[Previous Day][Next Day][Back to Menu of Days]

NOTE: You may notice textual errors throughout this document, many of which have been left intact from the original text. Should you want to investigate the integrity of the original report, please refer to the original two printed volumes containing the official report of the proceedings and debates.


FRIDAY, March 29, 1895.

The Convention was called to order at 10 o'clock a. m. by President Smith.

The roll was called by the secretary and members found in attendance as follows:

Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah

Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Larson, L.
Lowe, William
Lowe, Peter
Low, Cache
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Wasatch
Murdock, Summit
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete
Robinson, Kane
Robison, Wayne
Van Home
Mr. President.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Dana W. Bartlett, of the Congregational Church.

The privilege of the floor was granted to Messrs. Allen, Pence, Shurtliff, Chambers, and Fullmer.
The journal of the twenty-fifth day's session was read and approved.

Petitions and memorials.

Mr. Bowdle presented a memorial praying for the submission of a separate article on the question of prohibition to a vote of the people at the same election at which the Constitution is voted on, signed by members of the Woman's Christian Union, of Salt Lake City. Also a similar memorial signed by Mrs. Orr and 500 members. Also a similar memorial signed by Rev. E. M. Ross, and 12 others, all of which were referred to the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Mr. Morris presented a similar petition signed by W. S. Hawkes and 177 others, legal voters of Salt Lake County, which was referred to the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Reports of standing committees.

Committee on militia reported as follows:


Your committee having under consideration an article for insertion in the Constitution on militia, have

the honor to report that they have had under consideration files Nos. 66 and 72, herewith returned, and submit the following as a substitute and recommend its adoption.    



The PRESIDENT. It will go to the committee on printing and on the calendar of the committee of the whole.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Kimball, of Weber, in the chair.


Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the privilege of the floor for the purpose of making a motion which may by some of my colleagues be regarded as ill-timed, but it is one it seems to me that is amply proper and in order at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, if I shall receive a second to it, I desire the opportunity of making a few words of explanation in regard to it. I move you, Mr. Chairman, that it be the sense of this committee that section 1 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage be now passed to its third reading without debate.


Now, Mr. Chairman, in support of this motion, I wish to say that in making it I have two objects hi view. First, I am prompted by a question of economy, and secondly, by sweet charity. The question was before the Convention yesterday and was debated during the entire day. My friend from Davis County (Mr. Roberts) tells us that from fifteen pages of manuscript, he yesterday used three in making his argument. Now, I find upon a computation that I have made here, that it took fifty pages of printed manuscript and twenty-five pages of verbal argument to answer these three pages of notes from which the gentleman made his argument. Based upon this calculation if there are still twelve pages to come, it will require 300 pages of printed manuscript and verbal arguments to answer them. If it took us one day to listen to yesterday's argument, upon this basis, it will take us three and three-quarter days to hear that which is yet to come. Now, I am fully aware that a great many of my colleagues are desirous of being heard upon this question. My friend from Weber (Mr. Evans) has a large collection of notes here, and he is just running over with eloquence and good feeling which he wants to express in behalf of the fair sex. I also have fifteen or twenty pages myself. They are not reduced to writing yet, but I have them in my mind all right; but I have concluded, Mr. Chairman, that I can just change the title of my argument and bring it in later in some other place, and it will answer my purpose just as well. And so I have concluded that all things considered it will cost us {458} from two thousand to three thousand dollars to sit here and listen to these arguments, and to print and publish them. I ask myself will the end justify the means? It seems to me that sufficient has already been said upon this question. I was very anxious myself to introduce Moll Pitcher, Joan d'Arc, and Isabella of Spain, in this race as examples of virtue and patriotism, of what woman ought to be as against Cleopatra and Catherine of Russia, and Elizabeth of England, but I am willing to forego that from an economical standpoint.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You have already got them in now.

Mr. IVINS. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another question which enters into this discussion. It is not at all probable that the great majority of the members on the floor will participate in it at all, and viewed from the standpoint of charity, I want to call your attention to the affliction that will be placed upon the great majority if they have to sit here for three and three-quarter days more and listen to those arguments, to say nothing about what will be suffered by future generations when they come to read these debates, and so it does seem to me in all seriousness that this continued debate is useless. The members of this committee are commited to this question; we have crossed the Rubicon; there can be no doubt about this. It is an entirely one-sided affair, and I can compare it to nothing, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, when I get right down to serious thought, but the assault of Don Quixote and his devout esquire Sancho Panza, upon the windmills of Spain. With all good feeling to those gentlemen who would like to be heard further on this subject, I really think it ought to be passed to its third reading, and let us go on to other fields of legitimate argument, where we will be more evenly matched, and where some good results are likely to come from the discussions that will be had and the expenditure of the people's money.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, is there a motion in the committee of the whole to close debate on the first section and pass it to a third reading?

The CHAIRMAN. That is the nature of the motion, and I take it to be in the nature of a motion to cut off debate, which would be out of order, except with the unanimous consent of the committee.

Mr. IVINS. Will the gentleman allow me just a question?

Mr. VARIAN. I make the point of order.

Mr. WINS. The motion is that it be the sense of this committee that the section be passed to its third reading. It is simply to get the sense of the committee, and I understand that it would be proper at any time to_

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that your motion is in effect that the matter now pending before the committee be passed upon without further debate?

Mr. IVINS. My motion was made with a view of getting the sense of the committee on that point. I fully realize the fact that we cannot shut out debate.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order being raised, I sustain the point of order.

Mr. VARIAN. Then there is no motion before the house?

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, the question now pending before the committee is the substitute of the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Kiesel) offered for section one.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that argument on this subject should be shut off. Gentlemen of the Convention, it has not been opposed upon its merits to this time, and if I may have as much time as Mr. Ivins took in advocating economy, I desire to oppose_

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts has {459} the floor and yielded it until the question was stated.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Roberts has spoken once to this subject. I am opposed to any more time being taken, as president of the expense committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts has the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, in order that the nerves of my friend may be somewhat settled, who attempted to speak, I wish to inform him that through the kindness of members on the floor, I have a list of names of gentlemen who have yielded me their time, that amounts to about two hours and thirty minutes.

[Laughter and applause.]

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I want a list of those names so that I can keep the expenditures in conformity with law.

Mr. ROBERTS. If it is necessary I will read the names.

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; it is not necessary.

Mr. ROBERTS. Or submit them to the gentleman's private inspection. It is not at all likely, sir, that I shall occupy that length of time, but I thought it necessary to state that I had that wide margin to move in, so that I should not be interrupted upon the ground that I had exhausted the time.

Now, sir, having had full confidence in the fairness of my friend from Washington County (Mr. Ivins), I consented not to make an attempt to get the floor first this morning in the committee of the whole, but extended to him at his request the courtesy of first making a motion and a few remarks before I should proceed. Little did I think that lurking under that request and the smile with which it was made, there was a determination to cut off the debate, and prohibit my speaking altogether. [Applause.]

If this debate on the question of woman's suffrage is prolonged, I think this Convention ought not to hold me responsible for it. Yesterday morning when I rose in my place to speak upon this question, a curious condition of affairs confronted me. The day before, I was surrounded by quite a number of enthusiastic friends, but a caucus was held that evening and gentlemen came to me the next morning and concluded that it was useless to make any fight whatever; that the overwhelming majority of the republican party or republican members on this floor, had gone into caucus and agreed that they would vote solidly for the proposition. I knew that that was the condition of my democratic friends, and therefore, I was confronted with the uselessness of

argument, when men had closed their ears to reason, and were determined, no matter what their convictions upon the subject, to vote in favor of this measure, considering themselves bound by ill considered party platforms. But, sir' I still was of the opinion that if woman's suffrage should form a part of this Constitution, it would be a menace to its adoption, and I conceded it to be my duty, however useless an argument might be upon the merits of the case, to sound a note of warning and point out the danger. Therefore I waived the question upon its merits or the consideration of it. You may judge, sir, of my astonishment in the afternoon, therefore, when gentlemen arose upon this floor and upbraided me for dodging the main issue, and charged me with attempting to settle the solemn question touching the rights and privileges of perhaps forty thousand people in this Territory, upon the question of expediency alone. I do not charge the gentlemen with intended unfairness by taking that ground. The gentleman who made the charge in chief I believe to be incapable of an intentional injustice to a fellow member. For a man who proposes that his work shall be followed upon the lines of clear good sense and cold logic, who proposes to eliminate all feeling and sentiment and turn philosopher {460} and judge the question clearly in that light, he must hold, sir, that he ought to have a better regard for his primary propositions and get his premises right, or he may get entangled in his arguments and conclusions.

There are one or two other little matters that I want to set right before proceeding to the main issue before us, especially as it will enable us to judge of the logic of the gentleman.

In the course of my remarks yesterday morning, I ventured to point out to the Convention the condition in which I was placed, as some members had gently hinted, if I took the position I have taken upon this question, I would find my hopes blasted and supposed political aspirations killed. Disclaiming having political aspirations, I nevertheless referred to myself as standing in the midst of the ruins of these blasted hopes and political aspirations. Whereupon this logical gentleman suddenly flies to the conclusion that I had reference to each of you as a particular ruin, and that I stood in the midst of one hundred and seven such ruins. I know not what had passed in the gentleman's mind to lead him to the conclusion that he was one of the ruins referred to. And then, sir, following that keen incisiveness that is so characteristic of his logic, he forgets that one hundred and seven ruins that his own imagination had conjured up, and raised me into a magnificent ruin, the comparison of which could only be expressed by referring to that splendid ruin, the Coliseum of Rome. I think my friend rather stretched his logic in referring to the Coliseum and that he himself attempted a flight of oratory in order that he might get in this time worn expression:

While stands the Coliseum, Rome stands; When falls the Coliseum, Rome falls; And when Rome falls_the world.

I confess, sir, that if that is the character of the logic with which I am to be followed, when I come to arguing the merits of this question, I say concerning it in the language of old Falstaff: “And thou lovest me Hal, no more. then?”

Again, by the gentleman's remarks, I was placed, I presume, in the opinion of some of the members here, in a very unenviable position, because it is thought that my course is inconsistent

with political party platforms, and the gentleman read to us, as I understood, the plank in the platform of the democratic party on that subject, and announced with what pride he had himself drawn that plank in the platform. Now, I have been accusing another gentleman all along of doing that, and I am pleased to be corrected. A few days ago in conversation with this same gentleman, he told me of another plank in that platform, that he himself had drawn, and of which he was equally proud, and that was the plank which demanded a non-partisan convention to form this Constitution. Another instance, I take it, of the gentleman's logic. On one plank that he draws he undertakes to make a party issue of woman's suffrage and put a plank in it binding the party to it, and he writes another plank freeing them from the obligation.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Will I be permitted to ask a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). I am greatly to a disadvantage here this morning, for I am without a voice; still I will have to put up with what I have got and you will excuse me. Do we understand that we now enter into a two hours_that is, with the privilege of two hours and a half's speech from those that you got the time from?

Mr. ROBERTS. So much of the time as I may see proper to use.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). I want to be informed. I will ask this committee if that is the way to proceed in business_
Mr. VAN HORNE. I arise to a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the time; it is unnecessary to interrupt him.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). I would like the sense of the Convention upon this point.

The CHAIRMAN. The matter has already been before the house and passed upon.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). He claims that he has so much time. With all due respect to him, is that the way for a man to get time? to go around among those that don't feel to say anything, and_

The CHAIRMAN. That is in accordance with the rules of the Convention.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I wish this man would not be interrupted. He did not go around for time. He can have mine if he needs more.

Mr. THURMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question_I am very sorry for this interruption, but I want to ask if the plank put in the democratic platform raised any issue between the parties? I am sorry to interrupt you, because I know that it puts the speaker to a disadvantage. But you had made the remark that the planks were inconsistent, the one which

declares for a non-partisan constitutional convention, and the other which declared in favor of woman's suffrage. Now, I ask you if that which declared in favor of woman's suffrage put that question in issue at all? the republicans having already declared in favor of it.

Mr. ROBERTS. As between the parties?

Mr. THURMAN. As between the parties.

Mr. ROBERTS. There was an attempt to raise an issue between the republican party and the democratic party by the adoption of that plank, in consequence of the equivocal language in which the republican plank on that subject was drafted, and our democratic friends undertook to cut the ground from under their feet by coming out in still bolder terms and it was hoped that the issue of woman's suffrage would be raised by that plank.

