[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.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I desire to state in behalf of Johnson, that he has been suddenly called away and desires to be excused until Tuesday next.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection the gentleman will be excused.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Warrum has also been called away on business and desires to be excused until Monday.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection the gentleman will be excused.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Dennis Kielly, of the Roman Catholic Church.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. President, I believe that all the congregations have been called upon and have responded in offering prayer here, except the Hebrew congregation, and I wish to call that to your attention and hope that you will call on the Rabbi.

The PRESIDENT. We will add their congregation to the list of ministers.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, in behalf of the committee on elections and right of suffrage, I ask permission for a temporary leave of absence for Messrs. Ivins, Sharp, Jolley, Kearns, and myself.

The journal of the 11th day's session was read and approved.

Mr. Bowdle was excused by request.

The PRESIDENT. The next order is the presentation of petitions and memorials.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I wish to present a memorial relating to woman suffrage from the ladies of Utah County; I ask that it be read and referred to the committee on elections and right of suffrage.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended and that it be read by its title.

Mr. THURMAN. I ask that the petition be read. It is very short. Motion seconded.

The PRESIDENT. It is asked in this case that it be read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I suggest that if a request be made that a paper be read and there is no objection, it ought to be read.

The secretary then read the memorial as follows:
{163 - PROPOSITIONS}

The undersigned delegates to the Woman's Suffrage Association of Utah County, appointed to represent said association in presenting this memorial to your honorable body, respectfully represent that the women of said association, in common with their sisters throughout the Territory of Utah, are at present deprived of the privileges of American citizenship, notwithstanding the great majority of them are native born citizens of the United States. We further represent that notwithstanding that we are taxed and are amenable to the laws equally with men, still we have no voice or vote upon the justice or propriety of such taxation or expediency of the laws to which we are equally amenable with men.

We recognize with feelings of gratitude that both the great political parties in Utah have declared in favor of equal suffrage. We have no doubt that you will keep the pledge and confer upon the women of Utah that political freedom and equality which justly and logically belongs to them as citizens of the most enlightened, just, and progressive nation on the earth.

Because it is just and because you have solemnly pledged yourselves to accomplish the result, we respectfully request that you insert a clause in the Constitution of the State of Utah, conferring upon women the right of suffrage, and your memorialists will ever pray, etc.

(Signed) MRS. ELECTA BULLOCK,

MRS. SARAH A. BOYER,

MRS. HANNAH S. LAPISH,

Delegates.

Said document was then read by its title by the secretary.

The PRESIDENT. It will go to the committee on elections and right of suffrage.

Introduction of ordinance and propositions for insertion in the Constitution.

Mr. Kearns introduced the following proposition for insertion in the Constitution (file No. 61):

The Legislature shall have the power to grant special charters or grant special acts of incorporation, but all incorporations shall be framed under general acts passed by the Legislature; provided, that all such acts shall prohibit incorporation for political purposes, which shall directly or indirectly prohibit or discriminate against any man or woman, creed, religion or church, by reason or on account of the religious belief of such man, woman, or church.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I think that should be municipal corporations.

The PRESIDENT. It will go to the one named on the proposition.

Mr. Cushing introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to the incorporation of cities (file No. 62), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. Cushing introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to counties (file No. 63), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. Eichnor introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to prohibiting municipalities from selling or disposing of or leasing the water works, water rights, water supplies (file No. 64), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. Allen introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution, relative to districting and apportionment of legislative members (file No. 65), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. Partridge introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution, relative to militia (file No. 66), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on militia.

Mr. Crane introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to protecting livestock from contagious diseases (file No. 67).
{164}
Mr. CREER. I would like to have that read.

The PRESIDENT. The reading of this is called for, if there is no objection, it will be read.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would suggest that Mr. Crane be permitted to read it.

The secretary then read the same as follows:

Section 1. The Legislature shall pass all necessary laws to provide for the protection of live stock against the introduction or spread of pleuro pneumonia, glanders, memitic or Texas fever, and other infectious diseases. The Legislature may also establish a system of quarantine inspection and such other precautions as may be necessary for the protection of stockholders and most conducive to the stock interests within the State.

The SECRETARY. Live stock or agriculture.

Mr. HAMMOND. There is no live stock committee.

Said proposition was referred to the committee on water rights, irrigation and agriculture.

