law circulated for signatures throughout the State. San Francisco was divided into fifteen districts to be canvassed by members of the council. Copies of the petition and the resolutions of the council were sent to members in other places, or to postmasters 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 organization 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

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA EIGHT-HOUR LAW.

39

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. 38 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 working-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 contracting 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. 4o

40

We have seen that the ship caulkers and carpenters were

37 Alta, November 30, 1867. 38 Winn, Valedictory Address. 39 Alta, May 8, 1868.

40 Ibid., May 10, 1868.

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," 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 unusually 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 Exchange continually 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 gradually 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.

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 eighthour 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 situation. Resolutions were passed approving the course of the members in refusing to work ten hours, and commending those who had declined to accept an increase of wages for additional hours of service. They agreed that members of the League would refuse to "put up work gotten out at the California Mills from and after the day they commenced working their men ten hours per day." The League also resolved to furnish a stamp to all mills running on the eight-hour plan, so that they would be able to identify the work of the ten-hour mills.**

After a few days of idleness, the California Mills were able to resume work with ten-hour men. The papers report that "At the opening of the works there were large numbers of the members of the Eight-hour League present, who used their utmost endeavors to persuade the ten-hour men to quit, assuring them that their expenses would be paid, and that next week they could have plenty of employment under the eight-hour system in a mill about to be started by the League. ''45 But they were unsuccessful, and so this first break from the eighthour day prepared the way for greater losses that were inevitable in the period of business depression upon which the industries of the state were entering.

44 Bulletin, August 3, 1869. 45 Alta, August 5, 1869.

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 vigorous contest. On August 20 a crowded mass meeting was held for the purpose of renewing the pledges of allegiance to the eight-hour working-day, and expressing indignation against those who were attacking it. The speakers protested against the disposition to attribute all the economic evils of the times. to the eight-hour rule. Some one remarked that he expected to find the recent plague and earthquake that had afflicted the city charged to that cause.

46

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 Supervisors 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 eighthour 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

46 Alta, August 21, 1869.

47 Drew v. Smith, 38 Cal. 325.

of the statute, which merely required the insertion of a stipulation 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 laboring 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 unreasonable interference with the natural rights of persons as enumerated in the constitution. There was nothing in the statute to prevent a man working extra hours for more pay.48

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 extended 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.4

As a result of this decision the eight-hour law of 1868 became 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 Cal. 329.

49 Drew v. Smith, 38 Cal. 332.