I was going to remark, Mr. Chairman, however, that the position of the gentleman from Utah County and that which I occupy are different in some of their essential features, but in order to place myself in a proper light and to escape the odium that is sought to be attached to me by the remarks of the gentleman, I find it necessary to tell the circumstances in brief, under which I was nominated and elected to this Convention. I never expressed so much as the most distant wish to any man on earth to be a member of this Convention. The one person with whom I ever passed one word upon the subject before I was nominated was one of my colleagues now in this Convention, and he asked me my opinion in relation to who I thought ought to be nominated from our locality, for we both live neighbors. He expressed a wish I might be nominated or that he had said to some one that he wished that I would be nominated, to which I neither assented nor demurred, but after a few remarks I left him and the same evening took my departure from the Territory. When I returned it was October and the political fight in the campaign was on. The first gentleman that I met and conversed with upon the subject was another colleague of mine from the same county on this floor, and he informed me of my nomination before the convention and selection by the convention. He told me about the county convention and what was done there. He told me that there was a drawn plank or statement binding the delegates from that county to work for woman's suffrage, and he himself objected to be bound to work for it and vote for it. That expressed my sentiment. I too, sir, would have objected to be bound to {462} do so. There was nothing in the county platform of the county from which I came that bound me, as the gentleman says he is bound. As soon as I arrived in Salt Lake City, there was a wish expressed on the part of democratic leaders that I should accompany the honorable delegate in his tour through this Territory, and I immediately or almost immediately started on that tour. I held but two meetings in the county from which I came. Woman's suffrage was never mooted in either of them, so that I felt entirely free upon this subject. I was not mingling with my constituency, but was doing work for my party at large, and from the southern line of this Territory to the north of it, there was nothing said in all the meetings that I attended upon the subject of suffrage. So, indeed, it seemed not to be an issue anywhere. And I came to this Convention, unbound to work or vote for woman's suffrage, and no taint of dishonor can attach to my conduct here in speaking of this subject, but I do not plead special circumstances.

I met the proposition of the gentleman fairly in the face and I say to him and to a number of

gentlemen (in which number, however, this gentleman shall not be included for what I am going to say) but I say to a number of gentlemen who do not believe in woman's suffrage and yet are going to vote for it, and against their convictions on the subject, thinking that they were bound by party pledges_I address myself to them, and for that matter to all of you whether you believe in woman's suffrage or not, if, to use an expression, from gentlemen from Salt Lake, here upon this floor, if the sober second thought is better than the first and that to pursue this issue and adopt woman's suffrage in the Constitution will endanger its life, what dishonor could attach to a man if he went back to his constituency and told them upon serious second thought he concluded it would be safer for the main object that we all have in view to waive the granting of woman's suffrage? For the life of me I cannot see where dishonor attaches when men walk according to the best light of the judgment they possess. Men ought not to be too much afraid of inconsistency. Human judgment is so short-sighted that he is a peculiar man indeed who throughout his life shall commit no inconsistencies. I fear that such a man as that would be so afraid that he would do wrong that he would never do right. Now, sir, with these few explanations I am ready to proceed to the main argument of this question on its merits.

I lay down as a great principle underlying this whole subject this proposition: The elective franchise ought to be granted only to those individuals in a position to act independently, free from dictation. That is the great principle underlying the granting of the privilege of the elective franchise, and upon that idea rests the franchise in the United States. It is proposed to enfranchise women of twenty-one years of age and upwards. I submit that the overwhelming majority of that class of women in this Territory, and in the United States for that matter, are married women, and such, sir, is the structure of the family that women are not in a position to act independently without dictation. I wish to glance for a few moments at the structure of the family. When the great Creator said to woman, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband and he shall rule over thee,” and when the great apostle of the gentiles repeated the same great law by saying, “As Christ is the head of the church, so is the man the head of the woman,” they were merely repeating a great law that existed as much in the nature of man and woman as it does in the revelation itself. That decree of the Almighty, sir, was not a part of the curse pronounced upon woman, but it was the expression of a great truth as {463} much in harmony with the nature of man and woman as it was with the decree of God. I know, sir, for announcing this doctrine in such cool terms that I shall be anathematized perchance as a tyrant to women, a man unfeeling and tyrannical in his disposition towards the fair sex, but I shall trust to those who know me and my life not to take any serious consideration of that accusation, and I shall try to convince this Convention by an expression of my views on that subject, that I do not believe that leadership, headship, responsibility of precedency, is necessarily accompanied by tyranny and by oppression.

I rather like that answer which old rough Martin Luther made when he was asked the question, “How is it that the Almighty did not create woman out of some other bone than a rib?” Said he, “He did not make her out of a bone of his head, lest she should rule over him; he did not make her out of a bone of his foot, lest he should trample upon her; but he made her out of a rib from his side from under his arm that man might protect her.” [Laughter.] I grant you, gentlemen, that I am not a polished man, I grew up untutored among these mountains of ours and doubtless in my nature and disposition partake somewhat of the roughness and ruggedness, and perchance my severe statement of the doctrine relating to the position of woman might be considered as the

views of a semi-savage upon that subject, but I find that away across the Atlantic a man reared in the midst of all the refining influences of our civilization bears me out in this doctrine. Gentle Tennyson says on the subject:

But this is fixed as are the root of earth and base of all,
Man for the field and woman for hearth,
Man for the sword and distaff she,
Man with the head and woman with the heart,
Man to command and woman to obey,
All else confusion.

That, I take it, expresses, sir, the great doctrine entertained by the Anglo-Saxon people in relation to this subject. Now, I put this proposition to my friend, who will answer me in this debate, let him take his choice of these two propositions, either to deny that the elective franchise can only be held by those capable of acting independently, or else let him deny the position of woman in the family. If he undertakes to deny the first, let him remember that the wisdom of civilization has fixed it so, and if he takes exceptions to the position of woman in the family organization, let him remember that a wisdom greater than the wisdom even of enlightened nations fixed the status of woman in the family. [Applause.]

That the great majority of the women whom it is proposed to enfranchise, belong to the married class, cannot be denied.

Having laid down that doctrine, I submit it for the operation of the logic of the gentleman who is to follow. I shall indulge myself for a few moments in a consideration of the arguments that are supposed to sustain the necessity and the justice of granting suffrage to woman. In the Declaration of Independence, there is a phrase that has become historical, and which I may say is the hope of the nation, and that is this: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And gentlemen might leap to the conclusion after reading that phrase that it is but a simple act of justice they should grant women the franchise that they might give expression to their consent in the government. Gentlemen make too wide an application of this doctrine. If they will pause a moment and consider it somewhat in detail they will find that direct consent which supports government in these United States is composed of the minority, and I might almost say a small minority. There are excepted out of those who give their consent to be governed, of course, all {464} minors. The wisdom of our statesmen up to the present day has excluded all women. In several of the states the wisdom of our statesmen have excluded those who hold no property. In other states that same wisdom has excluded all those who can not read or write, and take these together, they constitute the majority, and direct consent for the support of the government is only given by the minority of the people governed.

The argument of the gentleman upon this, built upon this phrase found in the Declaration of Independence, would convert the elective franchise into a right, not a privilege. I take it, sir, that neither democrats nor republicans are prepared to contend for that. It is conceded by all men informed upon the subject that the elective franchise is a privilege granted by government and not an inherent right. In order to distinguish the difference between it as a right and a privilege,

let me invite your attention to a contrast of a privilege and right. Our committee on declaration of rights told us that all men had the right to live, the right of life, and the right to liberty, and these were inalienable inherent rights. Our committee, reporting on elections and suffrage, provided in their article that no property qualification shall be required for any person to vote, but that is made a provision in some of the states, and in section 10 they say, “no person shall have the right to vote who shall not be able to read the Constitution of the United States.” Now, let us try it. Suppose you were to say in your declaration of rights, “No person shall have the right to life, but those who can read the Constitution of the United States. No person shall have the right to hold property but that can read the Constitution of the United States.” This is elementary, and I beg pardon of the committee for introducing it, and yet Mr. Chairman, after all I don't know but a little elementary doctrine, even if I am to judge from the discussion or argument of the gentlemen on the other side, would be a good thing to indulge in. It clearly exhibits the difference between a right and a privilege, and governments have always held the power to enfranchise those whom they would, and it is not the inherent right and cannot be claimed upon that ground. On this subject I presume, I will have to turn lawyer and refer you to Cooley.


But in every state, although persons are under the protection of the government and obliged to conform their actions to its laws, there are some who are altogether excluded from participation in the government and are compelled to submit to be ruled by an authority in the creation of which they had no choice. 'This patent fact suggests the inquiry, who are the people in whom is vested the sovereignty of the state? Since it is evident that they cannot include the whole population and that the maxim that the government rests upon the consent of the governed is in practice subject to exceptions (and I have noted some of these exceptions) as a practical fact, the sovereignty is vested in those persons who by the constitution of the state are allowed to exercise the elective franchise.

I might refer also to another consent negatively expressed and only tacit in its expression, but nevertheless real on that account, and that is the tacit consent which comes from refraining from revolution that overturns governments, and that consent thus expressed upholds governments no less than that direct expression that comes from the exercise of franchise.

I next come to the proposition upon which gentlemen built up, as I think and as they suppose, their strongest argument: “No taxation without representation.”

The committee refers to this in their report, that they have kept in mind and therefore it is presumed, since there are some women who hold property and have property in their own right, that when you deny representation to them you are violating the great principle {465} upon which our own freedom was won. But let us subject it to an analysis and see how much of it is good and how much of it is worthless. I think the gentlemen will agree with me that the great bulk of our women population are only property owners in connection with their husbands. They have no property of their own separate and apart from their joint ownership in property with him. And you shall single out those who are unmarried and are property owners, while the number might be considerable, in comparison with the great mass of women that it is proposed to enfranchise, that number is insignificant. I hold to the doctrine that each man who is married, in the exercise of his privilege of suffrage, is the representative in that act, not only of himself, but

of the little group with which he is connected. He acts for his family, and gentlemen must not be carried away with the idea that they act independently of the influence of the wife in that case either. It may suit the fancy of man, it may be accorded by the shrewdness of woman to let him think that that is the case, but as a matter of fact, it is not the case. I think before I get through I shall be able to show you that women already have an influence in politics, and though indirect, it is none the less real, and that when a man who is married casts his vote, it is the expression of the mentality of the group with whom he is connected. The hobo and the bachelor may each for himself cast his ballot with no other consideration than how it affects him; but, gentlemen, the man who is a head of the family does not do it and he cannot do it, because there stands by his side a counsellor and he cannot escape hearing her. [Laughter.]

I want to prove that I do not stand alone in this proposition. In England, Scotland and Wales, they have in some more or less modified form, suffrage_municipal or school election suffrage, but in those countries it is confined to a single woman of voting age, and to widows. Why do they leave out all the married women? Because the statesmen of Great Britain well know that the married women of England are not unrepresented either in taxation or anything else, but they grant it to a single woman and to widows. In Sweden, the modified form of woman's suffrage is held exactly on the same principle, only they extend it a little further in Sweden than they do in Great Britain. They permit them to vote for the lords or members of the house of lords indirectly. In Russia to the extent that franchise is granted to women in the elections that take place about local matters, it is confined to women who are the heads of households, and why? Why, for the same reason for those who are wives have already representation: and sir, that practice follows the Russian_the self governing town, wherever it is planted, even in Asiatic Russia. Again, in Italy, widows vote even for members of parliament. Why don't they extend it also to married women? For the reason that these countries recognize the doctrine that I have laid down upon this floor, that the married women need no other representation than that which comes indirectly through the head of the family.

Now, let us consider those who have no husbands, in comparison with the female population on whom it is proposed to confer the franchise. The unmarried, especially those among them that are property owners, form, as I have already stated, an insignificant minority, yet considerable in number, I grant you, and their right to be represented ought to be considered. The question so far as the principle of taxation without representation is concerned, is narrowed down in my opinion to this: That if all gentlemen want to do is to recognize the great principle of no taxation without representation, all that they have to do is to give the {466} franchise to those who are not already represented in this matter, but even this should be well considered before it is conceded. I want to ask you what discrimination is made against woman in this matter of taxation? Do men fix one schedule of taxation for women, and another schedule of taxation for men property owners? Don't the burdens of taxation rest upon the man and woman alike? Is there any conflict in the interest of property owners, whether man or woman? Do not men who pay taxes contend that they shall be reduced already to a minimum? Could it be hoped that if the women regulated the taxes they would be somewhat less than they are now? I grant you if there was any hope for that, the temptation to grant them the privilege would be considerable. But, sir, there is no hope that such a result can be obtained.

Now, I want to consider the question as to what motives prompt the extension of franchise to those who are unfranchised [*note*]. What principle has guided statesmen in the past on that proposition? Has it been mental equality? Has it been based upon sentiment or necessity, through all the reforms on this question in the history of the race of which we form a part? When the barons met King John and demanded franchisement at his hands, was it based upon the plea that they were mentally equal with him? God save the mark! Let us not think the barons of England were not superior mentally to that half dried mummy, King John. Gentlemen, it was not a question of mental equality, but it was in the instance I have referred to and remains to-day one of necessity and one of protection. When in the 17th century the commons of England made their famous petition of right and demanded franchisement [*note*], was it on the ground that they were mentally equal with those already in possession of the franchise? Why, no, but it was to protect
themselves against enforced loans and benevolence to the king that they wanted enfranchisement, that it could not without their consent, compel them to loan money to the, crown. Now, sir, I will not take up the time of this committee to review the franchise reform in England in 1830 and in 1832, nor the later agitation on the same subject in 1867, nor the same agitation in 1872; but if gentlemen will take trouble to look into those cases they will find in every instance that it was placed upon the ground of necessity, that one class might protect itself from the oppression and unfairness of another class. We have an instance of it right here in our own country, when the shackles were struck from the limbs of three million slaves and they were given equal political franchise with their former masters. Was that upon the ground of mental equality_a sentiment that these black people should have equal franchisement with their former masters? No, it was not; the franchise was given to them as a means of protection that they might protect themselves against their former masters. So, throughout the history of this question. And now, since it has been upon this principle that franchise has ever been extended, I want to ask my logical friends what reason is there here for extending it to woman? Have we in our conduct been so bad to women that mothers, that daughters, that wives, and sisters, have need to protect themselves against us? Will you answer me upon the question of necessity?