Mr. Cannon introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution affecting the condition of labor (file No. 68), which was read by the secretary as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any organization or combination of persons to exist in this State, having for its object, either directly or indirectly, the discrimination in any manner whatever, against persons, either male or female, over the age of fourteen years, acquiring knowledge of any trade or profession, or which shall limit or attempt to limit the number of such persons employed by any person, firm or corporation.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Salt Lake the purpose of introducing the proposition for insertion into the Constitution.

The PRESIDENT. This is out of order I think, I don't see the purpose of it.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, the gentleman asked that question I believe in all sincerity and I will answer it frankly. The purpose is_I am not in any way connected with the committee to which it was referred. I think it was a subject that should be introduced.

The PRESIDENT. This is all out of order.

Mr. Thurman introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to prohibiting the taking of private property for public purposes without just compensation (file No. 69).

Mr. THURMAN. There are only six lines of it, read it.

The secretary then read as follows:

Private property shall not be taken for public purposes without a just compensation first made, or secured to be made, as may be determined by law; nor shall private property be taken by any private corporations, without compensation being first made, to be determined by agreement of the parties or by a jury in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended and that these propositions

be read the first time by their titles unless otherwise requested.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, that motion was already passed when we commenced.

The PRESIDENT. It has not been made here to-day.

Mr. BUTTON. I made the motion; I don't know whether you put it or not.

The PRESIDENT. The motion was not put; the chair did not hear such a motion. You have heard the motion of Mr. Richards to suspend the rule.

Mr. EICHNOR. I hope Mr. Richards
{165}
will withdraw his motion for a short time; the gentleman wants the next proposition read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Certainly; the motion was that they be suspended unless the reading is called for.

Mr. Peterson, of Grand County, introduced a proposition relative to boundaries (file No. 87).

Mr. BOYER. I call for the reading of the proposition on boundaries.

The secretary then read as follows:

In convention.

Introduced by Mons Peterson.

Proposition to provide for boundaries.

The delegates of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Utah, as assembled, do propose as follows:

Sec. 1. The boundary of the State of Utah shall be as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the 37th meridian of longitude west from Washington, with the 42nd parallel north latitude, thence east along said parallel_

Mr. RICHARDS. I renew my motion, Mr. President.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I want to ask a question. There was a motion made yesterday to suspend the rules that all these papers handed in should be read twice by their titles and referred

to the committees, unless request was made to have them read. Now, if that motion to suspend the rules does not stand until there is another motion made to take them up?

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I do not understand that motion, made for the suspension of the rules to-day, can affect the deliberation of the house on any other day; the rules are in force after we pass that order of business.

The PRESIDENT. The understanding of the chair is, that these rules will have to be suspended from day to day, that a suspension does not apply during the entire session.

Gentlemen, you have heard the motion to suspend the rule, and that these propositions be read by their titles and referred to the appropriate committees.

Carried.

Mr. Cannon introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to wages of employes (file No. 70).

Mr. CANNON. I would like to have that read.

The secretary then read the same as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation in this State, to discriminate either directly or indirectly in the wages paid to employes performing the same labor on account of the sex of such employes [*note*].

Mr. Maloney introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to requiring judges of the supreme, district, and superior courts, to report defects in the laws to the attorney general (file No. 71), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. Hart introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to militia (file No. 72), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on militia.

Mr. Maloney introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to requiring judges of the supreme court to give opinions on questions of law to governor, senate, or house of representatives (file No. 73), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. Maloney introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to free publication of supreme court decisions {166} ( file No. 74), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. Maloney introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to requiring all judges to decide questions and render decisions within thirty days after argument, or submission to them (file No. 76 , which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. Lewis introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to protecting settlers upon school lands (file No. 77), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on education and school lands.

Mr. Kimball (Salt Lake) introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to superintendence of district schools and school districts (file No. 78), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on education and school lands.

Mr. Francis introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to division of counties (file No 79 ), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. Francis introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to forbidding donations of public lands (file No. 80), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on public land.

Mr. Francis introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to municipal corporations (file No. 81), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. Coray introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to fixing the basis of taxation (file No. 82).

Mr. CORAY. I would like to have that read.

The secretary then read the same as follows:

Proposition regulating the basis of taxation. All property in the State except State property, United States property, and public and private libraries, shall be taxed. Said property to be assessed at a valuation on which in the preceding year it has paid the legal rate of interest of the State.

Mr. Crane introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to fixing State boundaries (file No. 83).

