[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.

The roll was called by the secretary and the following named members were found in attendance:

Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christianson
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Lemmon
Lewis
Low, Wm.
Low, Peter
Low, Cache
Lund
Maeser
Mackintosh
Maloney    
Maughan
McFarland
Miller
Morris
Moritz

Prayer was offered by Rev. D. R. Lowell, chaplain of the 16th Infantry.

The journal of the sixteenth day's session was read, corrected and approved.

Mr. WELLS. I ask the unanimous consent of the Convention to introduce a resolution in regard to the stenographer, and I will read it.

(Reads.)

Whereas, Frank E. McGurrin is the official and sworn stenographer of this Convention, and

Whereas his daily and continuous presence is necessary to the orderly proceeding of the Convention; and

Whereas, the said officer has been required to attend the sitting of the third district court in this city as a witness, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the said court be, and is hereby respectfully requested to discharge the said Frank E. McGurrin from attendance on said court at the earliest convenience, and, be it further

Resolved, that a committee of two be appointed by the president to forthwith present a copy of this resolution to said court.

Mr. WELLS. I have no objection to that.

Mr. JAMES. I understand this to be an addition.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes, sir; that his place is being filled during his absence by his brother.

Mr. SQUIRES. I think, if we accept that, it would show by this resolution, a copy of which will go to the court, that Mr. McGurrin's place is occupied, and they might not be willing to excuse him from the court. If that is put in as a separate resolution, I think it will accomplish the same end, without notifying the court that his place is filled.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). We would not have any official stenographer in the meantime.

Mr. THURMAN. What is the use of this resolution. The gentleman is the official stenographer of this Convention and he simply will get back here just as quick as he can get away from the court, and he will represent to the court that his duties are here; it seems to me that it is entirely unnecessary to encumber the record with a resolution of this kind; his excuse has been made and he has been excused for non-atttendance [*note*]. I am opposed to the resolution for the reason that it is unnecessary; wholly unnecessary.

Mr. VARIAN. As I understand it, the court does not know anything about it. That the prosecuting attorney has subpoenaed Mr. McGurrin and he is in attendance there as a witness waiting. If this matter can be brought to the attention of the court I doubt not but some arrangement can be made whereby he would be put upon the stand and relieved {224 - REPORTS} at once. It is not out of the ordinary course to do that, and, moreover, I believe that if the Convention insisted upon it, the court would not insist upon the attendance of its officers any more than one of its members.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber.) I move an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Weber, that the official stenographer of this Convention, in case of his absence unavoidably, that he be authorized to appoint a competent reporter to take his place.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Inasmuch as the resolution as it now stands is contradictory and absurd upon its face, and the proposition or resolution is lost, I move to lay the whole matter upon the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BUTTON. I would like to ask if it does not take two-thirds majority to carry an amendment like that?

Mr. CORAY. I would like to make a statement in regard to what occurred here on the floor yesterday in respect to one of the delegates; it was my understanding from a statement of Mr. Thatcher's that he was but slightly ill and would be here in a few days, but I have since learned that he is seriously ill. Had I known that, I would have made no such remarks as I made here yesterday, and on that condition, I would like to withdraw those remarks, I did not know that Mr. Thatcher was dangerously ill.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection the gentlemen will be permitted to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I have a resolution here to offer, and in explanation I will say that the committee on election have investigated the matter in regard to another clerk, and when the resolution was offered_     

Mr. THORESON. I think the resolution is out of order.

The PRESIDENT. Petitions and memorials are in order now; the point is well taken.
Reports of standing committees are in order.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). In the absence of Mr. Varian, who is the chairman of the sub-committee on rules, the committee on rules met and considered the propositions which were submitted, as to the amendment of rule 21, and beg leave to submit the following report:

Your committee on rules, to whom was referred several propositions to amend rule 21, beg leave to report that we have had the same under consideration, and recommend that rule 21 be amended by adding at the end of said section the words, “upon a subsequent day.”

D. EVANS,

For Committee.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. EICHNOR. As chairman of the committee on municipal corporations, I beg leave to submit our report of the various propositions that have been submitted to us. We have framed a report which might be termed a composite report.

The PRESIDENT. The report will be read and referred to the committee of the whole.

Said report was then read by the secretary as follows:

Your committee on municipal corporations respectfully report for your consideration the accompanying article on municipal corporations and recommend its adoption.

We also report back the following propositions reported to us_some of the provisions of which we have utilized, in part or in whole, and some we have not:

File No. 10, by Eichnor, of Salt Lake City.

File No. 11, by Chidester, of Garfield County.

File No. 18, by Thoreson, of Cache County.

File No. 43, by Allen, of Piute County. File No. 62, by Cushing, of Salt Lake County.

{225 - MOTIONS}

File No. 64, by Eichnor, of Salt Lake County.

File No. 75, by Peters, of Box Elder County.

File No. 79, by Francis, of Morgan County.

File No. 81, by Francis, of Morgan County.

File No. 106, by Cushing, of Salt Lake County.

File No. 107, by Cushing, of Salt Lake County.

File No. 108, by Shurtliff, of Salt Lake County.

File No. 116, by Thoreson, of Cache County.

We also recommend that files No. 18 and 107 be referred to the committee on revenue and taxation.

EICHNOR,

Chairman.

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir; as I understand it. It is a matter to be referred to another committee.

Mr. VARIAN. I call the attention of the chair to the rule which evidently contemplates those matters should go to the committee of the whole and not take up the time of the Convention by reading them.

The PRESIDENT. That is where they are going, but this is a separate report,

Mr. VARIAN. I call your attention to it; it is unnecessary to read every report. If every report is read in that way, the object of the rule is done away with.

The PRESIDENT. That goes to the committee of the whole.

Mr. RICKS. I have a report on schedule, miscellaneous and future amendments, which I would

like to have read.

