USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume II > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
685
AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND FOREIGN-BORN
efficiency or drunkenness on the job, but it was used frequently enough to be feared and served as an effective deterrent to protest.20
There prevailed a feeling that labor's condition could be improved through legislation.21 The Commissioner of Labor advised the working- men that, if they wished effective legislation, they must be willing to bear the odium of pressing for it. The most the state could do, it was held, was to give the laborer a chance to help himself. If labor had and would present factual information on difficult conditions, there was a chance of securing justice.22 To an increasing extent workingmen found strength in organization while their growing discontent was reflected in the increasing number of strikes.23
Strikes affected an alarming proportion of businesses in 1886. In the previous five years, no more than 35 establishments had been in- volved in strikes in a single year. In 1886, 144 businesses, employing almost one-third of the state's labor force, were involved.24 It was gen- erally agreed that the core of the labor difficulties was the inequitable distribution of the products of labor. That the laboring man was in- evitably "condemned to incessant toil" and for wages "insufficient to provide his family with the bare necessities of life,"25 was challenged by the strikes. More than half of these concerned wages and were centered in the metallic trades which were reputed to employ laborers with more than average intelligence and to pay better than average wages.26 The strike proved an effective weapon; more than half of the strikes in 1886 were successful in securing an increase in wages.27 Although large seg- ments of Connecticut labor benefited from these increases, they accrued from the efforts of a small minority of the laborers in the establishments affected. Only about 11 percent of the total force employed in the 144 companies involved actually struck. The day had not yet come when the mass of laborers would unite for increased wages.28
The wages earned were reduced by certain established practices which made the workingman virtually a slave to the credit system. By 1886, only about 10 percent of the establishments maintained a com- pany store. These, with their attendant evils, were concentrated in the cotton and woolen industries in the Quinebaug and Shetucket valleys. A coupon system, in effect in some of these factories, all but bound the employee to trade at the store where he was forced to pay prices which
686
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
averaged six percent more than those in stores selling for cash. A further inroad was made on wages before they were received when the laborer resided in the factory's tenement. More than one-third of the factories reporting to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1886 maintained tene- ments to a "considerable extent" and one-half of the more than 400 reporting establishments provided some amount of housing. The labor- ing man of the nineteenth century was usually in debt and his creditors by law could instigate attachment proceedings which permitted the factoring of the debt over a period of time. In consequence, the laborer received scant cash earnings and his indebtedness, rather than being reduced, was simply transferred to another creditor. The evils of the credit system were generally recognized.29
Once the objections of certain elements of the business community were overridden and the weekly payment of laborers required by law, it received general acceptance. The opponents of the plan, however, claimed that it was impracticable, did not justify the additional expense, and was not demanded by the better class of laborers. Further, it was argued that provision by legal requirement violated freedom of con- tract. Approximately 40 percent of the establishments in the state had begun paying their employees on a weekly basis by 1887 and their ex- perience, as well as that of other states, supported the contentions for the practice.30 In recognition of the possible hardship which such legis- lation might entail for small businesses, it was made applicable only to corporations.31 The law was backed strongly by public opinion and weekly payment of wages was instituted by many businesses not so com- pelled by law. By 1893, it was judged that the new system had increased the purchasing power of wages, had practically abolished the factorizing of wages, and had abolished the granting of commissions for advances between pay days. The proportion of establishments which furnished tenements as a part of their pay was decreasing gradually. Also, the number of companies which operated a company store and boarding houses was decreasing. The weekly payment plan was a success.32
As the number of Connecticut citizens engaged in manufacturing increased a factory inspection system was introduced which provided supervision over "all buildings and places where machinery shall be used." The inspector was authorized to investigate the ventilation, the
687
AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND FOREIGN-BORN
water closets, and the safety of the machinery.33 The effectiveness of the law was mitigated by its failure to require fire escapes and reports or investigation of industrial accidents. The law did provide a penalty of from $50 to $500 for failure to obey the directions of the inspector. In
(Courtesy "Meriden Record-Journal")
MERIDEN-FIRST HORSE-CAR TO COME THROUGH COLONY STREET. (TAKEN FROM HOME BANK WINDOW, 1887)
1895, the maximum penalty was fixed at $50, and any ruling of the fac- tory inspector could be appealed to the superior court of the county.34 Later, however, proprietors of workshops were again confronted by the original higher penalty for failure to provide a sanitary environment,35 and gradually the inspection system apparently became more effective.