The SECRETARY. Articles on boundaries.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Never mind; I thought he said bounties. I withdraw my request.

Said proposition was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. Low of Cache introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to State institutions other than educational (file No. 84), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to committee on public buildings and State institutions not educational.

Mr. Thurman introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to non-partisan election of school and judicial officers (file No. 85).

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I thought that was introduced by Evans of Weber.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I would like to have that read.

Mr. THURMAN. No objection, Mr. President.

The secretary then read as follows:
{167}

Resolved, that the following propositions be inserted in the articles on elections and rights of suffrage in the Constitution, to-wit:

The terms of office of all officers made elective by this Constitution, made in pursuance thereof, shall be so established that school and judicial officers shall not be elected on any day when other officers are elected.

Mr. Allen introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution, relative to narcotics (file No. 86), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on schedule, and future amendments, and miscellaneous.

Mr. Peterson of Grand introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution, to provide for boundaries (file No. 87), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I move that when this assembly adjourn, it will be to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Oh, no. Motion seconded.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Let us get through the order of business:

Mr. HART. Mr. President, there is a motion to fix the time of adjournment, that has precedence.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, is this motion in order?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDS. Has the president passed to the point of reaching the order of motions.

The PRESIDENT. No, sir.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then, how is this in order?

The PRESIDENT. A motion to adjourn is always in order.

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes; but a motion to fix the time for adjournment is not always in order.

Mr. EICHNOR. I ask the gentleman from Sevier County to withhold his motion for a moment.

There is another proposition on the table for insertion in the Constitution.

Mr. RICKS. It does not make any difference.

The PRESIDENT. We will finish the record here with the consent of the gentleman.

Mr. Snow introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relating to legislative apportionment (file No. 88), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to have that read.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary will read it.

The secretary then read the same as follows:

In the apportionment of the State of Utah for legislative purposes, every organized county shall have at least one member of the house of representatives.

Reference, committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. SNOW. I object, Mr. President; I want it to go to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I second the motion for referring it to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

The PRESIDENT. There is no second to the other motion. If there is no objection, it will go to that committee.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, is the table clear?
{168 - MOTIONS}
The PRESIDENT. The motion before the house is to fix the time to which to adjourn.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, the amendment was not seconded. I move to amend that by saying Monday at 2 o'clock.

Mr. RICHARDS. I second the amendmendment of the gentleman from Salt Lake.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I will accept the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that that motion will not prevail.

The PRESIDENT. It is not debatable.

Mr. THURMAN. Fixing the time_it is debatable.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no other question before the house it is debatable.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, it is out of its regular order and consequently it is undebatable.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. The motion to adjourn to 2 o'clock on Monday is not in order. The first rule which we have provided reads as follows:

Unless otherwise ordered the Convention shall meet on each day, except Sundays and holidays, at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). That was amended, Mr. Evans, to read 2 o'clock.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Read that two; but this motion is intended to skip Saturday; according to our rules we shall meet each day and we cannot suspend that rule except with a two-thirds vote.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the language in the first part of that rule_I call the gentleman from Weber's attention to it. “Unless otherwise ordered.”

What does that mean but to take a vote upon it?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). That means that we have got to order it by a two-thirds vote.

Mr. SQUIRES. Why does it not say so, then?

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, is there any other question before the house except this motion to adjourn to a certain time?

The PRESIDENT. No, sir; there is no other question, except the regular order of business, and the motion to fix the time to adjourn is in order at any time.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, Roberts' Rules of Order provide, on page 36, in reference to fixing the time to which the assembly shall adjourn. It says, if made when no other question is before the assembly, it stands as any other principal motion and is debatable.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, proceeding then to discuss that question of fixing the time until 2 o'clock on Monday, I wish to say that I hope that motion will not prevail. It would be the loss of a day, and I understand there is at least one of the standing committees that will be able to report to-morrow and place before this Convention, matter for consideration, that shall go into the Constitution that we are here to frame. That being the case, I think it would be an infinite pity to adjourn over until Monday, and lose practically one precious day in the consideration of the matters we were sent here to take under advisement. We have been here now for a long while_

Mr. RICKS. I withdraw my motion with the consent of the second_if that is a fact_I hadn't the slightest idea any committee would be ready to report to-morrow.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I now move that when this Convention adjourn, it will be until Monday at 2 o'clock.
{169}
Seconded.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I second that motion.

Mr. RICHARDS. And I desire to state my reasons for making the motion.

