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.5 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 SHORTER WORK-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 possible. Between 1870 and 1877 all the trades in which the eighthour 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 50 Statutes of California, 1869-1870, p. 777. Pol. Code, 3233. The law applies only to state buildings. Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 510.

51 Assembly Journal, 18th Sess., p. 710.

52 The Attorney General declared the statute constitutional. See Winn, Valedictory Address.

workmen, and after amicable discussion, matters are satisfactorily 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.5+ 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 meetings of the league that may be called by the council and will abide by and support its rules, regulations, and by-laws. An executive committee of the council was appointed to circulate this pledge. The organizations represented in the council also undertook to obtain members throughout the state.58

53 Bulletin, July 19, 1870.

54 San Francisco Daily Report, May 11, 1886.

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

56 Examiner, May 2, 1890, p. 3.

57 Bulletin, June 11, 1872.

58 Alta, August 9, 1875.

1957

It is interesting to find that at this early date the California trade-unionists suggested a plan for a national eight-hour movement 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 Industrial 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 eighthour 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 Congress, and recommending that the mechanics of the state prepare for this occasion by "active, energetic, and harmonious organization," 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 impossible 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."61 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

59 See action of the house painters in the same number of the Bulletin. 60 Alta, August 9, 1875.

61 Ibid., Res. 4 and 5.

7762

manufactures of various kinds, have produced more than can be consumed by the people; hence thousands are out of employment waiting for the consumption of what their hands have produced. "62 It is evident that, aside from its benefits to individual 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-Chinese demonstrations which absorbed the attention of the city at this time.

THE EIGHT-HOUR 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 municipal, should be performed by the day, at current rates of wages. "Sec. 9. Eight hours is a sufficient day's work for any man, and the law should make it so.

62 Alta, January 14, 1876.

9163

63 Davis, Political Conventions of California, p. 380.

THE EIGHT-HOUR PROVISION 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. The section finally adopted by a large majority did not go any further than the law of 1868, as it merely provided that, "Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public works."'66

TRADE-UNION EFFORTS TO SHORTEN THE WORKING-DAY,

1882-1890.

The California trade-unionists did not again undertake an eight-hour movement of such general scope as that of the sixties, but, as a heritage from the earlier struggles, they held fast to this standard for the length of the work-day. With each recurrent 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 eighties, the carpenters re-organized and, as in previous years, the 64 Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of California, p. 92.

65 Ibid., pp. 177, 262, 560, 1422, 1423.

66 Constitution of California, Art. 20, Sec. 17.