full crew of conductor and brakemen necessary for its safe operation. Not only does this law protect the train hands but the traveling public.263 Nevertheless, the enactment of such legislation had long been successfully resisted. When at the 1909 session the passage of a Full Crew law became imperative, by one of those frequent "accidents" of legislation, the bill was erroneously amended, and on this ground vetoed by Governor Gillett.264

But no such "accident" attended the passage of the Full Crew bill at the 1911 session, and the measure became a law.

A second railroad measure, intended to protect the traveling public as well as railroad employees, was introduced in the Assembly by Williams. This measure provides that railroad employees shall not remain on duty for a longer period than sixteen consecutive hours. This measure also passed both Houses and was approved by the Governor.

263 "The whole purpose of this bill," said Senator Boynton before the Assembly Committee on Common Carriers, "is to protect life and limb. It is for the safety of the people who travel on trains that extra brakemen are desired.

"I do not believe that the railroad companies who are represented here as opposing this measure are doing so because of the additional cost its provisions would entail. Rather, I believe, that the railroads are objecting solely because the idea of regulation is distasteful to them. They do not want the people to tell them what they shall or shall not do in the conduct of trains. "The arguments of the railroad representatives themselves show that there is need of regulation in this respect. They all admit that a greater measure of safety attends a train which is fully manned than one undermanned. Gentlemen, this is a good measure. It is needed in California and it is the only means by which the railroads will use full crews in the running of their trains. I believe this bill is of greater interest and moment to the public than to railroad employees. It directly affects the safety of all who ride on trains."

264 See Story of the California Legislature of 1909, page 153.

The so-called "Pay-Check bill" 265 was another important labor measure which the 1911 Legislature enacted into law.

The purpose of this bill was to compel regular payment of laborers in money or its equivalent.

Under the system which had been in vogue in California, employers of unskilled labor had made a practice of issuing "pay checks" to their men, redeemable at the pleasure of the employer if redeemed at all.

The evil had been given sensational publicity at San Francisco through the murder of a woman cashier employed by the contracting firm of Gray Bros.

A laborer by the name of Cunningham, who had been employed by Gray Brothers, had a "pay check" issued to him in lieu of wages. Cunningham had tried for weeks to realize on his check. Finally, suffering for the necessities of life, he imagined that the woman cashier who put him off from day to day, was responsible for his trouble. Acting under this insane conception, Cunningham went to Gray Brothers' place of business, and for the last time demanded that his "pay check" be honored. Upon the cashier's refusal, he shot the woman dead.

As an immediate result of the notoriety which this in

265 The "pay check" bill as amended in the Senate, read as follows: "No person, firm, or corporation engaged in any business or enterprise within this State shall issue, in payment of or as an evidence of indebtedness for wages due an employee, any order, check, memorandum or other acknowledgment of indebtedness, unless the same is negotiable, and is payable upon demand without discount in cash at some bank or other established place of business in the State. provided, however, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to counties, cities and counties, municipal corporations, quasi municipal corporations, or school districts organized and existing under the laws of this State."

cident had given the "pay check" evil, no less than four anti-pay check bills were introduced, three in the Assembly, with Mullally, Joel and Stuckenbruck as their authors, and one in the Senate by Sanford. The Sanford bill was eventually decided upon as the best, and finally passed.

The measure was, however, made subject of an extended debate 266 in the Senate, a debate that was well peppered with personalities. But when the bill came to final passage, not a vote was cast against it in either House. The measure received the approval of Governor Johnson.

Another measure, which under the machine order had failed to become a law, but which at the 1911 session was promptly enacted, was the so-called "Sailors' Enticement" bill, introduced in the Senate by Wolfe.

This measure repealed Section 644 of the penal code, enacted in 1872, which made it a misdemeanor for any

266 It was during the debate over this measure that Senator Wolfe of San Francisco gave notice that he proposed to keep tab on the "reformers" on labor issues.

"I am going to keep check upon you reformers," shouted Wolfe, "on labor measures, and see whether your reform is skin deep." The writer is not able to state whether or not Senator Wolfe kept check. But that is unimportant.

The fact remains, however, that during State administrations dominated by "performers,' reasonable labor legislation failed of final enactment. If such measures were not defeated in Senate or Assembly, there was the Governor's veto to block them. It remained for a progressive administration to place such measures as the "Full Crew" law, the "Pay Check" law, and other necessary "labor" laws upon the statute books; and to repeal the Sailor Enforced Servitude law.

All this is thoroughly understood and appreciated by intelligent and sincere-labor representatives. The report on Labor Legislation at the 1911 session, issued by the California State Federation of Labor, says: "Never before has Organized Labor of our State and its representatives at the Capitol worked as harmoniously, and never was as much interest manifested and assistance rendered by our organizations and the Reform Movement generally."

person to entice a sailor to leave his ship. At the time of the passage of Section 644, the Federal law prohibited the desertion of seamen. However, in 1895, Congress passed a law granting American seamen the right to leave their vessels before the expiration of their contracts, in any port of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Newfoundland and the West Indies. The penalty of imprisonment for desertion was abolished, the deserting sailor forfeiting only his wages earned and his clothing left on board.

Since this act of Congress, as it was no longer a crime under the Federal law for a sailor to leave his ship in the waters specified, repeated efforts were made to have the California section repealed. Repealing measures actually passed the Legislature at two sessions, only to be vetoed by the Governor. At the 1911 session, the measure was not vetoed; Governor Johnson signed the bill, and the antiquated law,267 based on the theory that breach of contract on the part of a sailor is a crime, was removed from California statute books.

Important measures affecting child labor, which at previous sessions would have been given scant consideration, became laws.

The most important of these was Assembly bill 662, introduced by Mullally, which prohibits minors under eighteen years to engage in, or conduct any business, between the hours of 10 o'clock in the evening and 5 o'clock in the morning. The principal purpose of this measure is to keep children out of dives and saloons at hours

267 The Federal statute which made it a crime to harbor or secrete a deserting seaman was enacted in 1790. The law was repealed in 1895.

Its presentation in the

when shamelessness runs riot. Legislature and its ultimate passage, was due largely to Rev. Charles N. Lathrop of the Church of the Advent, San Francisco. Father Lathrop had photographs made of the youngsters, who as venders of papers, candies and the like, frequented the dives at all hours of the night. These photographs furnished arguments which could not be met.

A long step toward furnishing adequate protection for electrical workers was taken in the passage of Assembly bills 312 and 313. These measures were prepared along lines suggested by the workmen themselves. The measures were thoroughly considered by the committees to which they were referred. Representatives of the power companies were given long hearings, and finally compromise measures acceptable to both sides were agreed upon. 268

The three principal successes of Labor at the 1911 session, namely, the passage of the Roseberry Employers' Liability act; the Griffin bill limiting the hours of labor for women to eight a day, and the defeat of the so-called "Compulsory Arbitration" bill, will be treated in separate chapters; as will the defeat of two important measures urged by representatives of organized labor, namely, the Telfer Constitutional Amendment providing that school children shall be furnished school books free of cost, and the so-called anti-Injunction bill.

268 The California State Federation of Labor, in its report on the work of the 1911 session, said of these bills: "California will have laws protecting the electrical workers and making their work as safe as it can be reasonably made, by standardizing all new construction and repair work after a certain date."

« ForrigeFortsett »