The secretary then read said report as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT:

Your committee on schedule, miscellaneous, and future amendments beg leave to report that we have under consideration for insertion in the Constitution an article on prohibition, and as the article is one in which the larger cities, Salt Lake and Ogden, are directly interested, and as neither of the cities mentioned are represented in our committee, we would recommend that the membership of the committee be increased to eleven members, and that Salt Lake and Ogden be allowed representation.     

Ricks,

Chairman.

The PRESIDENT. Under the rule, it goes to that committee. That is correct.

Mr. CANNON. I desire, as chairman of the committee on revenue and taxation and public debt, to return file No. 100 with the recommendation that it be referred to the committee on legislative.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection it will go to the committee on legislative.

Mr. CANNON. As chairman of the same committee, I desire to return file No. 109, a proposition by Mr. Stover, of Tooele County, relating to poll tax, with the recommendation that it be referred to the committee on elections and rights of suffrage.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection this will go to the committee named.
Reports of select committees.

The next is the introduction of ordinances and propositions for insertion in the Constitution.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I move the rules be suspended and that all propositions presented be read a first and second time by their titles and referred to the appropriate committee.

The motion was agreed to.
{226}
Mr. Hughes, of Cache, introduced file No. 126, a proposition relating to irrigation and water rights. Said proposition was read a first and a second time by its title and referred to the committee on water rights, irrigation and agriculture.

Said proposition was read a first and a second time by its title and referred to the committee on public buildings and state institutions not educational.

Mr. William Low, of Box Elder, introduced a proposition on water rights and irrigation, which was read a first and a second time by its title and referred to the committee on water rights, irrigation and agriculture.

Mr. Kimball, of Salt Lake, introduced file No. 129, referendum proposition, providing that all important laws and amendments to the Constitution shall be referred to the electors, which was read a first and a second time by its title and referred to the committee on legislative.

The PRESIDENT. Unfinished business.

Mr. WELLS. Before we reach the special order, I desire to call attention again to a matter that has already been referred to, and that is the articles introduced by standing committees for insertion in the Constitution, under the rules, do not receive their first and second reading, but are read the first and second time by titles. Now, I do not know whether it is contemplated by the committee on rules to have that amended or not, but it seems to me that it ought to be. Before we resolve ourselves into committee of the whole, I move that the preamble and declaration of rights be read the first and second time, the first time in full and the second time by its title. After we emerge from the committee of the whole the rule says it goes direect to the committee on revision or it goes on the calendar, but it does not provide anywhere that it shall receive its first and second reading. I therefore move that the preamble and declaration of rights be now read the first time in full and a second time by its title.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. I believe there was a request, if I remember, that Mr. Whitney should read it first.

Mr. WELLS. I did make that request. I would like, by a unanimous consent, to withdraw it.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I arise to an inquiry now. Under the rule, reports of the standing committees with propositions go to the committee of the whole to be considered there. By the motion just passed we take this report up with the propositions reported and read it a first and a second time as I understand. I want to understand now and I ask for information, whether it is subject to amendments as it is read at this time. My opinion is that any gentleman on this floor has the right to get up and amend it, and I certainly object to any procedure of that kind, until the matter has been considered in the committee of the whole. But, as it now stands, the Convention having adopted Mr. Wells' motion, my opinion is that any gentleman can get up and move amendments and have the whole discussion on that subject right at the present time on the floor of this Convention, and I ask for information whether that is the proposition now that it can be

amended and read the first and second time.

Mr. WELLS. I move that it be decided to be the sense of the Convention that on the first and second reading of this matter it be not subject to amendment.

Seconded.

Mr. VARIAN. I arise to a point of order; this resolution that has been carried is certainly an amendment to {227} the standing rules of the Convention. I don't see myself its expediency. Rule XIX provides:

(Reads rule 19.)

I assume that that action has been taken as to this particular matter. I know it has been printed, because I have seen it, and I presume it has been referred to the committee of the whole, and it has been indicated in the journal of this Convention, fixing the hour for the consideration of that report. Now, the Convention, by resolution, inadvertently it seems, has attempted to displace or at least interfere with the operation of this standing rule, which has, so far as this particular matter is concerned, gone into execution. It has passed from the Convention and gone to the committee of the whole.

The PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken. The matter had already been referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. WELLS. I submitted the motion and asked for a suspension of the rule.

The PRESIDENT. The question of suspension was not mentioned.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I arise to a point of order. The gentleman from Salt Lake is out of order. The matter has been referred to the committee of the whole, it is not before the Convention, and there can be no motion made with regard to it.

The PRESIDENT. Shall this part of the record, made in this motion, be effaced?

Mr. VARIAN. Is there anything before the Convention?

The PRESIDENT. No, sir.

Mr. VARIAN. I move we take up the special order.

The PRESIDENT. Special order.

Motions and resolutions are in order.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I believe this should come in in the report of the standing committees, but I

ask the consent of the Convention to introduce this resolution. Now, it is a verbal report of the committee on elections, with regard to the clerk_the hiring of an additional clerk:

Resolved, that the committee clerks confine their labors to reports of committees and the balance of their time under the direction of the chief clerk, and that the engrossing clerk shall be required to devote his time to the assistance of the chief clerk when he is not actually engaged in enrolling and engrossing.

The PRESIDENT. What will you do with this report?

Mr. CHIDESTER. I move that this be adopted.

Seconded.

Mr. THORESON. I understand that on one of the first days of the session, the motion was made and carried that the enrolling and engrossing clerk be an assistant to the chief clerk; we are now going over the same ground.

Mr. CHIDESTER. It may be a fact, as the gentleman states, but it may, nevertheless, be misunderstood by the engrossing clerk, and also by the committee clerks and the members of this Convention.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to have that report read once more.

Said report was again read by the secretary.

Mr. SQUIRES. I think the best service we could get out of these clerks {228 - BILL OF RIGHTS} will be lost if they have to divide their time between two masters. If we make them subject to the chief clerk and subject to the chairmen of the committees, I think their best service would be lost. I move that that report be amended in that particular, and the amendment will be, when not engaged in committee work.