The PRESIDENT. The rule fixes the hour_

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have the floor_

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is correct. There is nothing before the house.

Mr. RICHARDS. I had the floor.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, Mr. Ricks' motion is before the house, to adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, he withdrew his motion.

Mr. HART. I object to his withdrawing his motion. This is the first opportunity I have had to make objection. When a gentleman makes a motion he cannot withdraw it at will_

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President. I offer as an amendment to that motion_

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order; I have the floor.

The PRESIDENT. There is no question before the house_

Mr. ROBERTS. I understood the ruling of the chair to be that the proposition of Mr. Ricks was before the house for consideration and that was the proposition that I was discussing.

The PRESIDENT. There was an effort to withdraw_

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I will claim that this question is undebatable for this reason, now considering the proposition_

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order; my point is, that the chair has decided that; if the gentleman does not like the decision, let him appeal from it.

Mr. FRANCIS. Correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now; Mr. President_

The PRESIDENT. The motion is before the house; Mr. Roberts you may proceed.

Mr. ROBERTS. I repeat that it would be almost an outrage to lose to-morrow's work_

Mr. LUND. Mr. President_

The PRESIDENT. No other question before the house; this is debatable. Mr. Roberts has the floor.

Mr. LUND. I would just like to ask the gentleman a question, is all_if he understands the motion

of Mr. Ricks? If I understand it correctly, it is to move to adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock_I am certainly in favor of it.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thought Mr. Ricks' motion was to adjourn until Monday.

The PRESIDENT. The understanding of the chair was, that Mr. Ricks accepted the amendment to the motion to adjourn until 2 o'clock on Monday.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then I grant you that my remarks are not in place. The only thing I wanted to do was to protest against this adjournment until Monday.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I make another point of order. When the gentleman accepted the amendment it became his motion, which motion is 2 o'clock on Monday, and I object to its being withdrawn. It cannot be done. That is the question before the house.

The PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken by the gentleman on that question as I understand it_     

Mr. HART. Does the chair now rule that motion is before the house_the motion to adjourn until Monday at 2 o'clock.

The PRESIDENT. That is it.

Mr. BUTTON. No; that when we adjourn, to adjourn until 2 o'clock Monday?

The PRESIDENT. The proposition to fix the time_
{170}
Mr. HART. When we adjourn we adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT. 2 o'clock on Monday.

Mr. HART. Now, the gentleman undertook without the consent of this house to withdraw his motion, or in other words to accept a different proposition, to which I object. The point of order I raise is that Mr. Ricks' motion to adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock is the proposition now before the house. The gentleman withdrew his amendment and the original motion before the house is the proposition of Mr. Ricks to adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Ricks accepted Mr. James' amendment and there was no objection to it at that time, if there is an objection, before this is discussed_

Mr. HART. I object to it, this is the first opportunity I have had. I object to the other proposition.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, inasmuch as there seems to be a muddle here I will withdraw my motion to adjourn until Monday at 2 o'clock, and name to-morrow at 10 o'clock.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President I suggest to change the general rule to take a two-thirds vote to adjourn until 10 o'clock. The rule is that each day we shall meet at 2 o'clock.

The PRESIDENT. A two-thirds vote on it will be necessary. Gentlemen, you have heard this motion to adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I offer as an amendment that when the Convention adjourn, it will be until Monday at 2 o'clock.