Gentlemen argue this question upon the ground that a man must be the inherent foe of woman, and we hear declamations against clanking chains, oppressing tyranny, until really if this goes on every woman that one meets he will look for the gyves upon her wrists and the chains attached to her foot. Gentlemen, it is all solemn mockery. There is no such a thing as a {467} conflict of interest between man and woman that demands any such action as is here proposed? Upon this point I read to you the words of a thoughtful woman, published in the Atlanta Constitution, February 16th. The quotation is from Mrs. Atkinson, wife of the governor of Georgia:

I have been impressed with the fact that many of those who sympathize with the suffrage movement discuss it in a spirit which is neither becoming to them nor helpful to their cause. It is folly to try to make sensible people believe that women are white slaves, and men are their masters. It is untrue and unfair to allude to men as though they were the oppressors of women and are wilfully and maliciously depriving them of their rights.

My belief is, and my experience confirms this belief, that men and women are not natural enemies, but are natural friends, and in fact are the best of friends.

This question by those advocating woman's suffrage is misstated when they ask for equal rights, for women exercise a great number of rights, a few of which are unequal in responsibility by any that men hold. Men and women may have equal rights and not yet possess the same rights.

Woman are exempt from poll tax, from liabilities to work upon the public roads, from jury duty, and from military service, while the law guarantees them equal rights to own and hold property_in many respects their property rights are superior to those of men.

There may be some duties for which both sexes are equally well fitted; if the right to vote and to become participants in political affairs be one of these, then I would suggest to those who advocate this that they talk less to the man and give the women some good reason why they should vote, for we cannot believe that man is woman's oppressor or that there is any spirit of envious rivalry between the sexes.

While I am upon this subject, I want to refer to something that is quite unusual in those who pursue the argument in favor of woman's suffrage. It is a wonder that this has not been introduced on this floor, and it is quite possible, Mr. Chairman, that it will be before we get through. I cannot define what will be the course of argument of gentlemen who are to follow me, but it is not unusual to say that men have relegated women to the political association of idiots, insane, and convicts.

At the recent woman's suffrage meeting, held in the south, a Miss Colby, of Nebraska and Washington, arose before the convention. I quote from the despatch describing the matter:

She held up a photograph and said that it represented woman and her political peers. In the center was the picture of Miss Francis Willard, in the upper left hand corner was an idiot, in the upper right hand corner a convict, in the lower left hand corner a painted Indian, in the lower right hand corner a lunatic.

I ask gentlemen and woman suffragists is that the price, the value that American manhood has fixed upon woman? It is an insult to the generous generation of American men who now sleep in their graves to say that they have relegated woman to any such condition as that, or make it possible for odious comparisons of the kind to be truthfuliy and rightfully made. Nowhere on this earth, where God's sun shines, has woman been so enshrined and sainted as she has been in the hearts of American manhood. [Applause]. It is an outrage to make such arguments as that. This demand for woman's suffrage is not new. Why it is old. Away back two thousand years ago when Plato said, “In the administration of a state neither woman, as a woman, nor man, as a man, has any political functions but the gifts are equally diffused in both sexes.” From the time that remark was made until now, I repeat this demand for suffrage for woman has been made. Why has it not been granted? Surely there must have been some reason why it has not been granted. Manhood is just. In the main they seek to do the right thing. They have stricken down slavery in every Christian land almost. Why is it that they have not granted this continuous demand? Certainly {468} there must have been good reasons and I briefly state a few of them, because it has been generally accepted that women had been actually represented in governments by their husbands, fathers or sons, since there is no conflict of interests, the representation, though indirect, has been sufficient. Second, because of the position of women in the family fixed by wisdom, greater even than that of the wisdom of our ancestors. She is not in a position to act independently as all ought to do who have the elective franchise. The main reason why they have been denied it, however, is be found in the universal belief that there is a difference in the sphere

of man and woman, as there is in their nature, The time honored theory was expressed by one of our poets who said:

For contemplation he and valor formed,

For softness she and sweet attractive grace,

He for God alone and she for God in him.

That has been the theory of the relationship of man and woman. Man's nature and disposition fit him to be the protector of woman, and it has been so from the earliest periods of recorded time until now. In barbarous times and ages, it was the strong right hand of man that protected woman; through wisdom's ways they learned to contrive a new form of protection as it is to be seen in government; the right still went with that new device, that its management, its control, the exercise of its powers, should still be with man.

Notwithstanding the fear of bayonets and bullets expressed and anticipated by my friend from Salt Lake, who by the way was kind enough to sing such a beautiful euphonism last evening, laying me quietly away in the fond embrace of death amid the sunbeams of the setting sun and mingling beams from woman's eyes_and I confess that the gentleman was a success at that_I was walking around in a sort of a dazed condition until the rude thump of the chairman's gavel aroused me from the sweet reverie and I came to with an exclamation, and I still alive. Notwithstanding his attempted anticipation of this part of the argument, it is true that at the last governments find their basis upon force, and whenever the shock of conflict comes the women are relegated to the rear and men step to the front, still the protectors of home and woman. Though woman is in the rear the consciosness in the heart of man that he is contending for that woman and that home lends potency to his forces that he could not be deprived from her were she an Amazon and armed cap-a-pie and marching by his side. [Applause.]

And there is some truth in the doctrine that ballots do not amount to much unless bayonets are behind them, and good manly hearts to bear the bayonets. I now come to the question of equality. I wish to say in the presence of these ladies that this Convention about extending suffrage to them is not properly based upon equality. It is not a question of superiority or equality. Whenever that question is raised I yield the palm to woman. I join the sentiment of my friend from Salt Lake on my right, that in the moral virtues, in everything that goes to soften the hard conditions of humanity, in everything that teaches that which is beautiful and best in nature or in man, woman is the superior of man. Just as I think our sister will yield the palm to physical strength in man, there is no disparagement meant to woman when I say that man is better fitted to govern men than she, no more than there is disparagement against man when we say that in the softer and more refining graces woman is his superior. I can conceive of two things being different and yet in some things and in general we may say equal. For illustration, I may say of the two greatest men of England to-day or this generation of Englishmen, that Gladstone {469} and Tennyson are equals. That does not mean that because one of them is at home with Arthur's round table and tells us a beautiful tale of the Idyls of the King, and because Gladstone cannot do that, that Gladstone is therefore not the equal of Tennyson. I imagine, sir, that the poet would find himself much confused if he undertook to deal with an English budget. He could not control the house of commons and sway the reasons of men to support that which is best and just for the government. They are different in their spheres, but equal as to being men.

And so it is with man and woman, different in their dispositions, different in their tastes, different in their constitutions, but equal doubtless as to their abilities, equal as to their mentality. So I mean no disparagement to the women of this Territory, when I express the opinion that they ought not to be enfranchised. I favor equal educational advantages for men and women, though I would have the women apply the knowledge that is acquired to building up a higher excellence in the proper development of their lives. Then, again, I am not unmindful of the power and influence of women. Why, sir, I am well aware that if we men were left alone, we would soon sink into a state of barbarism. Some portion of my life has been spent in mining camps in this Territory, and I know how debased men can become when deprived of the society of women. I place the value of woman upon a higher pinnacle, and there is not a suffragist among you all that has a higher opinion of her and of her influenee than I myself entertain. But let me say that the influence of woman as it operates upon me never came from the rostrum, it never came from the pulpit, with woman in it, it never came from the lecturer's platform, with woman speaking; it comes from the fireside, it comes from the blessed association with mothers, of sisters, of wives, of daughters, not as democrats or republicans. [Applause.]

I am happy to find that I have some one to help me out in those views. I quote the words of a man than whom there is not another in the United States who gives more consideration to public questions or whose intelligence and wide education qualify him to better express an opinion, and I refer to his excellency Cardinal Gibbons:

Christian wives and mothers, I have said you are the queens of the domestic kingdom. If you would retain that empire, shun the political arena, avoid the rostrum, beware of unsexing yourselves. If you become embroiled in political agitation the queenly aureola that encircles your brow will fade away and the reverence that is paid you will disappear. If you have the vain ambition of reigning in public life, your domestic empire will be at an end.

It is that which I fear, if we drag women into the political arena in this Territory. I know, sir, that the effect of that is denied. And whenever gentlemen undertake to deny that that will be the effect they point us to Wyoming. I paid my passing respects to the state of Wyoming yesterday. I am not, however, altogether through with the reference to that matter. I asked yesterday why such states as Virginia and New York and those older states, empires within themselves, were not cited. Why not cite even Kentucky? Pardon me, I did not mean “even,” because Kentucky, sir, shall not by any manner of means lose its comparison with any of the states that compose this American Union. It was a slip of the tongue to put it in that form. [Laughter.]

Aye, sir, I will quote you even the very Ashland district where woman exercised an influence, although she did not possess the ballot, and the result demonstrated the truth that she had no need of it when there is a question of hurling down the steeps of his own {470} ambition a man who has outraged every public sentiment of morality.

I trust, sir, that in the future of Utah, whenever an issue of that kind shall arise, that the women of Utah, acting like the women of Ashland district, shall come to the rescue and acquit themselves as well, and they will not need the ballot to do it either, even as these women did not need the ballot to do it. So, I suggest to my friends Kentucky versus Wyoming, as a model for Utah. I reaffirm the effect of public life and especially of political public life upon woman, and propose

to prove it. I read from a dispatch in Salt Lake Sunday's Herald of August 6th. The scene that it describes occurred on August 5th, 1893:

The board of lady managers indulged in another decidedly unpleasant wrangle to-day. It lasted nearly two hours, and during that time many unpleasant things were said, and many ladies gave vent to their feelings. Mrs. Ball, of Delaware, secretary of the committee on awards, made a long complaint against Mrs. Mederith, chairman of the committee; among other things she charged that when Mrs. Mederith was unable to attend a session of the committee she sent her sister to act as overseer, when her sister had not a right to a seat in the committee. At frequent intervals during Mrs. Ball's remarks there were loud exclamations of surprise from the audience, but the sensation came when in closing she characterized Mrs. Mederith as an arrogant, malicious, ungenerous, and vindictive woman.

Before she had finished half the women in the house were on their feet, many shrieking wildly, others hissed, and others stamped their feet. Mrs. Palmer used her gavel viciously and called in vain for order, but the excited women paid no attention. “Take that back,” yelled a large woman. “Put her out,” screamed another, and so on, and pandemonium reigned supreme. During all the uproar Mrs. Ball stood perfectly calm, smiling serenely. When at length order was restored, she repeated the sentence. Then the uproar was renewed and continued for sometime.

Mrs. Ball finally took her seat; in an instant Mrs. Mederith was on her feet. “So far as any difference that exists between Mrs. Ball and myself is concerned,” she said, “we can settle it ourselves, but when she says I sent my sister to preside over that committee, she tells that which is absolutely false.” Here Mrs. Mederith broke down and began to sob hysterically.

Then came another scene of wild confusion and everybody wanted to talk at once. Motions were made by the dozen, but nothing was done until Mrs. Palmer, who was pale with excitement, succeeded in restoring order. Then Mrs. Ball got the floor again and said she would retract the word “malicious.”

A Chicago paper in an editorial comment on the above said:

Upon the board of lady managers at the fair are a number of women of well known ability, culture, and refinement. Why they should stay there is fast becoming a mystery.

Yesterday's disgraceful proceedings of the board are enough to disgust the most gallant defender of the gentler sex. If the board has nothing better to do than to fight and wrangle and indulge in language which is never tolerated in parliamentary proceedings under any circumstances, in heaven's name, let it adjourn and drop out of public sight.

It is a humiliating statement to make, but it is a fact, that the recent proceedings of the board of lady managers have been a burning disgrace to the fair, to Chicago and to American womanhood in general.

If the members of that nondescript body hope to save the slightest vestige of public respect and esteem, they must about face and start in the opposite direction in double quick time.

My point is this in referring to this matter: These ladies were ladies of the highest talent, of great refinement, and I put this question to you, if women of that character can indulge in scenes of this kind how long can they retain the respect that is properly due to woman?

Mr. THURMAN. Don't men ordinarily have rows?


Mr. THURMAN. What about the Indiana legislature the other day?

Mr. ROBERTS. Excuse me, I did not quite answer your question, or did not catch the meaning of it for the moment. Men do have rows, they act unseemly, but do we want to put women in a position where they will do likewise? [Applause.]
I read now a dispatch from the Chicago Herald, dated July 24th:

A rival of Colorado's governor has been found. Mrs. Eli Potter, who ran for mayor of Kansas City, Kansas, at last spring's election, is on the streets to-night boasting that she will capture the Kansas republican state convention in September, if she has to wade in blood up to her ears. Mrs. Potter's ire was aroused at a meeting of the equal suffrages association this afternoon. One faction wanted to send a republican delegation to work for suffrage planks at the republican convention, a democratic delegation to the democratic convention, and so on through as many conventions as Kansas sees fit to have. The other faction favored a non-partisan delegation, and it triumphed.