Mr. CHIDESTER. That is just exactly what I oppose. The committee clerks will not know anybody who is their master and it will be just the same as it has been for the past two weeks. They will be at the call of any one. The object is to get it so that their time will be first to the committee work and then the balance of the time that they have to spare will be under the chief clerk's management.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I move that the resolution and the whole matter pertaining to it be laid

on the table.

Seconded.
The. motion was agreed to.

Mr. KERR. I move the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, that the report of the committee on education and school lands be made the special order for consideration by the committee of the whole on Friday at 3 p. m.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask the gentleman why not take it up to-morrow?

Mr. KERR. I understand that it is probable the report of the committee on preamble and declaration of rights will not be disposed of to-day, and I understand also that there are a number who desire to consider the report of the committee on education and school lands further before it is brought before the Convention. There are some who object to some provisions in the report. Personally, I am willing that they should be given an opportunity to look up the subject before it is considered. The report has been printed.

Mr. SQUIRES. I ask the gentleman why he fixes the hour? We have an order of business, which is a special order, and if we reach that order of business before three o'clock, we could take it up at that hour. I don't think it is necessary to fix the hour.

Mr. KERR. I am not particular as to the hour.

Mr. SQUIRES. I move that the hour of three p. in. be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. It will be referred to the committee of the whole on Friday.

Mr. RICKS. I move we now take up the consideration of the preamble and declaration of rights as a committee of the whole.

Mr. SQUIRES. That motion scarcely covers the ground. I now move that we resolve ourselves into a committee of the whole, to consider the report on preamble and declaration of rights.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I want to call attention to rule 20 on that question, the latter portion of it. “A motion to rise and report progress shall be in order at any time and be decided without debate.” “A motion to rise is not in order until each section and the title have been considered, unless the limit of time has expired.”

It seems to me the time ought to be stated, that we go into committee of the whole to consider the

report on preamble and declaration of rights for an hour and a half, otherwise we will be in a committee of the whole and unable to get out of it, unless we complete the section entirely. I therefore ask that it be amended and that one hour and a half be inserted.

Mr. SQUIRES. I accept that amendment.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

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

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The CHAIRMAN. The secretary will {229} read the report of the committee on preamble and declaration of rights by sections.

Mr. WHITNEY. May I interrupt to offer an amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. I should think not.

Mr. VARIAN. I was going to make a motion that we read it by sections and have the matter open to amendment as read. What purpose is to be gained by reading this matter twice?

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the report will be read by sections and amended.

The secretary then read section one as follows:

Section 1. All men have equal, inherent, and inalienable rights, among which are these:

To acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their conscience; to peaceably assemble, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances. To freely communicate their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITNEY. I wish to amend section 1 of article 1 of the declaration of rights. The first and second line of section one reads now: “All men have equal and inherent and inalienable rights, among which are these.” I wish to amend by inserting the following lines in lieu of those two lines, “All men have the inalienable right,” so that the section will then read, “All men have the inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives, and liberties,” etc.

The amendment was seconded.

Mr. WHITNEY. My attention has been called to the fact that the section as it now stands involves what is called hegelism in rhetoric, and the amendment I suggest will improve the

rhetorical construction, without changing the meaning. It would be proper the way it now stands, if we should read it, “all men have equal, inherent, and inalienable rights,” and it would be proper to enumerate these rights by saying, “the enjoyment and defense of their lives and liberty, the acquiring, possession, and protection of property,” etc., but to obviate that change I suggest this other, “all men have the inalienable right to enjoy and defend their life and liberty.” I have another amendment to the same section. May I present that also?

The CHAIRMAN. I think we ought to pass upon each amendment as it is made.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WHITNEY. The other amendment I wish to suggest in that section is merely a transposition of the last two clauses so that it will read, “To freely communicate their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right. To peaceably assemble, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances.”

I think this reading makes the clause more consecutive and strengthens it. I move that change be made, merely the transposition of the clauses.

Mr. FARR. I would like the reading of that motion.

The CHAIRMAN. It is just merely a transposition of the last two clauses.

Mr. VAN HORNE. It seems to me that the present order it is in is the most consecutive. I take, that the right to peaceably assemble and protest against wrongs and petition for redress of grievances contemplates the assembling for the purpose of communicating their thoughts freely to each other on the subject of the petition for the redress of the grievances, and on that of assembling where they communicate their thoughts, they are only responsible for the abuse of the right. It seems to me that the order as it is in at the present is the logical one and had better stand.

Mr. IVINS. I would like to ask if that is not a matter that should be properly left to the committee on compilation and arrangement? The amendment provides for no change of any word. {230} No change in the language, it is simply a transposition, and properly, in my opinion, should be left to the committee on compilation and arrangement. Therefore, it seems to me, that the amendment is unnecessary.

The amendment was rejected.

The secretary then read the second section as follows:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

Mr. SNOW. I move to amend section 2 by striking out the words on page 2 and line 5, “their

government as” and insert in lieu thereof the words “the same whenever,” and insert the word “good,” and after the word “require,” upon the same line, to insert the word “it,” so that the section as amended, would read, “all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.”

The amendment was seconded.

Mr. WELLS. I oppose this amendment and hope it will not prevail. I think it is very much stronger the way it is put now.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee what is the necessity of a declaration like that; it is simply affirming and reaffirming a principle that there is no necessity of. There is no necessity for the whole declaration.

Mr. WELLS. I will state probably one-half of the constitutions of the states in the United States have the same provision; I think when it comes to a matter of a declaration of rights, that it is very pertinent to provide that all political power is inherent in the people.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Permit me to suggest_I understood, at least, in the reading of these various sections, it was not necessary to adopt them; if there is no amendment offered we pass on to the next section. When we have concluded, I suppose the motion will be that the committee rise and report progress, and report these articles, as amended by the committee, to the Convention for recommendation, and the Convention may or may not adopt them.

