The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1869-03-20
FROM CALIFORNIA.
SAN FRANCISCO. Feb. I3. l

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. Is, 1869.
TO the Editor OF the WoRK1SsMAN's ADvocArE.
LErErs FEoS GIN. "A. NJ. VIM, PaKsIDEST cF THE Mr.
oHAslcs STATE CoUScn or CALToRsIA-TRUxPH o.
rHE EIGHr HouR MES-wHrr PIKE 4c.
This is day Of rejoicing among the work
ingmen Of this city, thousands are exulting
over the fact that the eight-hou law has
been fully sustained by Judge Sawyer Of the
fourth district court.
Your readers will hardly understand the
nature and importance Of this decision, with
out some explanation. The eight-hour law
Of this state was approved, Feti nary 2lst,
1868, mot quite one year ago. that part in
dispute is the second section which reads as
follows
Eight hours labor shall constitute legal
days work in all cases where the same is per
formed under the authority of any Law of the
State, or under the direction, control, or by the
authority Of any law Of this State, or under the
direction, control, or by authority OF any officer
Of this State, acting in his official capacity, or
under the direction, control or BY the auEhori.
ty Of any county or municipal govern.
ment within this State, or Of any officer Thereof
acting as such and a stipulation to that effect
shall be made part of ell contracts to which
the State, or any county or municipal govern
ment therein shall be party"
The controversy is about the last clause.
The Law did not 90 into effect until the Goth
day of April, or sixty days after its passage
We then applied to George Coin, (who
was at that time the superintendent Of
streets aud high ways,) and demanded that
be insert the clause IN bis contracts that the
work should be done at eight-hours per Gay,
but be refused. Application was then made
to the board OF supervisors Of The city to in
struct him to insert that clause. They refer
red il to the city attorney, then III. O. Hast
ings, be gave an adverse opinion which was
exceedingly weak, and far fetched.
Urder the law governing contracts for
grading streets in this city, the property
fronting the street is made TO pay expenses,
and that the city may not be responsible,
the law provides that the superintendent !
SHALL assess the property and give his war-
rant to the contractor authorizing him to I
SohSSe tbc AnouSy iuStcdu VI tuc tax coiitC- /
tor. City Attorney. Hastings assumed that \
in such cases "the city was not party TO I
the contracts" hence, the stipulation could
not be nserted-but We were not to be out
done in this way. We then applied 10 the
supervisors TO request the opinion or Attor-
ney General Joe Hamilton; this they refused.
In the fall Of 1868 an election for supervis-
ors, superintendents, and city attorney came
on. The Mechanics State Council rDpound-
ed questions to the candidates requireing
their opinion upon the subject. They all an
swered that they would vote for or use
their influence TO have the clause inserted
in contracts for public works the election
ever, the superintendent refused to issue
any contracts without thu stipulation that
the work should be done at eight hours per
day, or forfeit their rights TO collect the
money for payment This be did without in
strucsions from the supervisors, but re ask
ed the board to pass resolution Of instruc-
tions-they referred our CONN Inication TO
the newly elected city attorney, Joseph N.
Nouges, Esq. We sustained Col. NJ. G. Smith
the superintendent. just then the contractors
sued ous q mandamus requiring Smith TO-
deliver them contracts withous the ssiP
tion. ~yTr Airi
The State Corncil employed aaS
Hsman4s very able laWyer1