The labor organizations of the state ranged in 1888 in their politi- cal and social ideals from those of the Patrons of Husbandry to those of
688
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the Socialist Labor Party. The former were concerned with farm labor and were described as being "full of hopes and full of life"; the latter stood for a complete social revolution. Ideologically, the Knights of Labor were closely aligned with the Socialists. The Federation of Labor attracted the largest number of workingmen. All of the labor groups advocated the establishment of postal savings banks, free coinage of silver, and arbitration of labor disputes. They opposed immigration and monopolies and suggested United States ownership of transporta- tion and communication lines and state ownership of other utilities. A most interesting suggestion was one which would grant corporation charters to the highest bidder. The shades of disagreement varied among members of each organization and from group to group. As yet, organized labor lacked a singleness of purpose, but there was a growing conviction that permanent advantages would be achieved through legis- lation. Such legislative achievement had to be preceded by a reform of the election machinery.
To vote as one pleased without fear of recrimination became a cherished goal of the workingman. Many argued that the secrecy of the ballot was the most important objective of the working people. Too frequently employers had dictated the vote of their employees and in some cases went to the extreme of establishing a surveillance of the bal- lot boxes on election days. An effort was made in 1887 to curb bribery during elections. Witnesses were required to testify concerning bribes and were assured of the court's protection against recrimination. A gen- eral election law, designed to assure the secrecy of the ballot, was passed two years later.38 It was recognized that the laboring classes had played an important part in the adoption of this and other legislation directed toward the improvement of election procedures.39
The right of labor to organize was generally recognized by 1890. Most of the labor organizations within the state were conservative. In addition to supporting educational advance and to propagating the principle of arbitration, labor leaders were sometimes credited with having prevented strikes.40 Efforts were being made by some industrial concerns to bridge the gap between capital and labor. The Danbury Hat Company formally recognized the permanency of trade unions in 1885 and entered into formal agreements for the amicable solution of
689
AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND FOREIGN-BORN
labor problems. The Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company of Stamford introduced a gain sharing plan. This was carefully distin- guished from profit sharing and was designed to give the employee a share in the savings resulting from a higher degree of perfection of
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
PUTNAM
products to be attained by the care and good judgment exercised by the employee.41
Such cooperation with organized labor was not universal, however. Although concrete evidence was difficult to find, it was generally ac- knowledged that there existed among employers an informal agreement not to employ anyone who had been discharged by another employer or to hire those who left employment without their employer's consent. The extent to which such courtesy was practiced was a matter of con- jecture, but that it prevailed was not doubted.42
690
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Labor suffered greatly in the Panic of 1893. The difficult period extended from the Summer of 1893 to the Fall of 1894, with the low point of the depression being reached in January and February 1894. In the major industries, the employees of the woolen factories suffered most. This industry paid during the depression period a monthly av- erage wage which was only 61 percent of the average monthly wage in 1892. Other industries which operated at less than 70 percent of ca- pacity were the cutlery, fire arms, machine building, carriage making, and silver. Some employees were discharged; others worked for reduced hours; and, in 50 percent of the establishments, employees worked at a reduced rate of pay. Wage cuts averaged about ten percent, while the gross average monthly wage was reduced about 25 percent.43
During the period, opposition to a higher wage scale had stiffened and the view that capital was receiving a disproportionate share of the gross product was resolutely denounced in 1890. Any increase in wages was tied to profits.44 Some establishments were slow to restore wage cuts. Some workers, the iron moulders at Russel & Erwin in New Britain, for example, struck to have their wages restored to the pre-panic level. The state was comparatively free from strikes, however. In 1895, when the greatest number of strikes since 1886 occurred, the loss in wages amounted to one million dollars, which represented only about two per- cent of the total amount of wages paid in the state. The losses to em- ployers were negligible.45
After the Panic, wages increased on the crest of a wave of pros- perity which swept the state in the last years of the nineteenth century. The industrial revival started in 1896 and swept forward until 1900. The number of depositors in the savings banks increased. Production was up in the mill towns, as was employment. It was reported that some of the looms were idle for lack of employees. The average wage in- creased from 1898 to 1899 from $420 to $452 a year.46
The improvement of economic status was accompanied by other significant gains for labor. The employment of child labor had declined gradually since 1880 and was now further restricted. It had come to be recognized that children had a claim on the state. It was also accepted that education must take precedence over the production which chil- dren could accomplish if citizens were to discharge their responsibilities
691
AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND FOREIGN-BORN
to the state. The age limit for the employment of children was raised to 14 in 1895. In 1899, regular attendance at school was required also of all those between 14 and 16 years of age who were not gainfully em- ployed.47 A state Board of Mediation was established in 1895,48 and sympathy was developing for the establishment of a state employment office. Attention was being directed, too, toward the protection of the alien worker.49
As European immigrants constituted a larger proportion of the working force, it became necessary to protect them from ruthless em- ployers. It was usual for the wages of the immigrant laborer to be with- held and for him to be forced to purchase supplies at outlandish prices and to live in quarters unfit for human habitation, but for which he was charged an exorbitant rent. A flagrant example of these circumstances involved Italian laborers of the Bridgeport contractors, O'Brien, Shee- han, and McHale. The laborers were supplied by one Marino of Boston with the understanding that they were to purchase their supplies at the "Padronnes" where prices were 100 percent higher than market price. The workers paid $25 a month for lodging in a barracks converted from a carriage shop and slept in plank bunks fitted with straw bags.50 As soon as conditions were given publicity, an agent was appointed to in- vestigate the matter. The barracks burned before he arrived, but as- surances were given that the system would not be revived. A language difficulty made the Hungarian, Polish, and Italian immigrants the easy prey of unscrupulous employers. Special agents of the Bureau of Labor, each of whom had facility in one of the languages spoken by these mi- norities, were appointed to serve in the larger cities of the state. Pamph- lets outlining the rights of labor under contract were written in the several languages and distributed to the immigrant laborers.51 A meas- ure of justice was gained for the alien workers, even though it was ex- tremely difficult to secure a conviction under the law.52
By the end of the century the effectiveness of organized labor was evident. During the period from July 1, 1890 to December 31, 1900, there were 51 strikes reported. Of these, 18 were successful, 12 partially so, and 23 unsuccessful. There were 214 separate and distinct labor or- ganizations in the state. These represented 50 different trades and were located in 34 towns and cities in the state.53 Scant question was raised
692
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
any longer in regard to either the right of labor to organize or the wisdom of its doing so. Organized labor had reached a point from which it would be able, in the next century, to challenge the power of wealth and industry.