Mr. BUTTON. I second the amendment.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, you have heard the motion.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to give my reasons for offering this amendment. I offer the amendment for the very reason assigned by the delegate from Davis, as being opposed to this motion, and in favor of meeting to-morrow. I say that instead of losing a day by adjourning until Monday we will make a day. We meet here every afternoon. We make no progress. We spent to- day, by the clock, one hour in amending our minutes_the minutes of yesterday. What have we done since then? Received various propositions, that may be valuable (I don't desire to underestimate their value), but we have now before the various committees a great number of propositions, and while this house is in session, in the afternoon, under the rules the committees cannot be in session. If the house were not in session the committees might be in session. Now, my object in making this motion is to afford the committees an opportunity to spend an entire day, to-morrow, in their work, that they may be ready on Monday to report to this Convention; but the gentleman from Davis says that one of the committees will be prepared to report to- morrow. Then I would be in favor of according to that committee the privilege of having their report printed in advance. If it be ready to-morrow, let them give it to the committee on printing and have it ready on our tables here on Monday, that we may commence work and afford the committees an opportunity to prepare their work, and that we may come in here and have something to do, besides meeting day after day at the expense of six hundred dollars to the government, and spending an hour or two in correcting our minutes; that is what we are doing and that is about all that we are doing. Now, if I believed that the effect of this motion would be to delay the work of this Convention one moment, or if I believed that by making this motion, it would not be accelerating the speed of {171} this Convention, I would not make it, but I believe that it would have that effect. I know that it certainly will if the members will attend to their business in committees to-morrow instead of meeting here and going through the reading of minutes from day to day.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I arise for information. I would like to ask the gentleman from Davis what committee will be prepared to report tomorrow, it he is at liberty to say.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am informed that the committee on preamble and declaration of rights will be ready to report to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT. This motion will have the effect of suspending the rule.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I am opposed to adjourning until Monday. Last week on Friday we adjourned until Monday, believing that we might do something on Saturday; the result was that my friends in Salt Lake, who live here, went about their business, and the gentlemen who lived in the country, as many as could of them went home. We could not get any committee work done, and that will be the result to-morrow. If there is any thing we can do in Convention here to- morrow, let us meet to-morrow. If there are any gentlemen that cannot be here let them get excused and go about their business. There are a good many people here at least from the country, that want to get through with this business, and finally adjourn, and I am one of them. I think we ought to meet at ten o'clock to-morrow or two o'clock to-morrow, as may suit the convenience of the majority, but I am opposed to adjourning until Monday.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I would like to say this in answer to the gentleman from Utah County: when there is committee work to do that no member of this Convention has any right to go home. They are in duty bound to stay here and attend to that work, and for the reason that some of them have not been so diligent as they might be, the committees have not been able to do the proper amount of work. But that is no reason why we should not adjourn and give these committees time to do the work. They have not had time. The reason that the committees did not do the work the last time that we adjourned, was because the chairmen of various committees failed to get their notices out so that there was a good understanding, but if the Convention will give the chairmen an opportunity now of notifying their committees when they will meet, they can accomplish more by adjourning until Monday than they can to undertake to run this Convention every day, for the reason that the committees are accomplishing very little work, when they have but a short time to work in. There is where the work is being done now; there is no great work being done here in this Convention.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move the previous question.

The PRESIDENT. Shall the main question be now put?

Carried.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of Mr. Richards to amend the motion of Mr. Ricks as to the time of adjournment. The motion before the house is the adjournment until Monday at 2 o'clock. As I understand it, this changes the rule and will require a two-thirds vote.

All in favor of the motion of Mr. Richards will say aye: those opposed, no.

The chair is in doubt.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would {172} like to know where it provides that. there must be a two-thirds vote.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). The rule is that we adjourn until 2 o'clock anyway.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). On page 98 of Roberts' rules.

Mr. EICHNOR. Does the chair rule that the motion is lost?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir; that it requires a two-thirds vote.

Mr. EICHNOR. Two-thirds vote of the whole house or of the members present?

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house is on the adjournment until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. All in favor of the motion say aye.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, as I understand it, it requires a two-thirds vote to decide the main question shall be put, but when the main question is put, I don't.

The PRESIDENT. The standing rules of the Convention and the regular orders of business shall not be suspended or interrupted unless by a vote of two-thirds of the delegates present. The regular time of adjournment would be until to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock. This proposes to skip a day and be 2 o'clock on Monday.

Mr. RICKS. The question on my motion.

The PRESIDENT. The question now before the Convention is Mr. Ricks' motion to adjourn until to-morrow at 10 o'clock, when we do adjourn, all in favor of the motion say aye.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. President, I would like to offer an amendment until tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I move to amend that motion by saying half past one o'clock on Monday afternoon.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. This question, as I understand it, is not amendable after the first part of the motion was put.

The PRESIDENT. The question in regard to adjournment until to-morrow at 10 o'clock.

The question was put and the motion declared lost.

Unfinished business, gentlemen, is now in order.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, if there is any unfinished business on the table, is it the business of members to call for it, or does it come up?

The PRESIDENT. It comes up legitimately, as I understand it.