The secretary then read section 3 as follows:

The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. The state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test or property qualification shall be required for an office of public trust, or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the state, or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any worship, exercise, or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment.

Mr. FARR. Will not that open up a loophole so that if a man promised to help pay for the erection of a church and the building was started and partially completed, could he not avoid his promise by pointing to the declaration here, and fall back on this part of the Constitution? There is a question there.

Mr. WHITNEY. That is provided for in the first part, “the rights of conscience shall never be infringed.”

Mr. CHIDESTER. I offer the following amendment to line 8, by adding_

Mr. ROBERTS. I arise to a point of order: I think that the matter that I presented to the committee is before the committee and no disposition has yet been made of it.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. EICHNOR. I am opposed to the amendment. This view, as presented by Mr. Roberts, is taken from various constitutions of the United States. It arose in Massachusetts; Massachusetts framed the first constitution in 1780; in the constitution of Massachusetts and several of the other eastern states, they made it compulsory for a man to belong to a church. Now, I do not think there is anything of that kind west of the Mississippi river. If we insert that amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Davis County, why, we give it out to the world that we have that kind of people here. I think it is unnecessary here and I am opposed to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. IVINS. I propose as an amendment the insertion in line eight, after the word “election,” the following, “except at elections where taxes are levied for special purposes, in which case the Legislature may provide for a property quaification [*note*].”

The motion was seconded.

Mr. ANDERSON. I will make an amendment to Mr. Ivins' motion, by striking out “or property qualification” in line 6, and at the end of the section, make another section to read like this: “No property qualification shall ever be required for any person to vote or hold office, except in elections levying a special tax, or creating indebtedness.” In elections of that kind I think there should be a property qualification.

Mr. VARIAN. I second the amendment.

The substitute of Mr. Eichnor was seconded.

Mr. EICHNOR. If it is to be understood that a measure is to be submitted at a later day, which will cover this ground, I will withdraw my proposed amendment.

Mr. VARIAN. I don't know what you other gentlemen will think about this question. It is a general proposition. I don't remember about the exact wording of it. I don't believe the people of this coming State ought to tie themselves upon this question in the Constitution. The restrictions upon the power of the Legislature ought to be just those that are deemed necessary and no more. As I understand the substitute offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake, the provision is very stringent; I would like to have the clerk read it once more.
{232}     
The secretary then read the substitute offered by Mr. Eichnor.

Mr. VARIAN. The inquiry suggested by my friend from Washington County, seems to me to be very pertinent. Why should the Legislature be prevented, if it is in accord with the temper of the people, from prescribing certain property qualifications in certain classes of cases? Why should not the fixing of indebtedness upon the property of the State be determined by the men who have to pay the taxes? I confess for one, I cannot see. I think it is a very appropriate power. It should exist in the Legislature in the absence of any constitutional restrictions. Why should any special taxes be levied upon the property and not upon the ballots of the people? It should be levied upon the real and personal property which is owned in the State.

Why should not that encumbrance, levied upon my property and my brothers' property, be determined by me and them, in accordance with the exigencies and necessities of the occasion? I think you are making a mistake, if you are going to attempt to restrict the future legislation of the State in that all important matter. I think the Legislature ought to be left free and untrammelled in that matter. I think the Legislature coming fresh as it does from the people every two years may be safely relied on to represent the people, and their views and their ideas, in accordance with the particular changes and necessities of the time.

The world does not stand still. The law of its being will be progress and improvement in accordance with the universal law, and to encumber it with such a restrictive clause as that_tie up the Legislature for all time, or at least until a two-thirds majority of the voters, or whatever numbers you may in your wisdom pass upon, be received so as to amend the Constitution_I hope the committee will vote that down.

Mr. WELLS. I wish to state in behalf of the committee that their intention was that this restriction should only apply to general elections, and not to these special elections or to school elections; the matter had been already called to my attention by a member of the judiciary

committee and the committee on elections and suffrage, and they said that they expected to bring in a provision here which will be almost the same as this, except that it will provide in school elections, and in elections involving the expenditure of money, that a property qualification may be exacted of the voter. I have no objection to that, and I think that the amendment proposed by the gentleman should carry.

Mr. VARIAN. I only wanted to test the sense of the committee on the proposition as made by the amendment_the second amendment of Mr. Anderson, I think it is.

Mr. THURMAN. I cannot agree with the honorable gentleman from Salt Lake, last upon the floor, that this matter should be left to the Legislature. I think if there is any power that the government may possess where a restriction should be placed in the Constitution itself it is upon the very subject now under consideration. I am fully in accord with the views of those who are willing to leave to the Legislature the right to fix a property qualification where the thing to be voted for is relating to money and money obligations.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the gentleman pardon me a moment? I did not mean
to be understood in any other way. I was simply speaking as to the proposition now under discussion.

Mr. THURMAN. I understood the gentleman in a different way. I favor, however, the proposition of the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Eichnor; probably the reason I do that is because being a member of the suffrage committee, and understanding the proposition that they {233} have under consideration, and the fact that it meets with the views of that committee and will be adopted, it seems to me the proper place is in the Constitution for this matter to rest. And it provides for that very thing. That is that no property qualification shall be exacted as a right to vote for candidates for office, which should exist in the State; but a property qualification may be established by the Legislature in cases of special taxes, or in such a case as the election in Salt Lake County last Monday for an indebtedness. I think the amendment proposed by Mr. Eichnor ought to prevail for the reason that it will be put into the Constitution in another and more appropriate place.

Mr. VARIAN. Is there any motion before this committee?

Mr. ANDERSON. If my second objects, I hold to my original amendment.