An adjustment to wealth and industry was required, too, of the Connecticut farmer. In Connecticut, the farmer had enjoyed a period of relative prosperity in the years immediately following the American Civil War. Then there was no serious competition from the West or the South. Agricultural machinery had come into general use in Connecti- cut before the war, and a state Board of Agriculture had been organized in 1866 to encourage agriculture, to investigate matters for its improve- ment, and to disseminate information for use by the farmers. Under these favorable conditions the total value of all farm products in Con- necticut reached 145 million dollars in 1870. Agriculture continued to prosper until the Panic of 1873. At that time the exodus from the farm to the cities and to the West began.54
It should not be construed that those who left the farms were poverty stricken. That there were many on the farms who had a strong bent for mechanics is easily understood in view of the close relationship between the farm and nascent industrialism during the first half of the century. It was reported that others of advanced years were attracted by the ease and convenience of life in the city.55 In addition, there were still others, according to the Reverend William Clift, who had sufficient capital to take up a homestead or preempt a quarter section of govern- ment land and expected to make a better investment in the west than would be possible in Connecticut.56
Those who remained on the farms derived certain benefits from the growth of the cities. These created greater markets for agricultural goods than the Connecticut farmer could supply. Also, he retained a unique advantage in his proximity to the cities, which was especially important in the marketing of perishable products. There were those who understood the relation of this market to the farmers' prosperity. R. S. Hinman, for example, warned that a sure way to destroy the farmer would be to paralyze the industries of the state or to reduce the wages of those engaged in non-agricultural pursuits. Speakers at agricul- tural meetings admonished farmers to continue to improve methods of
693
AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND FOREIGN-BORN
production and distribution and to take further advantage of these markets.57
In fact, however, there was not sufficient capital available to speed the transition to the specialized farming which could meet urban de-
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
DANIELSON
mands. By 1880, those with capital to invest had ceased to choose agri- culture as the venture which would bring the greatest return. Although Connecticut was regarded as the richest state in the Union, much of its wealth was invested in railroads, in mines, and in mortgages upon real estate outside the state. The rates of interest on such investments ran from eight to twelve percent. Concurrently, except for the farms closest to the cities, investment in agriculture it was believed yielded no more than three percent. The amount invested in railroads alone in 1890 was two-thirds the whole amount invested in agriculture. Although markets remained relatively strong, the lack of capital to carry on the business
694
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
of farming had caused the value of farms to shrink markedly. Land, which once was regarded as the safest of investments, had come to be viewed as the most unstable of property.58
The farmers themselves contributed to the condition. When they could lend money to their western competitors at eight or 12 percent, they would not hire labor to clear land or to cultivate it for an uncer- tain return. It was reported that the residents of a single town in rural Litchfield County gave evidence of western indebtedness in the amount of $60,000. Upon the death of one capitalist, it was revealed that he had half of a million dollars invested in western enterprises. In consequence of such investments, locally roads were not built and real estate was not improved.59
Only a partial remedy for the lack of capital was found in a system of tenant farming. The farm of William B. Hull of North Stonington, which, in 1881 had been in operation for 22 years, illustrates this sys- tem. The owner provided the farm, the tenant supplied the labor, and the two invested equally in the livestock which was the money crop. The tenant maintained the property and had use of a garden space and such other miscellany as had been agreed upon.60 There were over 1200 such farms in the state in 1880. Tenant farming, however, did not be- come a lasting feature of Connecticut agriculture. By 1890, the number had decreased to 938, and, in 1900, there were only a few more than 500.61 The solemn fact facing the Connecticut farmer was that in the contest for the investment dollar, for markets, and for labor, agriculture continued to fall further behind industry. Yankee farmers were poorly equipped by temperament or by experience to stem the tide.