After the meeting Mrs. McKee, the president, was accused by Mrs. Potter of working suffrage associations in the interests of the republican party. Mrs. McKee said that Mrs. Potter was a liar, for several minutes there was the biggest kind of a row of words, and what looked like a free fight was only averted by some of the cooler heads. To-night Mrs. Potter is laying wires to capture the convention.

Now, I shall only trouble the committee with another instance of how woman's suffrage works and the agitation that attends it. This is a dispatch from Denver, January 17th:

The desks of Mrs. Clara Cressingham, Mrs. Carrie Clyde Holly, Mrs. Frances Klock, members of the assembly, were ornamented to-day with magnificent bouquets of roses bearing the card of United States Senator Wolcott. The three ladies had yesterday voted for the senator's re-election. In seconding Wolcott's nomination, Mrs. Holly had said, Senator Wolcott is in full sympathy with the cause of equal suffrage. This statement was hissed by several women in the ladies' gallery, who also uttered derisive cries and groans. The men in the crowded galleries applauded and laughed. The sergeant-at-arms shook his hand at the ladies in the gallery and shouted, “stop that.” Mrs. Holly continued, and the other two assembly women also gave their reasons for voting for Wolcott.

A delegation of three ladies representing the W. C. T. U. waited on the senate Tuesday, and secured the introduction of a resolution demanding that no one should be elected to the United States senate whose private life was subject to criticism. Senator Felker took umbrage at this and spoke his mind freely. Yesterday, while seconding the nomination of Wolcott he referred to these ladies as hatchet-faced individuals, adding a remark that is unfit for publication. The remark was taken as a personal insult by the W. C. T. U. women. To-day Felker said he should not have called them hatchet-faced as battle-ax would have been a better term. He added the still more vituperative attack upon the W. C. T. U. which was resented by other senators. For more than two hours there was a wordy war. Senator Fulton declared that Felker ought to be kicked out of the state capitol and the matter was only ended when a disgusted senator demanded an adjournment.

Now, I join in the sentiment that expresses the idea that Senator Felker ought to have been kicked out of the capitol and the conduct of the gentlemen in the galleries was also unbecoming, I grant you. But why submit women to come into a position where they challenge such insults as these? [Applause.]

I told the ladies of this Territory that their best friends are not those who would bring them into a condition where insults of this character are liable to be heaped upon them, and it is impossible to choke down these senseless, thoughtless men who thus insult women; but if women insist on going into a bear pit of political strife, may it not be expected that these scenes of which I have been speaking are liable to occur? Therefore, in the name of woman, and in the name of the great silent mass of women, retired in their own homes, and in their private lives, who do not seek for representation upon this floor, I say that suffrage ought not to be granted. [Applause.]
Gentlemen who are suffragists suppose they absorb all the gallantry towards the opposite sex. Why, ladies in this house, let me tell you what has happened, sotto voce. You remember the day when we had an invasion of ladies interested in the question of suffrage, and one suffragist, a member of this Convention and an ardent suffragist at that, said, “If this goes on, from the {472}
appearance of these women, if we have a few more invasions I will be with Roberts.” He remarked to another man, “have you noticed these women?” and then he remarks, “They are neither man nor woman, they are neither brute nor human, they are ghouls.” I am not a suffragist, but no man can say that I ever made a remark like that about women. I repeat it to the women of this Territory that if they could but listen to the jests and jibes of those who even pretend for suffrage, whether their cheeks are bloomed with youth or sunken and pallid with age, they will blush for very shame. [Applause.]

The time for this committee to rise is drawing to a close. I think I can finish my remarks by the time it should close. I shall not exceed the hour of twelve, at least by more than three or four minutes, and that will finish my speech. I pray the committee to give me that indulgence.

What is to be gained by admitting women to be franchised? “Oh, they will improve our laws. They will elect men to make laws that will make better laws.” We have good laws. The laws are all right. Every vice that can be cured by legislative enactment is already provided for. The mischief is you cannot make men moral any more than you can make them brave, any more than you can make them generous, any more than you can make them noble, by legislative enactment. If we could, I would have all the men brave as I would have all women fair. But it cannot be done. “Well, then, if we cannot fix the laws to make better laws we at least could provide for a better administration of laws by electing better men.” Could you do it? Isn't our country really governed by party? And if you admit the women, there will be affiliating with the republicans and with the democrats, and about all it would amount to as affecting the kind of men that are chosen is, the number of votes cast for them might be just a little larger and that is all there is of it. These good women like the good men in these parties would have to support the party nominee, or else throw away their ballot, and that is all there is of it. They can no more effect a moral reform through the ballot and the exercise of suffrage than they can empty the Atlantic ocean with a pint cup. And had they thought of this, that you not only enfranchised the the good women, but you enfranchise the bad? “Oh, yes, but the good women preponderate.” I grant you that, they do; but would it not operate much as it operated in Chicago recently? I read the

statement of it, or for brevity, will merely state it. In Chicago women have the municipal franchise. Last November 35,000 Chicago women were registered and out of the number only 8,000 voted. Of these 8,000 not less than 5,000 were disgusted with their experience and they will never vote again. What might be termed the “silk stocking” element registered with a mighty flourish of trumpets, but it quailed when the hour for voting arrived. The polls were uninviting and the judges and clerks were inclined to grow hilarious at the appearance of the women. Then the ballots puzzled them wonderfully; they voted every way but the right way. And so many were the blunders that a big percentage of their vote was thrown out. The voting of the women was confined to university trustees. The women who did vote went to the polls in pairs, braved the tobacco smoke and the ward politicians, and left their ballots. Very few were accompanied by men and it was quite evident that the husbands who encouraged their wives to dabble in politics were mighty scarce.

Now, the point of argument in referring to this item is this: Grant you that the great majority of women are good women, but their sensibility of delicacy will keep them away in the main from the polls, while the brazen, {473} the element that is under control of the managers and runners of saloons, will be the ones to brave the ward politicians, wade through the smoke and cast their ballot. The refined wife and mother will not so much as put her foot in the filthy stream. “Oh, but woman will purify politics.” Many a time I have stood on the banks of the Mississippi River above St. Louis, where the turbulent muddy Missouri comes tumbling into the placid clear waters of the Mississippi. What is the effect? Is the muddy stream made clear and beautiful and sparkling? Now, that is not the effect; they roll and tumble side by side for a few miles and then the distinction is lost in one muddy stream. “Oh, but the stream was not quite so muddy as it was before the clear stream entered it?” Grant you that. Neither was the clear stream ever sparkling and clear again. [Applause. ]

One quotation more and that from a woman, Mrs. Robinson Watson, in the Arena, for Feburary [*note*], 1895:

The glory of womanhood has been her purity, her superiority to man, in the possession of a higher moral sense and standard. Why risk this precious certainty for a doubtful good, when the superiority claimed and admitted by all is a result of protection from the temptations which this doubtful good would entail? Unmolested, her instincts and feelings would undeniably lead in the right direction. As a class her predilections would be upward tending, but vest her with a power of marketable value, power of immediate importance and offering a motive to man, and how many weak women would be dominated by a stronger nature? There has been as yet no reason for nor desire to corrupt her, but while many would forever and all time remain staunch defenders of rights and principle, how many more would remain neutral, or indifferent, and how many more still in the lower illiterate classes would simply esteem the ballot for its pecuniary possibilities.

Just one more brief extract from her remarks:

Suppose suffrage to be secure, what would follow in its trail? Giving the matter casual consideration only, one thinks that the great centers of wrong-doing would be purified, that woman's presence in great political gatherings, her influence in legislative halls, her ballots against the crying evils of the day, and her united and legalized effort for the salvation of the young would work such reform as to thrill and regenerate the world from center to circumference. But look deeper. In the home, the source of all good

to the state, would surely come sooner or later discussions, diversions and dissension. There would inevitably be two sides and these in many instances hotly contested. It is an old saying that a man and his wife ought not to play chess. Surely it is a graver question when they would play at the dangerous game of politics.

Now, gentlemen, in conclusion look at the effects of this in the family. Shall we not leave some refuge for man in this world, where he can come out of the strife and bitterness that is oft engendered in business, professional and political life. I call on you as men forming a new State Constitution, beware how you deal with this question and lay not the foundation for wrecking domestic peace. Leave man, I say, some asylum, some refuge, from the storms and cares of life. Do this, and then, through plot and counterplot, through gain and loss, through glory and disgrace, along the planes where discord rears eternal babel, the gentle stream of human happiness may glide on. And I pray you go back to caucus, think this question over, do the right as it is in your hearts and as God gives you the right to see it. I thank you for your indulgence. [Applause.]

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I wish before the committee shall arise to speak just one moment on a question of personal privilege. When I came into the assembly this morning, it was my intention to propose the motion which I have offered. I was not at that time aware that my colleague from Davis intended to speak. Just before we went into committee of the whole I incidentally heard him whisper to my friend on my left that he expected to open the debate. I immediately leaned over and said to {474} him that I wished to make a motion before the debate was opened. And I resent the imputation that I came to him with a deceptive smile, asking him to waive a portion of his time to me. I only claimed what was my right upon the floor of this house, and I submit that I have not wearied its members. I have no desire to cut off debate, to stop this discussion. I am a lover of oratory, argument pleases me, but I do submit that when this question has been discussed in the caucuses of both parties and has been determined almost unanimously that the section will be passed, it is not dignified for this body of men to continue day after day and day after day to sit here and discuss it.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak upon this question, but the debate has taken a wide and very extended form, and inasmuch as it is now probable that a vote upon the question will not be reached this afternoon, and as I shall be compelled to be absent from the Convention to-morrow, at least half of the day, I desire with the permission of the committee to take the floor now in the hope that I may be permitted to resume it at two o'clock when the committee shall resume its session.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless some member of the committee objects the chairman will recognize you at two o'clock.

Mr. VARIAN. I put it in solely upon the ground that I will not be able to be here tomorrow, certainly not in the forenoon, when I anticipate a vote will be reached and under the circumstances, particularly as certain things have been said, for my own satisfaction I desire to announce my position on this question.

The committee then took recess until two o'clock.

Alter recess.

The committee of the whole reassembled and the following proceedings were had:

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a question of personal privilege. Some remarks which I made in the heat of discussion this morning were perhaps stronger than I would wish in referring to one of my colleagues, Mr. Ivins. I would not wish to lose a friend nor do him any injustice, and I therefore personally apologize to Mr. Ivins for anything offensive in my remarks.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman and gen-men of the committee, rarely have I had an opportunity of listening to such an oratorical effort or efforts as has been my pleasure to hear during yesterday and to-day. None of us on the floor of this Convention or elsewhere in the Territory, I apprehend, can hope to compete with my distinguished friend from Davis County, on his chosen field. With oratory and rhetoric and all the attendant graces of elocution, he has charmed this audience during two long sustained efforts. Oratory, however, is not always argument. Rhetoric not always logic. Both may be and are used to embellish argument, whether for the good or for the evil. In what I have to say, I do not propose discussing the merits of this proposition before the committee. I propose directing my attention to what I conceive to be faulty logic, wrong and unpermissible argument, to move the minds and influence the votes of the delegates of the people in this Convention assembled. With the unfortunate conditions which we observe are agitating and disturbing our friends on the minority side of the house, we need not concern ourselves. If it be true that my distinguished friend stands now under the shadow of political death, if the grave which he has suggested may possibly be dug for him is now being projected in the minds of his colleagues, perhaps we, as republicans, may be permitted to express the hope that it will be deep and wide and broad enough to include all of the democratic party for all time. [Laughter.]

And in saying that, I mean it in an {475} entirely impersonal sense, of course. How they may escape from the dilemna in which they find themselves precipitated in this Convention by the act of their most distinguished leader and champion, the one of all the hosts of democratic orators and leaders who was selected to help carry the standard of democracy from Logan to St. George, side by side with their delegate in Congress, breaking down and through one of the most important and one of the strongest planks upon which he and the other candidates of that party stood at the last election, need not concern us. Nor, sir, would I attempt to take the time of this Convention or to offer any suggestion upon the matter under consideration had it not been for the fact that in the first argument made by the gentleman, waiving as he did the question of the merits, by imputation and inference at least, and carried to this committee and to the people that there were men here who were base and cowardly enough to vote against the honest convictions of their judgments, and were not manly and brave enough to rise above a mere partisan or political plane and, like him, follow the guiding star of duty. I am free to say_and I say it not because it is of any importance to this Convention or to the people of Utah, but because it is important to me to say it in the line of argument that I shall pursue that I have not yet reached in my own mind a conclusion satisfactory to myself upon this question of woman's suffrage. I have no convictions strong enough to move me were I free to act to change the policy of government and vote to extend the franchise. If I considered the question an open one here upon which the people had not spoken, I should probably vote, as I think every man in public life as a rule does

vote, against a proposition as to which he is not thoroughly convinced of the propriety and benefit. But, sir, as I understand it, we are not confronted with that question; if there is anything in popular government, if there is anything in the thought that the people are the source of all political government and power, it seems to me that the question now before this committee and this Convention has become adjudicated. It has passed from the realm of argument into the domain of final judgment, and the delegates to this Constitutional Convention elected are but the executors to carry out and record the will of the people.

