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 commence 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.1 110

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 municipalities 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.

109 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1883, p. 47.

110 Ibid., 1901, p. 192.

111 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.

113 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1897, p. 90.

debts. They have gone still further, and tried to protect the wages of the laborer from his own folly and weakness, by forbidding 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 whereby 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 investigation 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

116

Ten years later the report of Commissioner E. L. Fitzgerald shows that abuses of this kind were most flagrant and widespread. The lumber industry seems to afford the best opportunities 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 published in the report of the Labor Bureau," 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

114 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1901, p. 660. Pen. Code, Sec. 680.

115 The Truck System,' Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 332.

116 Collection of Wages, and Time-Check System, Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 72, 83.

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." The time-check was found a convenient expedient by which such corporations 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 "TimeCheck 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.118

The legislators fulfilled his expectations, and passed the act compelling corporations to pay their employees monthly, in lawful 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 negotiable 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 declared 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 corporations doing business in the state and to laborers in their employ.

117 Statutes of California and Amendments, 1891, p. 195.

118 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 91.

119 Statutes of California, etc., 1897, pp. 231-2.

120 Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co., 127 Cal. 4-17.

(2) The rights of corporations are the same as those of individuals; 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 circumstances is subject to the same kind of a lien, or why corporations should be prohibited from making defenses which all other persons in the state may make, or why corporations should pay attorneys' fees or fines while all other persons under like circumstances are exempt from such fees or fines, or why such corporations 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 corporations to pay what was due on a monthly pay-day was constitutional. 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 imposing burdens different from those imposed upon the general public may be made without the statute encountering the prohibition 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.

66

The California Supreme Court has quite clearly and emphatically 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. Rep. 735.

122 Ibid., p. 745-6.

123 Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1184.

!

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 which 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

Plans 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 eradicating 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. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 124-5.