen ship and steamboat joiners gave notice that on January 1, 1867, they would adopt the new time schedule, the bricklayers set February 1, 1867, as their date, and the stone masons March 1.15 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 tradeunions realized that they were not prepared to join in the demands 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 resolutions stating that, while its members sympathized with the efforts of fellow-mechanics, they felt that the conditions of their trade

13 Senate Journal, 16th Sess., p. 673. See also Alta, January 23, 1868. (Speech of Lupton.)

14 Bulletin, June 3, 1867; report of the meeting says the resolution was adopted April 9, 1866. See also Alta, June 4, 1867.

15 Industrial Magazine, January, 1867, p. 48.

16 Ibid., February, 1867.