would not permit the adoption of an eight-hour system." The machinists and other organizations of the metal workers also found themselves unable at this time to make so radical a change in their working hours.

The first half of 1867, the period during which the shorter work-day was inaugurated in many of these trades, was marked by great activity among the trade-unions. The house carpenters, who had given themselves a year in which to prepare for the change, enlisted all of their craft in a House Carpenters' Eight-hour League which claimed a membership of eighteen hundred. 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 devoted their oratory to the two main topics of interest to their followers, namely, Chinese exclusion, and the eight-hour workday. 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 carpenters 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 distinction among men was drawn by education, and that class distinctions would be destroyed when the workingmen had the leisure to cultivate their minds. He believed that when the new system was once established, schools for men would spring up as fast as they were wanted, that all would be furnished with the necessary means of improvement.

June 3, 1867, the date set for the celebration of the shorter work-day, may be regarded as the first California Labor Day. Some of those who were unfriendly to the movement predicted

17 Minutes of meetings of December 30, 1865; January 27, April 27, 1867; February 28, 1870.

18 The San Francisco papers report meetings from April 1 to June 28. 19 Alta, June 2 1867. Bulletin, May 15.

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 timeschedule 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 formation 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.

strictly a workingmen's organization, as it proposed to admit capitalists and master-builders. A meeting was held and resolutions 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 generally maintained in the building trades, and probably introduced among other groups of workers. After visiting the architects 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 culminated in the great eight-hour celebration of June 3, but also in a successful political movement by which a majority of their candidates were chosen in the San Francisco primary election of June 5. The workingmen's convention had passed resolutions to the effect that the men there represented would vote for no candidate who would not pledge himself to the support of the eight-hour movement.20 As the convention appointed 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.

cases within the state unless otherwise expressly stipulated between 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 domestic labor were excluded from the operation of the law.29 This last section was proposed by Dwinelle, and added in committee. 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.3

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

29 Statutes of California, 1867-8, p. 63. Alta, January 23, 1868.

30 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.

good.33 As all parties had pledged themselves to the eighthour 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 procession,35 which was the favorite form of celebration at this period. A number of members of the state legislature contributed to the oratorical features of the program. As in the procession of June 3, 1867, the order of marching was determined by the date of adoption of the eight-hour day.36

EFFORTS 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.

34 San Francisco papers, February 21 to 24, 1868. The Times gives a particularly good account.

35 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 Association.

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.