gon (Muller v. Oregon), together with the pressure brought from the Consumers' League and Child Welfare Committees, led to the withdrawal of the bill by the introducers. Pauline Goldmark, chairman of the league's committee on legislation, raised a warning finger, however, urging that as the canners would try it again: "Eternal vigilance is the price of success in preserving our labor laws against the greed or self-interest of unenlightened merchants and manufacturers." 1

ners.

The warning was a true prophecy, for in 1912 the "interests" became powerful enough to have their way and canneries were relieved of legal supervision regarding women's hours. The 54-hour bill of 1911 is reported to have been killed by the textile industry assisted by the canWhen a similar act was passed in the following year with the cannery exception, it was signed by Governor Dix, but only after considerable pressure had been exercised. His objection was not to the exemption of canneries but to their sole exemption, for he felt that candy and textile industries were as legitimate candidates for legislative leniency as canneries. The governor's view in the matter was interpreted by the 54-hour advocates as a direct diplomatic invitation to these employers to seek exemption from the uniform law at their will. The invitation was promptly accepted by the candy manufacturers, who, a week after the new act went into effect, October 7, challenged the constitutionality of the law on the grounds of class legislation. The result in the courts of this challenge was against the plaintiffs and in favor of the law as explained in the preceding chapter (People v. Kane).

The release of the canners won in 1912 proved only temporary. The excessively long hours of cannery em

1

1 Annual Report of the New York Consumers' League for 1910, p. 27. Ibid., 1912, p. 34.

ployees, as discovered by the Factory Investigating Commission, led to the prompt introduction in 1913 of a bill regulating hours of women especially drafted to meet the conditions in canneries. Because of the alleged uncontrollable rush during the four months' season, some concessions were made and the 54-hour regulation was stretched to sixty hours and, during a shorter period, to sixty-six hours for women eighteen years of age and upwards.

According to the report of the commission, there was little difference between men and women in the deplorable conditions of labor under which they worked in these canneries, "the employees are either native American neighbors of the canneries or foreigners imported from cities in family groups of men, women and children." They belonged to "no organizations of any kind," and they worked frightfully long hours (as high as 119 hours a week) and for lower than living wages. "Being scattered units they have no effective means of making public their opinions and wishes."

Notwithstanding the general oppression of cannery employees, the fact that the women outnumbered the men in this industry, added to the greater interest in protecting women, led the commission to make recommendations for the relief of women and children only. Facts concerning women's duties in their houses were submitted to emphasize their need of a shorter day in the canneries,-" of 941 women, 671 or 71 per cent did housework before or after their factory work. These cares must be added to the wear of factory life in measuring the strain under which these women live." Replacement of women by men was also suggested in order that "the most extreme overtime would be eliminated" for women. It was pointed out that those " on the capping line,' the can dropper, those who put on caps, the inspector and the syrup maker are among the last to

1

1 Report of the Factory Investigating Commission, 1913, vol. i, p. 124.

leave, and women are often used for these tasks." Workers who were "employed on the earlier processes finish their work at night and go home before the others." (No data are given in the report regarding the wages received by the women on the line" compared to those in the earlier processes.)

66

The report of the factory commission on canneries was concluded by a recommendation in the form of a bill which was that year (1913) enacted verbatim by the legislature. Hearings were held at Albany on February 19 and were attended by enthusiasts from the Consumers' League, child labor committees and the American Association for Labor Legislation. The principles upon which the bill had been drafted were:

First. That no industry should be carried on at the expense of the vitality of the women and children who are employed in it.

Second. That until the sixteenth year is reached it is of the first importance for a child to develop normally, and any occupation which interferes with its normal development physical or mental, is objectionable.

Third. That it is a proper function of the State, through the exercise of its police power, to prohibit any employment of women which saps their vitality and any employment of children which prevents their normal, physical or mental development.

Fourth. That the conditions of labor in factories is a matter of public concern, and that the State through its police power has authority to demand, and should demand, that dangerous machinery be guarded, and that insanitary conditions, especially in factories where food products are handled, be made sanitary.2

1

1

Laws relating to canneries in other states had been cited by the commission to show that their recommendations were not without precedent in this country,-" In Illinois the hours of labor of women in canneries are limited to ten hours a day; in Tennessee, to 60 hours a week; in Pennsylvania, to 12 hours a day or 60 a week; and in Wisconsin, to 10 hours a day and not more than 55 hours a week.”1 It was further observed that in Michigan and California similar regulations would doubtless result from widespread state movements toward that end. Despite this testimony, John F. Connor, attorney for the New York Canner's Association, suggested during the discussion of the bill, that the present statute be given a fair trial before restrictive amendments be adopted. The statute is the same as that found in substantially all the 'Canning States,' and under these circumstances we feel that the Legislature can afford to act conservatively and in harmony with other states." "

66

2

One of the most significant facts uncovered by the investigation of the factory commission was the grave mismanagement of a great many canneries-the appalling lack of any coördinated plan between the supply of raw materials they undertook to can and the capacity of their plants. The commission concluded that " Evidently extreme overtime work is due not so much to the character of the industry as to the policy followed in the management of the business,” 3 a diagnosis that now comes daily from our modern production engineers. That this fact was little understood by the canners themselves was evidenced by the superintendent of a plant in which long working hours were discovered. He explained that, "The way to make money in the canning business is to carry a little larger acreage than you can handle

1 Ibid., vol. i, p. 169.

'Op. cit., 1913, vol. ii, p. 1301. 3 Op. cit., p. 163.

comfortably, so that you can run pretty steadily throughout. the season and your plant won't be idle in slack periods."

The canners did not give up their contention. From the restrictive law of 1913 they promptly sought "honorable" relief through legislation, and the session of 1915 was one of hot contest and acrimony when, organized, the canners presented their program. Three bills to relax the law relating to women employees were introduced by Assemblyman Bewley, a cannery owner. With the plea that canners are quite unable to control the time of the ripening of food and thus the time when food must be canned, even though that time is Saturday night or Sunday, bills for longer hours were presented. Bill No. I permitted canning factories to employ women and children seventy-two instead of sixty hours a week; Bill No. 2 permitted canning factories to employ women and children until midnight instead of ten o'clock in the evening; and Bill No. 3 permitted canning factories to employ women and children on Sundays.

According to the New York Tribune for April first, a wild scramble into the well of the House occurred when bill No. I polled only 72 votes while 76 votes were needed for its passage. New York City republicans were importuned by panting up-state men who beseeched them to change "no" to “aye" in the next voting. In the midst of the pandemonium, the second vote was called for and the clerk announced "Ayes 76, Noes 59." Upon this change of scene,

1 Ibid. One phase of the mismanagement of canneries from a social point of view was the extensive practice of employing children for long hours. This is abundantly described by the factory commission and corroborates the report of the federal investigators in 1908-1909, before mentioned. Children employed at "snipping" beans and husking corn were often found to be working in sheds adjoining the main factory buildings which had been declared by the attorney general not to be included as factories in the meaning of the law. This decision took from these children the protection of the law of 1903 which had prohibited them from work "in connection with any factory."