Mr. CANNON. I favor the amendment offered by the gentleman from Beaver County. I think the provision that he adds there, “no property qualification shall ever be required of any person to vote or hold office, except in elections referring to special tax or creating an indebtedness,” covers the ground as it should be covered. I think that in all general elections no property tax should be required or provided for, but where the people who pay the taxes are the most deeply interested in the matter, I think it should be submitted to them and to them alone. I think that those who do not pay a property tax should have no voice in what indebtedness should be incurred, what liabilities should be placed upon the property of the county or State, as the case may be. For this reason, I shall support the amendment offered by the gentleman.

This provision, no property qualification shall ever be required of any person to vote or hold office except as provided in this Constitution, does not state that that person shall vote to create the indebtedness, when he is not a property holder; that is not the idea of it, but it is this, if you please, put in the constitutional language, and I have followed the declaration of rights of a number of states in the United States, and if you examine them, you will find it so. Mr. Anderson's amendment is all right, only it is in the wrong place. It belongs to the committee on elections and rights of suffrage. I do not dispute the merits of that amendment, but in the declaration of rights avoid going into that business, as much as possible, and this I think meets the requirements of the general rule in the declaration of rights.

Mr. VARIAN. The gentleman who last spoke admits the fact that in dealing with this question some qualification should be specified. At least some such distinction should be made as suggested by my friend from Beaver County, but in opposition to this the gentleman from Salt Lake informs us that we are going to do something in the future which will make this all right; now, we cannot deal with these matters in that way. It will simply create confusion. We might just as well deal with this proposition when it is presented to us; we can get the sense of the majority of the Convention upon it, the sense of their views by getting this matter into shape, and when the other matter shall come in, if it shall be deemed necessary, a transposition of this in the declaration of rights can be made into some other part of the Constitution. Our rules provide for that, and that doubtless {234} will have to be done in many instances, and you will observe that this very objection will be continually coming up; we will be met by the proposition from gentlemen from some committee that “our committee is considering that question and when we get ready to make a report, we propose to present the matter in the way that you wish to have it.” You cannot deal with these questions in the future. The question before us is simply a proposition embodied in this section of the article as it is suggested. It may be amended, lost, or disposed of, but let that be done now, and not be waiting for some other committee that may have some question under advisement to bring on in the future. Therefore, I think we ought to pass upon this right now. If the committee on elections shall report that they have the same matter, then that question will probably be referred to the committee on arrangement and compilation.

Mr. EICHNOR. May I ask Mr. Varian a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EICHNOR. Do you hold that the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Beaver County has a proper place In the declaration of rights?

Mr. VARIAN. I see no objection to it. I make no question about that. We are only wasting time

in a discussion of this kind. If it comes up from some other committee and we want to put it in some other part of the Constitution, it is just as effectual in one article as the other; it is just as binding upon the people and the Legislature. That is what I mean and that is what I claim, but we should not refuse to act upon the question because we are informed the matter will come in in another shape from another committee.

Mr. ANDERSON. This same thing is included in the declaration of rights of Idaho; that is a precedent.

Mr. BOWDLE. I am in sympathy and accord with the gentleman from
Salt Lake; I believe that this amendment ought to be made. If we are to leave each individual thing as it comes up with the prospects that it will go in somewhere else in the Constitution, we cannot make the Constitution unless we have the whole thing at our disposal at once. We must dispose of each section as it comes up and if that section should be offered later or a more appropriate one, it can be put in some other place by the committee on compilation and arrangement; they can dispose of that, but it has been well said if we allow a suggestion that some of the committee is cutting out this timber and framing it together, and is going to report upon it, and we delay our action in this matter, why, we do not know really where we are at any time. The suggestion that it may come from some other committee when their report may be brought in will not do.

Mr. EICHNOR. I do not wish to take the time, but, however, I would like to ask Mr. Bowdle if we are going to put this property qualification in the declaration of rights, why not put in the woman suffrage clauses?

The CHAIRMAN. Read Mr. Eichnor's amendment.

The amendment was thereupon read by the secretary.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). I think we had better pass on one proposition at a time and get rid of it.

Mr. HOWARD. I am certainly in favor of the change to be made in this section. We have heard a great many times that we should try to shut out lengthy articles. It appears a simple amendment is offered to this by striking out the words, “for any vote at any election,” without doing anything to the rest, and it is left open for the Legislature. If any other committee of this Convention should bring in some article on the property qualification_if it would be in order I would make a motion_
{235}
The CHAIRMAN. It would be out of order.

Mr. IVINS. I shall ask now if I am right in the supposition that the question will be upon Mr. Eichnor's amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The question will be upon the substitute offered by Mr. Eichnor.

In the report of the committee on elections, however, if the matter is to be voted upon, I still adhere to my amendment in preference to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Beaver County, from the fact that in the amendment which I have offered, it is provided that the Legislature may, if they deem proper, provide for a property qualification where a vote is to be taken upon matters that refer directly to the assessment of property taxes. In the amendment offered by the gentleman from Beaver it is simply stated that there should be no property qualifications except in the election where taxes are to be levied for private purposes. That in these cases it would be necessary and proper if there should be property qualification. I shall vote for Mr. Eichnor's substitute, upon the ground that I believe that it will place the matter where it properly belongs. I believe that the whole reference to property qualification ought to be stricken out in this bill of rights.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you, Mr. Eichnor, that you desire to strike the words “property qualifications” out?

Mr. EICHNOR. In the sixth line; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I think your amendment comes at the end of the section.

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir; I ask that the substitute be read again before the vote is taken.

Mr. VARIAN. I misunderstood that; that certainly makes it very binding. It certainly does not leave it open to the Legislature if the Constitution should fail to provide for a property qualification. If the Constitution should be adopted the Legislature would not have power, and I cannot see, under the circumstances, why my friend from Washington County can support that amendment.

Mr. EICHNOR. I will state my position. When the committee on election reports either Mr. Ivins' amendment or Mr. Anderson's amendment, as I claimed before, and no attorney on the floor can gainsay it, that it does not belong here; properly it belongs in another place.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the gentleman state why we cannot gainsay it?