Let us see how this stands upon principle. Let us see where and to whither we will be drifted, if we follow my distinguished friend from Davis County along the line of thought indicated by him on yesterday. He will concede to me that the people of the commonwealth have in themselves as a whole the power and the right to shape and control all legislation of every kind. He will concede to me that the manifestation of the will of the people is made in certain ways, and that it is determined by the consensus of opinion of the majority of the people. It is the only way in which it can maintain and perpetuate free institutions. When you depart from it, aye, in the slightest degree, you are on the road to tyranny of some kind. It has been developed by the experience of the American people during a century of their natural life that this government a majority government, a people's government, can be best administered through the medium of political parties. These parties do not represent all of the individual views of the members thereof, but they come as nearly representing the general view of the great mass of the people forming the party as it is possible for them to do. The expressions of the people belonging to political parties are given through the medium of conventions. They are written in what are called platforms and the candidates, so far as principles are concerned, have no more to do with the modifying, the {476} altering or the revoking of such principles than the members of the opposite political party. This much, generally, Mr. Chairman.

Let us for a moment, look at the situation now, not as it appears to my friend, the gentleman from Davis County, but as it appears to me. Commencing with the times when the conditions were not changed, up to 1892, there was a strong minority element in this Territory formed into a quasi political party of which I was a member, one of the fundamental principles of the creed of which was opposition to statehood. It was not until 1892, when the American people, speaking through both of the great political parties, announced their approval of division upon party lines, that the strength of this argument was weakened in the least. But at Chicago, and at Minneapolis, such action was taken as clearly indicated to him who cared to ascertain the fact that in the very near future the way was to be paved for the admission of this Territory into the Union, and from that time on, by ones and twos and dozens, and fifties, and hundreds, men fell away from that organization and aligned themselves on either side with the great political organizations of this country. In the fall of that year I resumed my place in the ranks of the republican party. I was not deceived, gentlemen. I do not believe that any man was deceived. I knew that it meant statehood, it could have no other meaning; there could be no other purpose or object in view. Under our form of government of necessity statehood must come when the proper conditions should exist. Neither was I deceived for a moment by any special thought that any other control would be exercised in the formulating of the organic law or the enactment of statutes than that exercised everywhere in this Union by a majority of the people.

In 1893, in convention assembled in the theater in this city, the liberal party
dissolved. Before it dissolved, it enacted a resolution that it was the sense of the party in convention assembled that Utah should be admitted into the Union of states. I assume that no member on the floor of that convention, that no adherent to that party, for a moment supposed that Utah was to be admitted with a constitution in any degree different from that desired by a majority of the people. We were told on yesterday that there were thousands of voters, who, if the article on suffrage was incorporated in the Constitution, would vote against it. From the standpoint that I take in the matter it is quite important to ascertain whether that be so or not, but it occurred to me then as it occurs to me now, that if that were so certainly these thousands of men so unalterably opposed to statehood, if it should include a provision for woman's suffrage, would have rallied around the standard, that they would have erected a new standard at least, that they would have written upon the history of the times their protest and emphasized it by their votes in the election when they had an opportunity to do so. They went off into two great political parties. From that day until this, no public expression has been given from the stump or through the medium of the press upon this question in the slightest degree indicating that the sentiment and temper of that portion of our people were as indicated. They knew, sir, as I knew, that it would be impossible for a minority to write their views in the Constitution of the State of Utah. They knew and they demanded that statehood should come, and so it was in September of last year, the republican party met in convention at Provo and wrote a plank in its platform “we favor equal suffrage,” and the delegates came back from that convention_a convention comprising a very large minority of members of the old liberal party, or perhaps I should say, a very respectable minority in numbers. They {477} went to work for the ticket. No expression of the kind we have heard here on this floor came from a single one of them so far as I know. The county conventions followed in different parts of the Territory. The constitutional nominating conventions followed. So far as I know there was not a word of dissent, not a word of protest in public or in private. We took our nominations. I certainly understood when I took mine, although as I remember nothing was said about it, that it was the mandate of the people of the republican party, if it should prevail in this election through its agents and representatives in convention assembled, to write in the organic law of the State for submission to the people just what has been submitted here from this committee. I know, Mr. Chairman, that our friends on the other side went through the Territory and attempted to discriminate in favor of the plank in their platform.

The criticism made upon the one was that it did not mean anything, that it was put there for evasion. That it did not bind or pledge anybody to anything. So eager and solicitous were the party men on both sides to emphasize with the people the absoluteness of their convictions on this question, that they even went into hypercriticism as to the meaning of the language used. I thought then, as I think now, that it was put in there in order that Mr. Frank Cannon could run for Congress. It did not occur to me that that mandate was directed to Mr. Cannon, it did not make any difference to the people of Utah whether Mr. Cannon favored woman's suffrage or not, or whether Mr. Rawlins favored woman's suffrage or not. The object to which they both aspired had no connections under the circumstances and conditions surrounding this people with that question. No county office had any connection with it. It must have been put there for some purpose. It was an invitation to the people to

read and vote the ticket. What purpose, Mr. Chairman, could it subserve? To a candidate on this republican ticket_and I purposely leave the settlement of that question as to the democratic ticket with my democratic friends, what purpose could it subserve, except in its relation to the candidates for delegates to this Convention? What other purpose? How can they quibble and quibble and debate and evade answering a plain, open, candid proposition like that? Are we to suppose that the people understood that we were simply seizing the opportunity to declare through the medium of party platform, that we favored equal suffrage? As a matter of fact it was put in that platform and put in the democratic platform I believe, because the party managers knew or thought they knew that the majority of this people were in favor of woman's suffrage. My learned and eloquent friend said himself that he conceded that a majority of this people are in favor of this. What, then, remains to build an argument upon? You start with the proposition that the majority of the people favor equal suffrage, favor it so strongly and earnestly that they want to see it put in the organic law now by this Convention, and you find that both political parties put that pledge in their respective platforms. What are platforms for anyhow? A friend of mine suggested to me the other day that they were simply a sort of crystallization of ideas in general, which did not mean very much, and were brought about by the yielding of the different views of the members of the convention. I grant you that in all public bodies of necessity there must be some yielding or there would be no work done. No single man can get his private views in all their completeness embodied either in legislative acts or in party declarations, but when the labors of a political convention are concluded and the result is promulgated, as I understand political {478} law, as I understand common honesty and decency, they are supposed to represent what the policy and belief of the party for the time being is upon the subject matter of the questions presented, when the people ratify the sentiments of any political party at the polls, by a majority of votes, electing its nominees. I understand that the ordinary law governing private and social intercourse between men applies. I do not believe that platforms are but molasses to catch files with, nor do I believe that individuals, agents or servants, elected by the people to carry out a definite and specific line of policy, have any discretion, have any right of judgment left as to the particular question upon which the people have spoken, and as to which they have directed.

Stop for a moment, my friend from Davis, and reflect where we would be left if we admitted for a minute that a departure from such a principle could be recognized. What would be thought of a man who was elected to Congress by the people of his district upon a platform to the people, that he would strike out or strike down or modify or remodel the protective tariff; if, upon reaching his seat in that house of representatives, he should undertake to say, “Conditions have changed; I am not quite so pronounced a democrat upon that principle as I was before the votes were cast, I believe there is some good in a protective tariff, and although my people sent me here with the distinct understanding, under the distinct command, if you please, that when my party in accordance with its principles formulated a proposition, directed towards the correction of the supposed evil, I will vote against it.” Suppose next year we elect a representative to Congress, and suppose that the people of Utah have become tired of the income tax, and should incorporate in a platform, upon which a gentleman accepts the nomination, a plank against
that tax, and suppose that a man being triumphantly elected, should take his seat in the following March, and after discussion with other people reached the conclusion that after all an income tax was not so bad, that it could be defended upon principles of sound economy, that it could be justified for many reasons, in fact, that he thought the better interests of the community

demanded its ratification there, and should proceed to cast his vote the other way. I don't know how it strikes other people; but it seems to me that if that kind of political conduct can be permitted there is no safety anywhere in popular institutions. It is not so, gentlemen. If you think a mistake has been made you must go back to the forum of the people and move to vacate their judgment. As long as it stands there, right or wrong from an independent standpoint, they are entitled to have it executed, and any other line of reasoning, any other kind of conduct, if permitted, would lead to utter political anarchy. What do you suppose would have been thought of the men who in the dark and trying hours of the great civil war, when a large and strong minority of the people were opposlng the further prosecution of the war, and the people of the north were rallying around their President, and in mass political conventions were enunciating their intention to vote the last dollar of the public money and take the last man from their firesides and their homes_if upon such a platform as that a representative elected to Congress should determine for himself when he reached Congress that after all, peace, balmy peace, was a good thing, and that the people did not quite understand what they wanted; that the price to be paid was too much, that the prize to be gained was not worth the price ?

What would have become of free government? What would have become of the man who would have presumed to have set up his individual opinion {479} and judgment against the expressed command of his constituency?

This brings us, Mr. Chairman, to the question of duty. I am glad to know and I firmly believe that the guiding star of the political and private life of my distinguished friend is duty, but I am constrained to say also, that I believe he has made a misapplication of his life purpose in the present instance. I say to myself, under the circumstances, that the duty of the hour is to carry out and obey the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. If there is a discretion, if there is anything left to the judgment of men, another question is presented. In many cases, perhaps in all the other cases that may arise in this Convention, questions coming before this body of delegates are ones to be solved by them and them alone in the exercise of their best judgments in the light of that star. But this one question has been reserved to the people by themselves. Nothing has been left for the exercise of judgment. It is an absolute limitation as I read it upon the power and authority of the delegate. Nothing is left to pass upon. The question has been decided; it has been voted upon. What then are we to say to those who sent us here? I was told the other day that very many of the men and women of my constituency were not in favor of equal suffrage. I may concede that without having any precise or actual knowledge upon the subject, and yet my answer is, “You are bound by the vote. You are bound by the platform; the time when your voice might have been raised in expression of dissent has passed away.” I am not, Mr. Chairman, and I want it distinctly understood, one to assume a place upon a party ticket and promise to keep the party pledge, to violate that pledge knowingly, nor do I see any way to evade or escape carrying out literally the demand of the people upon this question.

Why, what would you gentlemen have? If they are to erect here this tribunal of private judgment, what becomes of the whole system of party platforms and appealing to the people? What is the use of putting them in? What is the use of going about and getting votes upon them? Oh, I submit to my friend to look back, look within, and answer if he believes in this doctrine in his dealing with the people in relation to party protestations and promises, that you may change with the

times, that you may evade or equivocate or avoid or refuse. Do we put them in there for the purpose of deception? Are we to trifle with them in a double sense and keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope, or are we simply like men do what everyone of us said we would do when we entered upon the campaign, record the edict of the people?

And if it is not right and the people do not want it, they will find a way to correct the wrong. But, we are also told, as I infer, that we have a higher duty here than simply to make a good Constitution. We must so regulate the matter to be put into this Constitution, we must so shape and trim it, fit it in and dovetail it here and there, as to insure its acceptance by the executive, and in the same breath we were told by the gentleman from Davis County that he did not care what was in this Constitution, he should vote and labor for its adoption. I do not go that far, gentlemen. I say now, that it is possible_not probable_that such matter might be engrafted in this Constitution that I would neither sign it in this Convention nor vote for it. [Applause.] There, sir, I have the right of private judgment, but I do not believe that we have a right to ignore the plain command of the people simply because it may be deemed inexpedient, simply because we may infer that there is a possibility of its being defeated. I think, sir, that there is a higher duty here than that, that is, to make this Constitution as broad {480} and great and strong and enduring, in accordance with the principles of our common government, as we can. Whether it shall be adopted or not, whether it shall be accepted by the President of the United States or not, are questions with which we need not concern ourselves. I think the logic of the argument is faulty, To say in one breath that notwithstanding the fact we are told that we should put into this Constitution a certain provision, that because it was assumed it was ill-considered by the people, and because, perchance, it may bring about an adoption and acceptance of the Constitution, that therefore, we should violate all party principles and precedent, and, in my judgment_without, of course, desiring or intending any offense_violating the principles of common honor and honesty and refuse to make the Constitution in this particular as we know and believe the people desire. I think the argument is faulty to say that we should do this thing, because we fear that it will not be accepted. In support of that a number of supposed conditions were cited, which it was said would result in the combining of all the several supposed oppositions to the instrument, which it was thought would result disastrously. First, in the vote by the people, and if that were not so, in the submission of it to the executive. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the insertion in this Constitution of a provision which the people prefer we should put in there, will cause the people, who ordered us to do this, to vote against it. Yet, I care not; that is not the duty of the hour. I do not believe that the President of the United States will undertake to say in violation of an expressed law of Congress, which he himself assented to, that he will not issue his proclamation, if certain things are in this Constitution. I was surprised to hear the imputation made from that side of the house that a democratic President might refuse to obey the law, because, perchance, he has views antagonistic on the silver question to those entertained by the constituency seeking admission into the Union. It seems to me that we are getting further and further away from the question and that a proposition that needs such far-fetched argument as that must seem consciously weak to those who have put it forth. I hold, sir, that the discussion of the merits of this question, while it is entertaining and instructive and productive perhaps of much profit to those interested in the question, has no place in this argument. It presupposes that we have a right to exercise our individual judgments untrammeled and unbiased, that we are under no obligation of political and public fealty and honor to obey the mandates of the people. That being so, I am

going to vote to put this article In the Constitution, and if it is wrong, I can only say that I am simply doing what I was instructed to do. I say this much, because I was afraid that I might not be here when this matter reached a vote, and somewhere and by somebody, the suggestion has been made, and it has reached my ears that I was begging this question, or was on the fence. This is my only apology for inflicting upon this committee a speech of this kind. I am used to that sort of treatment here in this city, but it is not justified and I want it distinctly understood that there is not any proposition, which I, as a public servant, ever have been in all my life called upon to pass, or ever shall be that I will not take one side or the other. I will do it in the open. I did not urge this woman's suffrage plank, I was not the one who urged it quietly for the purpose of get- ng votes, and then sought to do away with the effect of it. It was against my judgment; it is now; but I recognize, sir, that I owe a duty as a public servant to carry out and to register the will of the people. [Applause.]

