sent out are by no means of even merit, they give a fair picture of the status of the Mexican laborer in the early part of the Diaz period.[1]
Complaints concerning the condition of the laborer were even at this early time frequent. The discussion shows that the desire for change did not come from the peons, who were, in fact, then and later as a class un-protesting and fairly well satisfied. The labor system was criticized rather as a factor in the national life which was neither economically efficient nor one which promoted the creation of an independent citizenship.
The reports that were asked from the officers of all the states and their subdivisions reveal a surprising variety of customs affecting the labor contract. There was no generally accepted system of peonage. Rates of pay often varied greatly in communities at short distances from each other. As a rule the contract was for shorter periods in the south and the wages were better in the north. The enterprises in some districts furnished only seasonal employment for a few men and employers found it difficult to secure help even on these short-term contracts. In other cases there were two, three, and even four different kinds of servants recognized, each with their separate wage arrangements.
In some communities pay was by the task or by the day in advance, in others by the week in advance. In others, payment came at the end of the period of serv-
- ↑ These reports were published in great detail in a series of documents with slightly varying titles in 1885-7. The general title is Informes y documentos relativos a comercio interior y exterior, agricultura e industrias.