Mr. KEARNS. I must agree with Mr. Varian; we cannot provide or look to the future. This Constitution is binding upon the future Legislature of the State. We would not have any use for legislatures for the next three hundred years if everything is provided for in this Constitution, and is binding upon them. I do not approve of that at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The vote will be taken on the substitute of Mr. Eichnor of Salt Lake.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I move to amend section four by striking out all of the section after it and including the word “no” in line two and inserting in lieu thereof the following_
Mr. HART. I rise to a point of order, for the reason we have just voted on that proposition and we cannot strike that out without reconsidering the vote of Mr. Eichnor, which inserted that clause.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I decide the point {236} is well taken, and a substitute can only be acted upon by a reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I appeal from the decision of the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has appealed from the decision of the chair. Shall the decision of the chair remain as the decision of the committee?

Mr. VARIAN. I want to submit to the gentleman from Cache County, and also to the chair, what the effect of such a proposition of parliamentary law as that would be, if that is the law. This is not an amendment, covering the same ground. When the matter incorporated by way of amendment at the end of the section became a part of the section, the section as a whole is still open to amendment. We cannot move to strike out particular words of the clause which has been adopted by the vote of the committee, but by adding something to the section as it originally stood, we change the entire subject matter in character to a more or less degree; in some instances it may be changed to a very marked degree. I think it has been in this case. It presents an entirely different question. Now, when you come to move to change the section still further, by an amendment, simply because that amendment includes a word or two words or three words of a section or clause that had been previously added by way of amendment, we are not precluded by that; otherwise you see how easy it would be to forestall all possible action by the Convention in putting into shape other matters in the section. I don't understand there is any authority upon that proposition. It certainly is not a good sensible proposition. Of course I do not speak with any personal reference. I am speaking of it as an abstract question. Now, the Convention adopted a certain proposition and they still adhere to that. It cannot be amended. Is that right? I think if they so desire it can be amended in accordance with the suggestion of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Weber. But you see that this amendment as proposed and which the chair ruled out of order, covered not only the particular matter which had been adopted, but some other matters upon which the sense of the Convention is entirely to be taken. If there is anybody here that voted to pass upon this as a whole, they can, by amendment, move to divide the question. They can offer an amendment to as much of this section commencing with line so and so and by striking out up to and including the matter offered and admitted by the committee at the suggestion of Mr. Eichnor.

Mr. HART. I believe in the argument of the gentleman from Salt Lake as made, but not the application. I understand when a part of a clause is inserted you may afterwards, by motion, strike it out and also any other part of the clause, but in this case the question is an entirely different one. Here is an independent sentence that was inserted by the substitute of Mr. Eichnor. It was a particular proposition in regard to property qualifications. We assented to that

proposition, as an amendment to this clause, but while I feel that we could reject the clause as a whole, I can tell that this part that has been adopted cannot be rejected, otherwise, there would be no end to it.

Mr. VARIAN. May I be permitted to ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. HART. Yes, sir.

Mr. VARIAN. Would not it be perfectly competent to ask to strike out the entire section 4?

Mr. HART. That is what I said.

Mr. VARIAN. And yet we have agreed to adopt certain propositions. Now, that is another question. If it is competent to move to strike the entire section as amended, why is it not
competent to move to strike out a proposition of the clause as amended?

Mr. HART. I would like to answer by saying this proposition contains a {237} number of distinct topics, and it is almost a separate and distinct item from that passed upon by the proposition of Mr. Eichnor. It is a question of property qualification. Now, the gentleman comes along with a proposition of a different and distinct kind. If I understand the subject matter of it, he comes along with a different proposition entirely and moves to strike out that part of it which we have formally passed upon and moves to insert matters in regard to what property shall be exempt from taxation. I submit that this motion is out of order.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I would like to ask you this question. Section 4 has not been passed upon by the committee, has it? When Mr. Eichnor's amendment is adopted it becomes a part of section 4, does it not?

Mr. HART. Yes, sir.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Section 4 was still open to amendment and is, isn't it?

Mr. HART. Yes, sir.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). That is what I propose now, to still further amend section 4 by striking out a part of what Mr. Eichnor proposed and inserting this.

Mr. HART. The section is and would still be open to amendment, but to change it in regard to what Mr. Eichnor offered is a matter that we have already passed upon. It is a proposition that we have already passed upon and you now offer in its stead a distinct and separate proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

The question was then taken on the appeal from the decision of the chair, and the decision was sustained.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask the gentleman from Weber County where he secured that amendment which he proposes.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I do not suppose I am under any obligation to inform the gentleman where I get my knowledge. I get it anywhere I please and it makes no difference to this
Convention or to the gentleman either, and I decline to answer.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I simply ask respectfully, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of obtaining information. I have some constitutions and they don't seem to have it, and if I could get the particular constitution from which it was taken I might perhaps investigate it.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I will reply to that that I was not sent down here to be tutor to the gentleman.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Will the gentleman inform me whether he found it in a letter on his desk?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I won't answer any of your questions.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I and opposed to this amendment simply because it would be hasty legislation. The provision may be good, but it was found upon the desk of some of the members. I am free to confess I found one on my desk, and I am not ashamed to say it, and I suppose the gentleman from Weber did the same thing, and I did not think it was right for this gentleman to put this thing on this committee as original, because others have received the same information.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). There is nothing original but sin, and you have that.

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand that this is a motion to add matter placed before us by Mr. Kimball and is now before the house.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I desire to call attention to the second clause of this matter, {238} which involves a very serious question. I take it no property, real or personal, in this State, except cemeteries, in use for private gain shall be exempt from taxation, or the title to which is vested in the State or in some county, municipality, or school district, in the State. I am of the opinion that if this clause should pass by the Convention, it would make taxable church property and property held for charitable institutions. That, sir, I believe is a very grave subject and should not be passed upon hastily at least,

I do not believe that this is a proper place for it. If it should be the sense of this Convention to tax church property, I do not believe its place would be in the bill of rights. I cannot vote to sustain

this clause, because I am of the opinion that church property that is devoted wholly for the purpose of worship, or that property held by strictly charitable institutions, from which there is derived no profit to those who hold it, should be taxed at all; therefore, I cannot sustain this part of a proposition to add this clause to the bill of rights, and I therefore move you, Mr. Chairman, that that clause be stricken out.