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, {481} and gentlemen of the committee, it may be regarded as presumptuous on my part in the way that I am treating myself, and the way that I am regarded in occupying your precious time. I am here to obey and conform to order. If I get out of order, I am always ready to make reparation. As was remarked by one of my friends, by what I have heard yesterday and to-day I am somewhat full of ideas and some of them have not been given, although the best of them have. The best words perhaps, have been selected, but I thoroughly want it understood, I don't wish to interfere, but it did occur to me that a speaker on this floor, when one rule calls for a certain order to be conformed with, and that is that we are limited to an amount of time, when the gentleman from Davis County, a man whom I esteem highly, said that he had some two hours, I thought there was something there that was a little irregular, that is to my understanding; as I broke in upon him, I wish to apologize and do not desire to do anything to disturb any speaker, for if a speaker is successful, he must have the attention of the audience. I hope in my few remarks, while I am on the floor, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a certain amount of time allotted to me individually, I wish to give vent to some of my ideas. Liberally one of my neighbors has kindly offered me his time, and I shall accept it, consequently I have twenty minutes and I will remark there is one virtue in what I have to say and that is it will be brief. There seems to be an idea in the minds of some that we are killing a great deal of unnecessary time. I believe in economy as much as any man can, but I think the time that is spent upon this question is well spent, I don't care who speaks, it is well spent. I am not afraid of opposition, gentlemen and ladies, I rather crave it, I rather court it. Why? Because it brings out what would lay dormant; such has been our experience here upon this floor. I have
the best of feelings for every gentleman on this floor, and whatever the results may be in our labors here as a conclusion I have this to say, that there is not a gentleman here that has lost a friend in me, either democrat or republican; I believe that we have come here for one pure motive; as I declared when I left my home in Beaver County, “I am going there in the interests of the whole people; I am not going there with party feelings desiring that my particular party views may be established, and supplant perhaps, others that have better ideas, but I am going there in the interests of the entire people of Utah.” That was my declaration before I left home. It is now repeated, that I am here for that purpose. Now, gentlemen, we are dealing with one of the most important questions, perhaps, before this body of men. We have left our homes. For what reason? We have been chosen from the several communities that we represent, and they relying upon us, upon our judgment, upon our wisdom, and upon every quality that we possess, to come here in a

body quietly and lay what? Lay the foundation of a new State. I had rather suffer wrong in my feelings than that we should make one single mistake.

I have not very many ideas, but such as they are they are free and you may imagine when I have told them that I have occupied your time to no purpose, but let this be emphatically understood, that the time we are now spending is a very profitable time, and I am liberal enough to say now, if we should not have sufficient remuneration to remunerate us for our time while we shall remain here together, I am one of those individuals that are willing to give my time gratis for any time that may have been thrown away. I say this question of suffrage is a very important question, and I am pleased_I am more pleased than otherwise that there was a minority report brought in. While I accord with the majority report, {482} yet I am pleased that the other was also brought in, that that side of the question might be looked at and examined. An edifice may be looked at upon one side and it may appear very beautiful but you walk around the corner and look at the other side and the appearance is materially changed. Now, we want to consider this question. The question is here whether the whole people shall have the franchise or whether a part of them shall. That is the question. I will ask the question of gentlemen, what is the power, what is the strength of the nation? What is the element that makes the great power of a nation? I say it is intelligence, that is what comprises the great factor in a great nation_the intelligence of that nation. Now, what is it proposed to do? It is proposed that we shall not have the use of a portion of the intelligence that we are surrounded with and that we esteem so highly as companions, but I am in favor that we shall have the advantage of all the intelligence that we may be surrounded with. I welcome all the intelligence that comes from the world, from the east, from the west, from the north and the south. I welcome it here in Utah, for I realize as I know that I stand upon this floor that Utah is destined to be one of the greatest states in this great Union, of which you and I form a part. There is nothing that will excel Utah, if we will lay our foundation properly and make no mistake. I hope there is not a man that represents any portion of this community but that has come here with an idea to get in something that will be especially beneficial to his community. We want what is broad; we want that which is generous; we want what is suitable for all that are here and will come here. I am speaking for myself; I am speaking for those I am representing, and I am speaking for the people of Utah. I am not only speaking for the people that have lived here their life-time and that have been the dominant people here, but I am speaking also for those that have come in since, and that are coming in. I say they are all welcome here and the more that come of intelligent men and women the better Utah will always be for it_and her condition will be better. I hope intelligent men and women will come into our midst, and I will say right here, that if I have got a theory of any kind that will not bear the light of day,_will not bear investigation, I say let it go. I do not care whether it is politics or religion or anything else, if it will not bear the light of day, I say let it go. That is where I stand. Now, to the suffrage. Why do I want woman suffrage? It is for more reasons than that I am pledged. I am pledged to my constituents. I am pledged by the platform that I stand upon, and I don't propose to move from it. If there is any fault, it is in the people, just as the man that has just taken his seat says; I am on that platform, and I propose to stay there and vindicate that to the best of my ability. I also represent a community that are suffragists. In every community there is a suffragist association, and I want to say that they are to-day able to teach their husbands civil government and national government. They are to-day able to teach many of their neighbors. Why? Because they have put their minds to it. They have investigated the principle and are able to teach it, and

that is the reason why I say that they are able to teach their husbands and their brothers. Their attention has been drawn elsewhere and men only do what they are forced to do from time to time, and I want to tell you, gentlemen, that there is not any of us that know anything only what we have learned; that is all we know. What is it that encourages any man? What encourages an orator? I don't care how eloquent he is, it is the admiration of himself, and the admiration of those with whom he is surrounded {483} that makes him a great orator. If he was in anyway confused by being turned upon with a cold shoulder, what will it do with him? What will it do with your son? What will it do with your wife? What will it do with anyone? If you turn from them scornfully and say, “We don't want any of your assistance, and we don't admire your talent, and we don't admire anything that is about you?” What will that do for your son? What will it do for your neighbor? What will it do for any member upon this floor, as intelligent as they are? Let it be intimated that we do not want any of your views, what will it do? It will humiliate the man; it will humiliate the individual.

Coming to the female, let us look at it. I say that the strong nation is the intelligent nation, and I say that the ladies are a great factor in that intelligence. Where is our intelligence coming from? It is moving, conditions are moving continually, and because there is an innovation, they raise up in holy horror against an innovation. Suppose there never had been any innovation? Here to-day, we would have been a nation of colonies, that is what we would have been. What were the feelings of our fathers in whom we show so much pride, in the great instrument they brought forth? Did they think when they started out of becoming a great nation, a free government? No, not by any means. They only wanted their wrongs redressed, but circumstances moved along so that they actually had to declare themselves an independent nation. Referring to some ideas of gentlemen, who have referred to what older states have been doing, that should not be_they have been pursuing a policy that has stood the test of time, and many oppositions have been brought before them, and it has stood well. I don't wish to refer to what older states have done; they have done as they pleased, and I hope the people of Utah will do as their best judgment will dictate to them, and I am not afraid of innovation. We are living in a day of innovation; they are coming upon us continually, and if we get an idea in our mind that we cannot receive new ideas, why we are then beginning to stand statuo quo. But there will be innovations and I want the privilege given to every individual irrespective of sex or belief, to have a free view. I want their intelligence. Then they can turn their attention to something perhaps that is more in the true interests of the whole people, than perhaps some of them are inclined to. I consider it a very frivolous thing that the ladies of the intelligence that are living in this age, living in this part of this great country that we live in, that they cannot take hold of these matters and participate in them in a reasonable and straightforward way. It is no objection to me to say that there is a portion that have got the franchise and they don't go and participate in that right. That is no argument to me whatever. I do not care if there is not a single lady, if there is not a single woman that goes and votes after they get the privilege; they are asking for it; they are asking for it all over this land. They are asking for it all over adjoining states and territories throughout the country. And even in the old states they are asking for it, and I say let them have it, and let us try the experiment. The experiment has been tried in this land, it has been tried in other states, and we hear of no great evil results from that great liberality that has been extended to them, and most emphatically I want their intelligence, and when you give them their franchise they will then regard themselves as being equal to man in that one position, and it is conceded that the

intelligence is not inferior to man. Well, then, if it is not, why not use it? I say use it and those that wish to participate in the ballot, why let them have the privilege, {484} and I think no evil results will come from it. I want it because my wife wants it, I want it because my mother wants it, I want it because my daughter wants it, I want it because my sister wants the ballot, and I am willing she should have it, and I will risk the consequences. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, I will risk anything that has been portrayed before us, as being calculated to endanger and to deter and to stop the adoption of the labors that may be put in by this body, I will risk the consequences. I am willing to try it. I not only support woman's suffrage from the principle that I have placed myself upon that plank, but I also think it is right. I think it is encouragement; I think it will exercise an encouragement to the female portion of our community, that they have never realized since they have been deprived of that. Put it there and then if the people do not want it, they have the right to say they do not want it, but I say give them the privilege of the ballot, and then let them make such use of it_let me repeat, because others in different parts of the country are not desirous of participating in the ballot, that is no argument that others may not. We see a sample of it here in a piece that was written in Chicago in some of the precincts; there was only a very small per cent. of them that went to the polls and cast their ballot, while others most unanimously did so. It might be so in Utah, there might be some of them go and vote and others might not, but in regard to voting there are many men very careless and indifferent in regard to that, and a great many are paying a great deal of disrespect because the word politics comes up; they want nothing to do with it. While I say it is not a good citizen that does not want to inform his mind, in regard to politics, and while I am here, if I can exchange a bad idea, I do not care where it comes from, for a good one, I am ready to receive it. [Applause.]

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I have been expecting that I could negotiate a loan of time and have a few minutes more than belonged to me this afternoon, but the arguments so far have been one-sided we may say, except for the masterly showing this morning as to why woman suffrage should not be adopted. It is not expected that an argument against woman suffrage will meet with a kindly reception by the majority of this Convention. Such an argument will be interpreted as a breach of party faith. I wish to submit briefly a few statements which exempt me in part from being under any pledge to that provision in the platform of the republican party that was adopted at Provo. In our county there is no suffrage association, In the town of Mr. Larson there is no suffrage association; there is no suffrage association in the town of Mr. Jolley; there is no suffrage association in the town of Mr. Peterson; there is none in the town of Mr. Page; there is no suffrage association in the town from which I come. There is a suffrage association with a meagre membership at Manti, and I firmly believe that a majority of the good women of the constituency from where we were elected do not desire suffrage. I have never spoken of suffrage in public or in private, without opposing it, and consequently, I feel myself free to speak as I wish on this matter and according to my conscience upon this floor. I did not approve of its being placed in the platform in Provo last fall. I was there and I objected to it. Of course it was there as it is in this Convention, members who are not known cannot be heard upon a subject. The floor is generally given to some one that is known when they rise, of course we must submit to custom. [Laughter.] {485} Now, I suppose when the ladies consequently surround those who enfranchise them here, with that halo of immortality, that there will still be a few of us to whom will cling fragments of that which is earthly, and I suppose I will have to be one of those. I firmly believe that both parties intended these particular enfranchisement clauses

to be drawn and to be placed in their platform to draw numbers, which is acknowledgment in itself that the influence of a few female agitators, even though they vote not, is already a power represented somehow in the ballots cast by the fathers, brothers, and sons. That this power is great, is extremely apparent, and yet men will say that they have nothing to say about ruling the country in which they live. I say they style themselves to be slaves, and it is strange that a slave has such a firm hold upon the reins of our government that we all feel to cater to that slave. Now, in the city where I live, some years ago, there was an agitator of this question. It was her all absorbing field. I assure you that she was a truly public spirited woman. The petty affairs of domestic life were not to occupy her great intellect. She had a big, beneficent and I can add brotherly feeling for all the women of our nation. [Laughter.] She became for a little time the idol of our female brethren. [Laughter.] The enthusiastics, however, were not numerous and now in our county are like white sparrows, between nests. And why were her noble efforts to be so unappreciated and so unsuccessful? The good women of our city saw a mother's duties utterly neglected. I would say if it were not for being too personal that since that time there has been so much domestic discord that she has been divorced by her husband. [Laughter.] Woman suffrage needed no further denunciation before the good women of our city. A prominent suffragist said to me recently, “We have four classes of men to deal with; the first and worst like yourself, desire women to be a mere slave_give her no rights whatever and tax her without representation; the second class say they could allow her the ballot, but that only; the third class say, we would like women to vote, but she could only officiate in clerical and educational positions. The last and best class (by this she evidently meant the gentlemen who will immortalize themselves here), desire to place woman in her proper sphere, equal in every way politically, socially, and religiously with her brother.” A smile of triumph crossed her beautiful face as she finished, “You cannot stem the tide of civilization, you cannot bring opposition that is consistent. It is all inconsistent, it is all vain. “ I am sorry to say that it seems it is going to be vain here, and at the same time, there is a consistent opposition. Voting alone will not satisfy woman suffragists. They say, “To bring about our intended reforms we must have the right to legislate, to interpret the laws, and to execute them;” that men have not the integrity. If this is the only conclusion that is to be reached, I oppose woman suffrage, not that it is expedient, not that our women of Utah are less capable of a change of heart than the men, but because suffrage with eligibility to office as are recommended in this clause will thrust the wife and mother from the home to officiate in public places. This means only a breaking of the home. Who will not admit this? Who will say that a mother's place can be filled by another? The great and good civilization always comes through great and good mothers. [Applause.]