Mr. WELLS. We were attempting to decide upon the appointment of a committee clerk, as I understand it, yesterday.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house upon our adjournment last night was the question of the committee clerk.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to state before the vote is taken upon this committee clerk that since last night I have been informed, by parties who are perfectly familiar with all those interested, that the lady who who was nominated by Mr. Wells, Miss Reese, is a competent stenographer, a first class typewriter, in addition to that she supports her mother and those who are dependent upon her. I have also been informed by parties interested and acquainted with the facts, that one of the other ladies named_the lady who received the highest vote last night has employment and that Miss Reese at this time has not, and therefore hope that the Convention will vote for Miss Reese.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I wish to say that the little girl that received the most votes yesterday is one of the most thorough stenographers and typewriters of this city, one of the most rapid workers; she has had two years' experience in newspaper office, and while she has employment, it is beggarly employment and she is entitled {173} by her character and her position to the generous consideration of all the gentlemen upon this floor.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President_

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Button has made an effort several times to get the attention of the chair.

Mr. BUTTON. Before this was called upon, I intended to make a motion, if it was in order, to have the chairmen of different committees announce the different committee meetings at this time under this order.

The PRESIDENT. I think that it is a good suggestion. It is out of order until after this proposition.

Mr. BUTTON. We don't know where to go, and the ladies who are committee clerks don't know where to go.

Mr. WHITNEY. I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, you have heard the motion, that we postpone the employment of another commfttee clerk indefinitely. This motion is seconded. All those in favor of_

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President_

Mr. RICKS. I arise to a. point of order. This question is undebatable.

The PRESIDENT. That is true. The point of order is undebatable. I do not believe it is debatable. Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that the employment of this other committee clerk be postponed indefinitely.

Carried.

Motions and resolutions.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I desire to introduce a resolution and ask its immediate consideration,

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, if I am in order now, I wish to make a motion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I have the. chair.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Evans has the chair, Mr. Button_[Laughter]. Or the floor, he had the chair in his hand.

The secretary then read Mr. Evans resolution as follows:

Resolved, that the territorial auditor be requested to furnish the Convention, for its information, a statement of the amount of bonded indebtedness of the Territory of Utah, together with the dates when each series of bonds issued and the rates of interest thereon, and when payable; and, be it further

Resolved, that the recorder of each municipal corporation in this Territory be requested to furnish, for the information of the Convention, the bonded indebtedness of such city, together with the dates when each series of bonds were issued, and when payable, and the rate of interest thereon; and, be it further

Resolved, that the county clerk of each county in Utah Territory be requested to furnish the Convention with information respecting the bonded indebtedness of such county, together with the dates when such bonds issued, and the interest thereon, and when payable; and, be it further

Resolved, that the school board of each school district in this Territory be requested to furnish, for the information of this Convention, the amount of bonded indebtedness incurred by such district, and the dates when such bonds issued, and rate of interest thereon, and when payable.

Mr. ROBERTS. I second it.

The resolution was adopted.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, in view of the trouble we are having here in relation to our minutes and the length of time it takes to correct every day, I move the chair appoint a standing committee of three to correct the. minutes, instead of taking up the time of this Convention.

Seconded.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. President, I move you as an amendment to the motion that this subject be referred to the committee on engrossment and enrollment.

Seconded.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understood {174} that amendment to be seconded and now before the house?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I hope it will not prevail. The committee on engrossment and enrollment have duties appertaining simply to the engrossment and enrollment of the Constitution as it shall be framed by the Convention, and I think it is an inappropriate committee. I think there should be a special committee selected with their fitness in view for revising these minutes and getting them in such shape that we will not spend from forty-five minutes to sixty in correcting them every day.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. President, the committee on engrossment and enrollment is a committee that is well qualified to attend to this business, as much as any committee that could be appointed from this body, and the argument made by the gentleman from Davis County was just the argument I shall make myself, that that committee has nothing to do at the present time as a committee and this matter could be entirely referred to it and that committee take it up and attend to it and report each day.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to ask when these minutes shall be revised_before they go the printer?

Mr. THURMAN. Before they are read here?

Mr. RICHARDS. Before they are printed or after?