Mr. KEARNS. I second that motion. I quite agree with my friend, Mr. Roberts.
While I am not speaking for any church, we have charitable institutions that surround us here and I don't know what humanity would do if they did not exist. Take the old gray-headed, venerable men that fortune has not favored; they that have embraced the storms of winter and at the end are penniless, where could we send them, but to the hospitals, to be taken care of? We take the children that are left homeless_orphans, who have nobody to protect them; if we do not have an institution to take care of them, what are they going to do? I am sorry that an associate of mine would indorse such a clause as that. Yes, I am ashamed of it. If these institutions do not exist,
what is poor humanity going to do? I, for one, will not vote for anything of that kind, and I trust that any man who would will hang his head in shame forever.

Mr. IVINS. I just want to state in a brief way that while I see no reasons why this amendment offered by the gentleman from Weber should not prevail, the only sufficient reason in my mind is that to be inserted in this bill of rights, it would be a place where it should not be. This very same question came up and was referred to by the gentleman from Salt Lake. This question of exemption from taxation_well and good. If it is in its proper place, it should be in the report of the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt, and I maintain that this bill of rights is not a proper place for it. Therefore, this amendment should be voted down and this matter left to come in its proper place and time.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). We are considering now a proposition that is to be reported from the committee. We cannot anticipate what some other committee is going to do. As my friend Mr. Varian says, it may do various things. There may be conflicting reports come in here, and undoubtedly will, and the committee on revision and compilation has got to reconcile them. When a proposition comes before the Convention or the committee of the whole for action, it is a poor argument to say that some other committee may report some different proposition or some similar proposition. We cannot anticipate what they are going to do. As to my friend from Summit County, I regret his sorrow and hope he will never have to hang his head for shame. As for my part, I believe that all the property in this Territory, except such as is exempt in that article, should be taxed regardless of whether it belongs to a religious society or a charitable society, or any other people. It should bear its proportion of the expenses of the public at {239} large, and if they own real estate or personal property, they should pay their proportion of the taxes whether it is a shame or whether it is not a shame. I say I am not ashamed of that proposition and I think it should pass this Convention.

Mr. CHIDESTER. There is no use of my saying much on that, because I do not believe in such a proposition and I hope it will not be adopted. In the first place, I am not in favor of putting into the bill of rights every proposition that should be considered by other committees
and the proposition that is sought to be put in here, as I understand, is a proper subject matter to

be handled by another committee, and if we continue to adopt such measures as this we will have the whole Constitution in our bill of rights.

Mr. VAN HORNE. As I understand this proposition, there are distinct matters involved in the motion. I ask for a subdivision or division of the motion that it may be acted upon section by section.

The CHAIRMAN. How will you have it divided?

Mr. VAN HORNE. By section.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I consent.

Mr. VAN HORNE. My reason for doing that is that I see nothing whatever objectionable in the first two sections. I think that that section is one that is a part of the declaration of the bill of rights and comes properly under that head in our Constitution. The report of the committee on that subject is a matter for consideration by this Convention. I maintain in some respects it is better than the draft of the declaration of rights, for this reason, the report of the committee provides that no public money shall be given to such institutions. The draft, as submitted by the gentleman from Weber in this first section, provides that no public funds or property in this State_     

The CHAIRMAN. I desire to understand, if the gentleman will answer my question. What are you speaking to? I understood you were making a, motion to divide. After we have passed upon Mr. Roberts' motion, the motion to divide can well be in order.

Mr. VARIAN. Does the chair rule that a motion to strike out part of the amendment that is offered is proper?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). His motion is to strike out my motion and in that way dispose of my motion.

Mr. ROBERTS. Excuse me, as I understand it, you submitted these three clauses as an amendment to the fourth section?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). The chair ruled that out of order and then I moved to insert it as an addition.

Mr. ROBERTS. Your proposition Is to make these three clauses an addition to section 4. I moved to amend that amendment by striking out clause second of your matter. That was the amendment as I understood it.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair decides that the amendment is in order.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is the entire second clause that I desire to strike out. If I may again speak on

this question before it goes to the house, I would like to. I want to urge again the importance of members considering the effect of that section if it shall be adopted. It means the taxation of church property of all sects and denominations in this Territory, and it means the taxation of all property held by charitable institutions. It is a fact that every church property used for public worship carries no material consideration of that sect, but they contribute their means to the establishment and support of such institutions, and I claim, sir, that property that is held for such laudable purposes and from which there accrues no material gain to those who have established it, this should be of right exempt from taxation, and I sincerely hope that members of this Convention clearly understand this proposition proposes to {240} leave that kind of property taxable in the proposed new State, and I sincerely trust for one that that part of the proposed addition to section 4 shall not prevail.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I understood that I had the floor and it was a point of order that took me from the floor. I have been standing here ever since. I am speaking now on the question whether that amendment of Mr. Roberts' shall prevail or not. I shall also speak on the other question. I say that the second section in my opinion is a perfectly proper one and one that should be guarded by this Convention. I believe that the whole people are interested in the fact that there should be exemption for property from taxation. I believe we have put into it and into our Constitution the most absolute liberty. By that I mean not only a man should believe in any so-called religion that he may choose, or that his conscience may dictate, or if that conscience is such that it does not believe_that is, recognize as a religion, that he have the freedom to believe that also. We have it put in all our constitutions that I have seen, and we have it here in the Territory. Now, the fact that a man can affirm, where he does not even believe in a God, and that his affirmation under pains and penalty of perjury, if he should falsely testify, the same as if he had sworn and called God to witness the truth of his testimony_is direct in line. We have to follow directly from that that there is no right in the State without absolute religious toleration, relief from the burden of taxation of property owned by those who believe in any creed or all creeds; the individual who has no creed, who knows nothing about the future, what is termed an atheist, is entitled to have the burden of taxation lessened upon him and his property by just so much as the revenue derived from the taxation of property of those who do not believe in a God will lessen it. It affects me personally in no way whatever; but I have known of cases where church property in a great city went up in millions of dollars and under a rule like this was not subject to taxation. I do not think that this Convention should put itself upon record as relieving from taxation the property used by churches. I think they might as well exempt from taxation the lecture hall of the unfortunate infidels as to relieve from taxation this property or that cathedral of the devout believer. That is my idea of absolute toleration.