Woman's sphere is lofty, woman's sphere is noble; the true woman is devoted to her household, home, sacred home, her rightful empire. How wonderful nature has created her loving heart for this sovereignty! True manhood proclaims woman's prerogative, {486} training her offspring to the love of God, to the love of man, to be the highest and holiest of all. Can she afford to slight these? A mother's teaching to her child will be law to him through life, and the laws which he shall afterwards enact will be righteous laws. His conduct will need little of reformation in his after years and mature judgment. In what degree will we prefer woman's divine sphere and nature and mission? My friend yesterday referred to things biblical, to Christ and his all-reaching love. What does the most accepted part of the holy book say? Only that it is a shame for woman to officiate in public. But, says one, “she is taxed without representation;” woman's relation to

property differs in part from the relation of man, that bears that suffrage. She, thank heaven, is very useful in her place, but her physical endowments will not permit her the same degree to brave the elements like men. Who can gainsay that? Man is not dependent upon woman by our civilization for his support. He goes forth with powerful muscular equipment and great endurance, denied by nature to the weaker fair sex, to unlock by hard strokes and inventive genius the storehouse of life's sustenance for those dependent upon him. Woman may sustain herself in many instances. That is the exception, I submit, which exception will become more and more rare forever if woman keeps within her sphere. She may be a widow holding property. This is true, she still may be assured that her son, her father, her true neighbor will protect her, and represent her interests. Proper taxes will be imposed by property owners and will not often be exorbitant and never unnecessary, The old and tried constitutions of the eastern states have not acknowledged this a sufficient reason that woman should sacrifice her station of social preferment in life, to share equally with man the burdens of state. The home is the metric community of our national greatness. Its sanctuary should not be invaded by political strife. A committee of two disagreeing can never settle a difficulty. Who would give in the majority report? [Laughter.]

Impracticable it is, of course. Political feelings are of all the most ungenerous and flagrantly irreconcilable that are known. Woman was declared yesterday capable of independent thought, provided suffrage exists. Would it not frequently occur that husband and wife held with right, different party affiliations? If we may judge by election fights on our great election day, we have the right, with good reason, to presume that equal suffrage would disturb domestic tranquility. What a beautiful condition of affairs we are on the verge of introducing into our new State. What peace and solace into its families. I ask, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, has equal suffrage been sufficiently discussed in Utah? Do a majority of our good women desire it? I have never been able to think of this question in any light, but that there is more novelty about it than there is necessity for it. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, let me say my say of ending, that like you, with the exception of the gentleman from Davis, I have had political aspirations, but I surrender them here with due consideration for the purpose of being honest to the convictions of my conscience and the teachings of my mother and believe in woman's suffrage, after the arguments here advanced, less than ever before. [Applause,]

Mr. BOYER. I just would like the privilege of asking the last speaker one question. I would like to ask the gentleman from Sanpete whether or not he is a married man?

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I am not a married man, and what is more I shall not make the_     
Mr. GOODWIN. The gentleman is protected by the laws from criminating himself.

Mr. LUND. I desire to be frank and {487} answer a civil question. I do not know whether the gentleman has any daughters or not [laughter], if I should find anyone who was so unfortunate as to be willing to help me change my situation in life, I should certainly find from her first that she declined ever to entertain ideas of woman's suffrage. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a question of personal privilege. The question asked by myself was rather impelled by the remark from the esteemed gentleman from Beaver, that no gentleman upon this floor knew anything, only that that he had learned, and being desirous of a little further acquisition to a meagre learning, I desired to obtain from this gentleman his true status in life, with respect to the matter. I admit that I am mistaken. I had thought from the able reasoning and the manly form of the manly man that he was a married gentleman, and consequently this question. However, I desire to state, that in the county from which I hail (Utah County) a fairly densely populated county, and largely sprinkled with fair and beautiful ladies, the gentleman will be thoroughly safe traveling to and fro. There will none approach him with his present political aspirations. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I think I will finish before the limit of my time is up. If I do not you can come to the protection of the Convention by using your gavel. I want to make a statement or two, not a speech, or if it is called a speech, I want to read it by the title and have it referred. I want to say first, that the delegates from Salt Lake County, under instructions of the county committee, as I think I can establish by the gentlemen who had the matter in charge, instructed all their speakers not to press the question of suffrage. I wish to say that I am under no obligations to any platform in the world, because, first I did not attend any convention or any primary. I did not ask any one to support me. I was never questioned, and beyond that, because of the occupation which I have indulged in for a good while, and probably will again if we ever get through, my views are pretty well known by those who read my newspaper, which, I take, will include all the intelligent people in this part of the country. [Laughter.]

I am not predisposed to believe in woman's suffrage, not on the ground of my friend from Davis County, that the man should rule and the woman should obey; I never believed that even before I was married. All married gentlemen will agree that they have no occasion to believe it since. I never construed that passage as my friend from Davis County does. I always thought that the passage, that the desire of woman should cleave to the man, had reference to another matter altogether, but from boyhood, in reading that, and construing it literally, while I did not question in the least the wisdom of it, I did not think that in this Convention they had hired a stenographer by issuing bids and took the lowest bidder, and that the minutes had not been corrected. I do not believe that the intention was for man and woman, husband and wife, to drive tandem, but rather that they were to work side by side, in double harness, and I am perfectly willing to admit that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the grey mare is the better horse.

But there are other reasons why I naturally, with what study I have given the matter, do not take friendly to woman's suffrage. We are all creatures of education and association. You take a swarm of industrious bees from a cool country to one of the islands of the Southern Pacific, they work along until the time when winter ought to come, and the moment they discover there is to be no winter, that the flowers bloom perpetually, to the last bee they {488} become dirty loafers and take to the woods. You take a boy from the granite hills of New Hampshire, full of vim and energy, transport him to Los Angeles, and go there twenty-five years after and find him, and you will see him with a pair of overalls, held up by one suspender, riding with rawhide stirrups, and smoking cigarettes, and saturated absolutely through with dry rot, and not worth the powder and shot to kill him. In China, through their fight for hundreds of years with famine, the very dress is

trimmed down to meet the conditions around them. The beards have been trained from the faces of the men; the breasts from the women, because of the fearful necessities that surrounded them. Now, then, do you believe that these conditions can be changed by climate, or by the necessity of life, and that still you can put human souls in association altogether foreign to what they are intended, and not make an impression upon them? You say women are our equals. I do not stop with that; they are our superiors. You say they are entitled to the same rights politically. Very well. If that comes, it means not only that they are to vote, but they are to go into the primaries, they are going to rustle with the boys and girls, they are going to your office; and that makes me thankful to the gentleman from Salt Lake, who yesterday brought up the example of the Spartan mother. I am much obliged to him, but I am a little rusty in my classics. He thought he saw a noble character in that Spartan mother; I have never been able to see it; but it illustrates this matter exactly. Man gets his character from his mother. If the mob that followed that woman's example, supposing it be true, and piling stones over that unfortunate wretch of a son, because he had accepted bribes, had been gifted in the knowledge of what governs the human systems and the minds and souls of men, in my judgment, the moment that mother placed the first
stone, some wise woman would have called the mob aside and said, “See here, the boy is not to be blamed; before that child was born that mother had an insane longing for a house as good as some woman across the street, or a dress or a parasol as fine as some other neighbor wore,” That infirmity in that boy's mind and heart came direct from that cold-hearted mother, because if she had been a true mother she would have gone to that son and said, “You have done very wrong, but perhaps after all it was my mistake. Perhaps I am to blame. You are my child, and while the world turns against you, I am not so sure of being perfect myself that I can give up my human affections. I will stay by you and if they cover you with stones, I will be covered too:” The fact that she, in her pride, was willing to cast off that son was the excuse for the crime of the boy, because it showed that woman had not the principle in her of bringing forth an honest son.

Now, if this goes on, how do you, Mr. Chairman, or how does any gentleman here, know what is to come of it? I do not mean this year or next or the year after next, but I mean in the future. If women take part in the elections they will want to hold offices. Now, and I beg pardon for having to talk on such a subject; it is necessary or I would not; suppose some woman wants to be governor, or wants to be chief justice, and says very frankly that the man who is now governor or who is now chief justice is inferior to her in mental acquirements, and just before the convention meets she discovers that circumstances over which she has no control will make it necessary for her to postpone her nomination until next year. What kind of children will you have in this world after a while? I say be carefnl [*note*]. I say the world should be careful, not to bring immortal souls into this world surcharged in advance with all the stormy passions which fill a disappointed or an irritable woman so placed. Those are my grounds for {489} believing that suffrage for woman is not just the thing. At the same time I always hold, in public and in private, that my judgment ought not to control even myself, for a great many wiser men take an entirely opposite view, but I do believe in this effect upon woman. When she changes her sphere, not lowering it as has been said, but changing it, you know very well, Mr. Chairman, that this particular influence does have effect upon women. For instance, can you imagine any conditions that now or at any time have existed where Susan B. Anthony could have been a a wife and a mother? And do you think that Mary Washington or Martha Washington lost any of their grace or their modesty because neither of them in their day had the right of suffrage? And do you believe that

old George would have led the armies of the United States any better had his mother, instead of teaching him the truth which made up that great characteristic of his, she had been off at a primary or in a convention; when you read of George Washington, what do you really do? You take off the hat of your soul in reverence to Mary Washington, and you admit in one moment that he was great simply because he had a
good mother, and carried out in his life with his strength the glory that was in her soul.

We have a great many reasons given why we should not have woman's suffrage. And that makes me think that among the rest one reason given is that there unrest in this community, a feeling of uncertainty and of how the future is to be. To prove that the fact is not true, the gentleman from Salt Lake yesterday energetically called in criticism the report of the minority committee here, and declared that in that report the committee had charged the ladies of this State or Territory with improper motives. I would pay no attention to it, except that the same gentleman did the same thing in the caucus the other night, which we have heard of here before; and I speak of it simply because that was not a binding caucus at all but simply a meeting for exchange of opinions, not intended to bind any gentleman present.

Mr. JAMES. I would like to ask you a question. Did it bind anybody or was anybody bound in the caucus?

Mr. GOODWIN. Not the slightest. If there had been I should not have mentioned the caucus here. It was simply an exchange of opinion. At that time the gentleman who filed this report explained to the gentleman from Salt Lake that all his reference was simply political; that he had not the first personal idea of offending any lady or saying anything disrespectful to the ladies. Still the matter seemed to be in his soul yesterday, when he charged that this report of the minority charged the ladies with improper motives. It is worth a moment's attention. What does it say? It says, “a wide spirit of fear prevails that with this privilege restored the old overwhelming force will destroy the present equality of parties and awaken a terrible temptation on the part of those who ruled before to resume their sway by working upon the generous impulses and religious instinct of woman.” Now, I appeal to every gentleman, and to every lady for that matter, whether it is ascribing an improper motive to a lady, to say that her generous and religious instincts may be appealed to? That is all it says, and I speak of it because the very impetuosity and vehemence of the gentleman's remarks that there was nothing of that kind to be dreaded here, carried the impression to me that the ashes of the old contention were still warm in his heart, and that he ought to turn the hose upon them, lest there might be a spark there carrying with it so much hell-fire that any political excitement or any whirlwind of religious fanaticism might set the State afire by it.
Now, coming down to our duty; as I said in the beginning there was no pledge of any convention upon me at all, but in that caucus I had a new experience. I have always read that plank in the platform as a party catch word; and while upon it I might say, perhaps, that we all know how solemn a thing a democratic or a republican territorial convention is. That it is the representatives of the people that want to get the best statement of principles they can and get into that statement as many catch words to catch votes as possible. Still it has a valuable effect with limitations. All the people are represented in those conventions. So all the people are represented in this hall. We

will suppose a case. We know what the pledges of the platform are, we will suppose that there had been a revulsion in feeling and that the people from all the counties in the State were sending in protests and petitions here that we should ignore woman's suffrage, would the plank in the platform bind us? I think not; but there is another side to it. In that caucus, to my astonishment, I found young man after young man get up and say, we took that platform in the very best of faith, we made our campaign upon it, and because we pledged this we got all the prettiest girls in our towns to come to our meetings, and all the good singers sang in our meetings. It is a fad with them. Now, that makes a different state of affairs. Mr. Chairman, if the people of this Territory that have not been as long drilled in politics as some of us, expressed their sovereign will by what the speakers of a republican and a democratic party said last summer, and believed that this great principle was intended to be carried out, and if to deny them that will make them lose their faith in the integrity of parties, that puts a new phase on it altogether, and it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I say while I think it is a mistake, at the same time my judgment is not as great as other people's, and as Mr. Lincoln said, “everybody knows more than anybody,” I shall vote against this amendment, and if I am in the Convention, I shall vote for the article as it comes down from the committee; and now just one more word.