Those who remained to till Connecticut's soils were imbued with the conservatism and individualism of the region and failed to observe or were unwilling to admit that the status of agriculture demanded vigorous cooperative action. In a period when the leaders of wealth and industry called the tune for men in public office, agricultural leaders eschewed political action and warned farmers against being identified as a special class.62 Attempts to develop farmers' cooperatives were at best only partially successful. Efforts to promote scientific agriculture were frequently obstructed by "the men in the back towns who under- stood the value of money, but not of science."63 In the years immedi-
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
GROTON-PHOTO TAKEN AT 10,000 FEET, WITH NEW LONDON IN FOREGROUND
696
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
ately following the Civil War, farmers organized only for social inter- course and human betterment, and efforts, made toward the end of the century, to alter these original objectives were bitterly denounced.64
Farm organizations devoted themselves almost exclusively to lessen- ing the social and cultural lag which was likely to result from the isola- tion and independence of farm life. Farmers it was believed tended to neglect their social opportunities and were "apt to become impressed with the idea that they were not fit for society."65 The Farm Club was an organization which attempted to overcome such feelings by meeting the farmers' wants as a social being, improving his powers of conversa- tion, extending to him a knowledge of the wants and problems of others, and giving him a pride in his calling. The clubs were eminently demo- cratic. In them all stood on the same social level: all were teachers, all were learners. Farm clubs grew slowly after the first club was organized in Middletown in 1842 and did not reach the height of their effective- ness until the eighteen eighties. Many of the objectives of the Farm Clubs were absorbed by the agricultural Granges. Then, by the end of the century, the chief function of these had come to be the holding of an annual fair. Evaluation of the importance of these groups can not be made by count of legislative enactments reflecting their influence. They may have promoted certain intangibles which provide strength to a democratic society. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the agricultural organizations accomplished little of immediate value to the farmer in his economic struggle in the nineteenth century.66
In an effort to correct the developing imbalance between agricul- ture and industry, agrarian leaders gave greater attention to scientific agriculture. The impetus for much of this interest came from the state Board of Agriculture organized in 1866. The Board consisted of the Governor and one representative from each county. The latter were appointed by the Agricultural Society, which was begun in 1854 and represented the first and only sustained interest of a group in the state in the dissemination of knowledge of agricultural science.67 The Board investigated problems of importance to agriculture, inquired into the methods of practical husbandry, quarantined cattle, and distributed in- formation prepared by leading experts on agriculture in the state.68
There was, however, a paucity of scientific information. To supply
697
AGRICULTURE, LABOR, AND FOREIGN-BORN
this the Board, with the Agricultural Society, petitioned the Assembly in 1875 to establish an experimental station in Connecticut. The op- position to the proposal came from the farmers in the legislature who reacted cautiously to any proposal which would increase taxes. Their opposition was overcome by an offer from Mr. Orange Judd, of the American Agriculturist of $1,000. and the offer from Wesleyan Univer- sity of the free use of its laboratories on the condition that the legisla- ture would grant $2,800 a year for two years. The first agricultural ex- periment station in the United States was begun in 1875. The two years of experience proved the value of the station and in 1887 it was placed on a permanent basis. Until land and buildings were supplied in 1887, the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale provided free use of its laboratories. The station devoted itself in its first years to determining the proper use of fertilizers on the various soils of the state and the proper feeding of livestock.69 The hesitation of the farmers to vote funds for agricul- tural experimentation emphasized their lack of conviction of the practi- cal importance of scientific information. To achieve application of new methodology, it was necessary to train the farmers.
A school for the education of Connecticut citizens in the applica- tion of scientific agricultural principles was a necessary development. When the Morrill Act was passed in 1862, Yale was the only institution in the state capable of using the annual grant of approximately $6,000. forthcoming from the national government under the new legislation. The Agricultural and Mechanical College of the State was thereby established in conjunction with the Sheffield Scientific School. It ap- pears, however, that neither the college nor the state pursued energeti- cally the responsibilities implicit in the grant. The state made no addi- tional financial grants to the college and it was charged that Yale had graduated only seven students in agriculture in 24 years.70
Little had been accomplished by 1880 under the existing arrange- ment and sentiment had developed for a separate agricultural college. In 1881, the state accepted 170 acres of land and $5,000. from Augustus and Charles Storrs for the establishment of a school.71 As the school struggled through its first years a class consciousness was developing among American farmers, which included a sanction of schools espe- cially for farmers' sons. Immediately after the Connecticut Grange was
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.