Mr. PRESTON. Before they are printed.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, with the consent of my second, I accept the proposition or amendment proposed by Mr. Pierce, if they are a suitable committee; I do not know as to the personnel, but inasmuch as they have nothing to do for awhile, let them do that.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I don't know about referring this matter to this particular committee, but I think it would be well to refer the matter to one of the standing committees. Otherwise, if this amendment fails and the motion comes on the appointment of a standing committee, that would have to be referred to the committee on rules. As it now stands, the committee on rules have reported what the duties of standing committees shall be, and there is also the rule that all changes in that shall be submitted to the committee on rules. Therefore, I favor referring this matter either to this committee or to some other committee named, rather than create a new committee.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move as an amendment that this matter be referred to a special committee of three.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, the gentleman is out of order.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President_

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I understand that there is a motion to the effect that a committee of three shall be appointed to correct and revise the minutes. That has been amended, that the committee on engrossment and enrollment_

The PRESIDENT. The original mover has accepted the amendment, that is the way it stands.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move an amendment to the effect that the committee on printing shall be the committee to revise and amend the journal.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I think that our rules determine that the committee on revision and compilation is the one that has the correction of verbal inaccuracies under the rules, and will have nothing to do until we have completed all our work, and from the personnel of the committee and everything of that sort, I move you as an amendment that the question of the revision of the minutes be referred to {175} the committee on revision and compilation.

Mr. RICHARDS. I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT. The original motion as I understand it now, is the reference to the committee on engrossment and enrollment_the amendment is to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I understand that the original motion is to appoint a committee of three?

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, before the motion is put I will ask if he will include in it that this committtee is to make this revision before the minutes go to the printer.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Yes, sir; that was the intention of the motion.

The PRESIDENT. All in favor of the amendment of Mr. Van Horne to the original motion, that the revision of the minutes go to the committee on compilation and arrangement, say aye; contrary, no.

The motion was declared carried.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I wish to offer a resolution that announcement of the meetings of the committees and caucuses shall take precedence of a motion to adjourn.

Seconded.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move that motion be referred to the committee on rules.

Carried.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, for the information of those who live out of the city, I have a letter that I would ask the secretary to please read.

The secretary then read the following:

SALT LAKE CITY, March 12. 1895.

HON. CHARLES CRANE, City.

Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your letters of the 9th inst. requesting rate of one cent per mile for members of the Constitutional Convention, when traveling between their homes and this city, and in reply, beg to state that arrangements have been made for rate of one fare for the round trip for all members of the Convention between above points during the life of the Convention.

It is only necessary for the members to present their credentials or certificates of membership in order to procure this rate, which, to our mind, is as low a rate as can consistently be granted, and which, I think you will find, is entirely satisfactory to the parties interested.

It is probable members of the Convention do not understand that this rate was granted for more than the first trip to Salt Lake.

We will be pleased if you will give all interested to understand that the rate is in effect until the Convention closes.

Yours truly,

J. H. BENNETT,

G. P. & T. A., R. G. W. Ry.

D. E. BURLEY,

General Agent, U. P. System.

Carried.

Mr. Howard introduced the following resolution, which was read by the secretary:

Resolved, that all questions relating to apportionment of members of the Legislature and boundaries of legislative districts be referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries for their consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President_     

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I am not quite ready yet to vote on that proposition. A committee here has been appointed_a standing committee by this body, called the committee on legislative. Another committee has been appointed upon executive. If I understand the duties of these committees, the duty of the one is to provide for an article upon the executive depart-partment of the State. The duty of the other is to provide for the legislative department of the State. Now, I do not understand why the matter should be referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries. I believe that it {176} is the duty of the committee on legislative to prepare an article for the Constitution specifying the membership of the two houses, leaving the matter of apportioning those delegates or those representatives through the different portions of this Territory in the hands of the committee on apportionment and boundaries. A conference committee was appointed when the conflict came between the two committees, and those committees met and talked this matter over. I understood as a result of that that the committee on apportionment were willing to concede to the committee on legislative that they might fix the maximum and minimum membership of the two houses, and then the committee on apportionment should bring in a final report to this Convention. I am glad the matter has been brought to the attention of the Convention, because it is important that these two committees should understand what their respective powers and duties are in this matter. For my own part, I have conceived it to be the duty of the legislative to designate the names of the two houses to be formed in the State and to specify the membership of those houses so far as it may be left to them.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I understood that there had been a conflict between those two committees referred to by the gentleman who has just spoken, and I understood that when this committee on apportionment and boundaries were appointed, that they were appointed for that purpose_to apportion the number of members for the Legislature and to define the boundaries of legislative districts. In talking with members that belonged to this committee I understand that this conference committee has not been held, but they have informed me_some of them, that they did not understand that the matter has been settled.

This committee on apportionment and boundaries is composed of one

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I ask that the resolution be read.

The resolution was re-read by the secretary.