I wish to say to my friend from Davis County that in the anticipation of his loneliness when his party shall have dropped him, it is not going to be so bad as he thinks, because several years ago, fearing that some political bee would get in my bonnet, I pasted the story of the little girl in my hat. She had been very sick, the doctor had given her some very bitter medicine; she got well, but she always hated that doctor, and when they told her that he helped to cure her, she said she knew better, that God cured her in spite of the doctor; she knew it, because her mother told her so. Now, I know what the mothers have told their children in Utah, hence I wish to beg my friend from Davis County that he will permit me in the solitude of that night that has no star to come over and sit with him, and if, as a last missionary work, I can convert him from the heresies of that democracy which seemed to possess his soul, I will think more of that lamb than all the rest of the flock that is out on the range. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a question of personal privilege. Gentlemen of the committee, an allusion has been made to my remarks yesterday in a way in which I think demands a personal explanation. That which took place in the caucus which was supposed to be secret has been alluded to by the last speaker, and it causes me to make the explanation which I desire to make. The gentleman who heads the list who signed the minority report did make the explanation that has been made by Judge Goodwin. At the close of our caucus he announced that he had the utmost respect for the ladies of Utah; that he believed that {491} they were honest; that he did not desire to cast any aspersions upon their character. My remarks in the caucus and his remarks in reply were not before this committee or this Convention, but on the other hand, there was before this committee, and upon the records which are being made here, a charge to this effect, that the widespread fear prevailed, that with the privilege restored the old overwhelming force would destroy the present equality of parties, which always leads to confusion, if not to tyranny, and awaken a terrible temptation on the part of those who ruled before to resume their sway by working upon the generous impulses and religious instincts of women, which would result in political, if not social and business, ostracism of the minority. When the gentleman states that it is not an aspersion upon the character of the women of Utah, I

must beg to differ with him. When he says that any class of men or that any man can attack my mother, my wife, or my sister, to the extent that she would go back upon her pledges, which were made when we divided on national party lines, he makes a charge which I think should be refuted, and be met. Now, on this other point, where he says that I spoke with more zeal and more impetuosity than was proper, I simply would state this, when I speak I desire to be heard by those who are present. I do not desire to have my attitude misunderstood, and I speak honestly the sentiments of my heart, but I will say further that there is in my heart no spark of bitterness, no feeling of bitterness toward any man who ever had opposed me religiously, socially, or politically. I have met those who were my former political opponents, and those who have come in close contact with me know that I have treated them honorably and fairly, that I have not betrayed them, and that in that which I have done, I have met them with that fairness and that honor which I expect them to accord to me.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is desirable for the committee to rise at this time; it seems to me that we have had a long session, and it would be somewhat cruel to inflict upon the committee any further remarks to-day. I would therefore move that the committee now rise and report progress.

The question being taken, the committee divided, and by a vote of 49 ayes to 35 noes, the motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

Your committee of the whole have had under consideration the article entitled elections and rights of suffrage, and now report progress.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I desire to move that we now go into committee of the whole for further consideration of this question.


Mr. CANNON. My reason is this, I think that we are spending a good deal of time on the matter. I am perfectly willing that we should spend as much time as necessary, but I think that we should not adjourn at 4 o'clock, when we have so much work before us. I think that if we do this every day, the first thing we know we will be in the middle of the summer without accomplishing the purpose for which we convened. I am in favor of sitting until we complete it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would move an amendment to the gentleman's motion, that we have an evening session.

No second.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, if any gentleman here would like to speak to-night I would vote to go back into committee of the whole. So far as the few remarks I wish to make to the

committee are concerned, I do not desire to do it to-night. I know that they are tired. I feel weary myself. I {492 - BILL OF RIGHTS} think I would not do justice to myself or the committee.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Evans, I would like to ask what length of time you desire.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I expect to occupy about twenty minutes or perhaps thirty.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would suggest that if that is all the time the gentleman desires to speak it could be done to-night. I would not like to press it.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Cannon, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 38 ayes to 47 noes, the motion was rejected.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.

THE PRESIDENT. The third reading of ordinances and propositions for insertion in the Constitution is the regular order.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. President, I move to adjourn.

The question being taken on the motion to adjourn, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 40 ayes to 43 noes, the motion was rejected.

The Convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article entitled preamble and declaration of rights.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Mr. President, I move that we read the declaration of rights by sections and pass upon it in that way.

The PRESIDENT. Leaving the preamble until the last?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Leaving the preamble until the last.
The secretary then read sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move an amendment in line 5 of section 10, by changing the word “such” to the word “civil” so that a two-thirds verdict of the jury only in civil cases and not in criminal cases less than felony. I think it is inconsistent to make a difference between a felony and a misdemeanor, so far as unanimity of the jury is concerned.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would suggest, to make the balance of the section conform to that, the word “civil” in the seventh line should be changed to “such,” in order to avoid a repetition of the word “civil.” I move that as an amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I desire to offer a verbal amendment. I move that the word “not” be stricken out between “shall” and “consist” in the ninth line, and to insert between the words, “of” and “less” in the same line, so that it will read, “provided, that a jury in the district court shall consist of not less than nine.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I desire to offer a substitute for section 10, which I will pass to the secretary's desk.

The same was read as follows:

Section 10. A lawful jury, both in civil and criminal cases, in all courts of general jurisdiction, shall consist of nine jurors, except that in capital cases the jury shall consist of twelve, but in civil cases the concurrence of two-thirds only shall be necessary for a verdict, but in criminal cases all shall concur; in courts of inferior jurisdiction a lawful jury, both in civil and criminal cases, shall consist of three jurors, but in such courts, in civil cases, the concurrence of two jurors only shall be necessary for a verdict, but in criminal cases all shall concur. A jury shall be waived in civil cases unless demanded.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, as this is a very important section, one as important as any in the bill of rights, I think it ought to be printed, and pass that section and go on. I would not like gentlemen to act upon it without a knowledge of what they were doing. At the time that we drew and adopted section 10, it was in view of the fact that the judiciary committee at that time had practically agreed upon four classes of courts; first, senate, sitting {493} as a court of impeachment; second, supreme court; third, district courts; fourth, probate courts, and fifth, I might add, justices of the peace. The committee at this time have agreed that we can get along by abolishing one of those courts altogether. I do not know whether the Convention will accept the report of the judiciary committee or not, but we have agreed practically unanimously to do our judicial work in Utah without any probate courts. Let the district courts have that jurisdiction. It will save a very large expense, and if that be the sense of the Convention, section 10, as it now stands, would not be appropriate, because it provides for a certain number of jurors in the probate court. And another thing, that section as drawn and adopted, and which was argued here at some length you will remember, is in technical legal language, that is the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Those words mean certain things which the courts have given them. The language which is now proposed for section 10 is in plain English, and I see no reason why it should not be adopted. It provides that a jury of nine shall be a lawful jury in criminal cases and all of the jurors must concur in the verdict. In civil cases, there must also be a jury of nine men, two-thirds of whom must concur in the verdict, and this applies in courts of general jurisdiction, not naming the courts at all. Then, there is another class of jurors in courts of inferior jurisdiction. A jury shall consist of three men in both civil and criminal cases.

Mr. ELDREDGE. What courts are those?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Justices of the peace. All three of these men must concur and give a

unanimous verdict, in criminal cases, but in civil cases two of them can render a verdict. Now, that is all there is of it.

Mr. SQUIRES. There is another provision there about capital punishment is not there?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes; and I thank the gentleman for calling my attention to it. In capital offenses, where a man is upon trial for his life, we preserve the old common law jury of twelve men, who must render a unanimous verdict. The provision is carefully drawn, and I think expresses the view of the committee of the whole the other day, when we were discussing that question.

Mr. CRANE. Might I ask the gentleman a question?

It says that the jury shall consist of twelve men; if the right of suffrage is given to women, how will that word fit in there?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Now, let us see about that. The gentleman from Millard has not understood the reading of it; I carefully guarded that in drawing it.

(Reads proposed substitute).

Mr. SQUIRES. May I ask the gentleman a question? I would just like to know if the entire judiciary committee has passed upon this proposition as you present it now?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The judiciary committee have practically agreed upon this, but I will not speak for them now, because some of them perhaps may not. We have agreed upon the principle of it.

Mr. SQUIRES. Ought we not to delay action for a little on that proposition?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like it very much if this matter could be left to the committee on judiciary for further report, and I move, Mr. President, that this section be referred to the judiciary committee for report.

Mr. WELLS. I second the motion.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. I think it is not tenable to take this out of the control of the Convention now on its third reading and refer it to a new committee. I {494} think, in the first place, it properly belongs in this article_preamble and declaration of rights, and I think it should remain here.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think so, too, and that is where it shall go, but simply refer it to the judiciary committee with a view to putting it back in the bill of rights.

Mr. CREER. Why, Mr. Evans, do you suggest striking out the first part, “the right of trial by jury

shall remain inviolate?”

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The only reason for that is this, that when we say the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, that means a jury of twelve men with a unanimous verdict. That has a well understood, definite, common-law meaning.

Mr. CREER. I would not have that, it seems to me_     

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Except where the exceptions are expressed.

Mr. CREER. They are expressed here. That is why I prefer having this in, to secure that right. It shall remain inviolate.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). As long as this method or this form of jury is in the bill of rights, it does remain inviolate; it is in the Constitution and cannot be changed without changing the Constitution.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the only objection I could have to this matter being referred to the committee on judiciary to be reported back to be put into this bill of rights, is that it seems hardly in order, because it is hardly courteous to the committee on the bill of rights to take a matter entirely out of their hands to be considered by another committee and then reported back and put into the part of the Constitution immediately under their charge. I should object to it on the ground of rather carrying with it the idea of a want of confidence in the committee on the bill of rights.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I had an understanding with the chairman of that committee, that it was satisfactory. I would not offer any affront to any gentleman on any committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then, Mr. President, with that understanding I will support the motion.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I should object to that for this reason: That this section was discussed at some length the other day and passed upon and it was decided that a jury in a justice's court should consist of not less than three members. Now, the substitute seems to change that and make it a jury of three members in the justice's court, and I think the Convention was satisfied with that as it was before, and I should object to its going back and being changed in that respect; to make it a jury of three members in a justice's court.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I will say in regard to this section that when the matter was under consideration in committee of the whole I moved_but was out of order as usual_to refer this section to the committee on judiciary. While it is usual to have such a section in the bill of rights, it is a matter that pertains peculiarly to the judiciary. It belongs to them. It was discussed by them in the committee, more largely than by any of the rest of the committee, and I see no objection whatever to having it referred to them to report back in the Convention. It does not say that they are going to decide it. We will have the last voice in this matter and whenever they are satisfied with it, I think the Convention will be.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the objection raised by the gentleman from Garfield I do not think should have any weight; that we have changed the number of jurors in courts of justices of the peace, because that matter will come up for consideration when we get this report back again. I am in favor of the reference of this article to the judiciary {495} committee, because I should think there should be conformity and uniformity between the two courts. There must be if we have provided in this article for more courts than the wisdom of our judiciary committee seems to think is necessary. I think we ought to conform to that, especially we who are not lawyers, and for that reason, I would be perfectly satisfied to have the matter go back to the judiciary committee.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I move to amend the motion to refer to the committee on judiciary, with instructions to report back this section to the Convention.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Can not we make it even more binding than that? Can not we make it binding upon them to report this back to-morrow? After all the consideration they have already given it, certainly they ought to be able to pass upon it to-night.

The PRESIDENT. Will you accept that amendment?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes, sir.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Eichnor has a substitute for section 10, which I ask that he may introduce by unanimous consent and go to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. SQUIRES. Present it to the judiciary committee.

Mr. EICHNOR. All right.

The Convention then, at 4:40 p. m., adjourned.

[Legislature Home Page][Previous Day][Next Day][Back to Menu of Days]