Mr. WELLS. I submit that this question at this time belongs to the committee on taxation and public debt, and should not be in the bill of rights. The gentleman from Weber says that we must not anticipate what they may do; the original result of that would be the whole Constitution would be headed, “declaration of rights.” It is a question in regard to taxation pure and simple, and is as to whether church property shall be taxed or not. It has no part in the bill of rights. It does not belong here. The bill of rights as I understand it, is to determine and define the fundamental rights of the people of Utah, and this is a question of taxation. I submit that it should not be considered now.

Mr. VARIAN. I move to lay both amendments on the table.

The motion was seconded.

Mr. EVANS (WEBER.) I move a point of order. The motion to lay on the table cannot prevail.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will call the attention of Mr. Evans to rule 20.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Permit me to make a personal explanation. That exact question was before this Convention when the chairman of the committee, Mr. Kimball. occupied the chair and he raised the point of order himself.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair has not yet decided the point of order.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Excuse me.

Mr. VARIAN. In such a matter, I think it has been decided here before and the gentleman had an opportunity to make a suggestion. May I make a suggestion right to the chair?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Evans has desired to offer his suggestion. The chair will accept suggestions from both of you.

Mr. VARIAN. I want to call attention to the fact that our rules provide that this question, not being excepted, applies in the committee of the whole. It is true that Roberts' rules of order are always made applicable, but so far only when not otherwise provided in these rules, and we cannot do it in any other way. That was the intention so far as I was concerned. I thought I understood it thoroughly when I participated in these rules to allow the committee of the whole to entertain this motion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I simply called attention to what occurred the other day. I took exactly the same position then that Mr. Varian takes now and insisted upon it, and cited our rules and
he overruled it. I simply want to know now, whether the rule is going to be changed, because in the other case it was a member from our side of the house who moved to lay on the table and in this case it happened to be a member from the other side of the house.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). It is not the same motion that was pending when the question was asked the other day at all. There was a proposition to lay on the table; not an amendment, not a purposed alteration of a particular law, but to lay itself upon the table in the committee of the whole. I ruled at that time that that was out of order. I still maintain it is out of order, for a committee of the whole to lay a proposition itself upon the table, but an amendment pending before the committee is allowable to be laid on the table.

The CHAIRMAN. I will have to rule the point is not well taken and the motion to lay upon the table is in order.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask if the motion to lay upon the table applies to the amendment or to the whole?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair decides that the motion to lay upon the table is all right.

Mr. ROBERTS. I simply ask to what extent the motion to lay upon the table goes. Whether the proposition to lay upon the table includes the amendment offered by myself and the whole as proposed in the addition to section 4.

Mr. VARIAN. The whole matter goes to the table.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The whole matter goes to the table.

Mr. WELLS. Do I understand that if this is carried it will lay the amendment offered by Mr. Kimball to the amendment offered by Mr. Roberts upon the table only?

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.
{242}
Mr. WELLS. But the section itself is not laid on the table?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to be heard for one moment, if you will. In this rule 20, it does not say that the only things that are not in any other way_

Mr. IVINS. I submit that this discussion is entirely out of order. The point of order was raised. The chair sustained it. The question now recurs to Mr. Kimball's amendment, as to whether it shall be laid on the table. The gentleman is discussing the question that has already been decided.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair decides the point of order well taken.

Mr. HART. I rise to a question of personal privilege. I don't understand the decision of the chair is final. I do not desire to speak upon this at all, but if the chair has not finally decided upon that

matter, I would like to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN. I shall have to declare all these matters out of order.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I desire to appeal from the decision of the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Mr. HART. I think this is a ques of some importance because if a matter can be laid on the table, then debate can be kept in the committee of the whole and there will be no purpose in going into a committee of the whole, if you can take propositions in that way, and cut the debate off_

The CHAIRMAN. I think this is all out of order.
                        
Mr. EVANS (Weber). I desire to say a word or two upon this proposition and I want to correct myself as to the remarks of a gentleman from Salt Lake, from which I inferred that he had the idea that I proposed to throw some feeling into the question. I assure him I did not intend to. I occupied the same position the other day that the gentleman from Salt Lake now occupies. I believed at that time I was right and at that very time, it will be remembered that the gentleman from Washington County, Mr. Ivins, moved to lay on the table, and I proposed the matter respecting the settlement of the boundaries of the new State. The then chairman of the committee ruled that this motion to lay on the table was out of order and gave the most excellent reason why the motion to lay on the table should not have been voted down. I think, without any disrespect to the present chairman of the committee, it was the chairman of this committee who sustained the decision of the chair when we appealed from it.

Mr. VAN HORNE. The time having expired for which we went into a committee of the whole, I move we rise and report progress.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will be through in three minutes.

Mr. VAN HORNE. There is nothing excepting the time has expired.

The CHAIRMAN. I will call your attention to the fact we cannot possibly extend the time. I will have to entertain the motion from the gentleman of Salt Lake that the committee arise and report progress.

The committee then arose and reported to the Convention as follows:

The committee of the whole desire at this time to rise and report progress, having under consideration the adoption of the bill of rights.

The report was adopted.

The Convention then, at 4.40 o'clock p. m., adjourned.