Mr. THURMAN. Now, I do not see why that resolution should not prevail. The very name of that committee implies what it was appointed for. The resolution asks that all matters relating to apportionment and boundaries be referred to the committee on apportionment and boundaries, and how any question could have ever arisen in the minds of gentlemen respecting their duties in this respect, is something I am unable to understand. The legislative department is given to the committee_the name it has implies that it shall define the powers and jurisdiction of the legislative assembly when it meets as an assembly, the kind of laws that it may make; and it has nothing whatever to do with where they shall come from, or how many of them shall come from a certain district. You take that away from the committee on apportionment, and what have they got left to do? What were we created for?

Mr. RICHARDS. Will the gentleman from Utah permit me an interruption? I think the gentleman misapprehends the question; as I understand it from the reference made by the gentleman from Salt Lake, it was as to the number, not as to the locality and the apportionment {177 - APPORTIONMENT} , but as to the number that shall constitute the membership of each branch of the Legislature. I merely make the suggestion.

Mr. THURMAN. I am speaking to the resolution. The resolution is that matters relating to apportionment and boundaries be referred to the committee on apportionment and boundary.

Mr. RICHARDS. I think the gentleman is entirely correct, and that the resolution should prevail, but the question raised by the gentleman from Salt Lake was not that question.

Mr. THURMAN. It may be that the resolution as it is now written will not obtain the sense of this house upon the question the gentlemen want determined, but most certainly as the resolution is worded it ought to prevail and all such questions should go to that committee.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the wording of the resolution as presented; it seems to me that there is no objection, whatever, as far as the resolution itself is concerned, and it expresses the sense of this house, as to the proper method of procedure, but I understand also from the remarks of the mover of that motion that he thinks that resolution carries with it the power to fix the number of houses of the Legislature. That is a matter that has been in dispute between the two committees, the legislative committee claiming that by its

powers, by its name, it was the proper committee to determine what should be the membership of the two houses of the Legislature and should make the report to this Convention as to its final decision on that matter, to get the sense of the Convention. It is claimed, as I understand, by the committee on apportionment, that the power to apportion carries with it the power to fix the number of the Legislature, and I judge from the remarks of the gentleman moving this resolution, that he thinks this resolution will carry that power with it. The legislative committee is clear in its membership, that their province is to fix in their report the number of the upper and lower houses of the Legislature of the proposed State of Utah. And while I see no objection to the resolution, as it is, if I thought the resolution did take away from the legislative committee that power, I should certainly oppose it.

The question was called for by a number of members.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, the motion before the house is to adopt this resolution as offered by Mr. Howard.

The resolution was adopted.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I have a resolution which I desire to offer.

The resolution was read by the secretary, as follows:

Resolved, that it be the sense of this Convention that the jurisdiction of determining the number of senators and representatives properly belongs to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

The PRESIDENT. Is there a motion for adoption of the resolution?

Mr. SNOW. I move the adoption of the resolution.

Seconded.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, in the first stage of this Convention, I heard so much about precedents, now, I will state that the majority of the states and the United States have the power of fixing the number of senators and members of the lower house embodied in the legislative department.

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, but we don't follow precedent.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask you if the first day of the session was according to precedent.

Mr. EICHNOR. Well, we will make one, if we did not have one.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, and {178} gentlemen of the Convention, it is a matter that properly belongs to the legislative department to fix the number, and then the committee on apportionment distributes them over the Territory or over the coming State. Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, nearly all the western states_in fact I do not know any particular state that makes an exception to this general rule. As far as I am concerned, I am not on the legislative committee, neither am I on the committee on apportionment and boundaries, but as a principle laid down in constitutions, I am firmly of the opinion that the matter belongs to the legislative department. If there is contention between the legislative department and the committee on apportionment and boundaries, let them get together and not come in here and waste our time. Let them get together and agree on a plan.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, as the introducer of that resolution I desire to say that early in the session, or early in the week, I noticed in the newspaper that the chairman of the legislative committee had announced what in his opinion ought to be the proper ratio of numbers of members of the house of representatives and senate. This immediately set the members of the committee on apportionment and boundaries to talking about the subject, they unanimously believing that that had been delegated to them. In the committee room when it was suggested and carried and incorporated in the majority report that this committee should comprise a member from each county, it was understood by those members that this was one of their particular duties. When they were appointed upon that committee they believed so and they, consequently, sincerely and honestly believed that it was their proper jurisdiction. Likewise in all sincerity, the legislative committee claimed it and there has been a conflict of these two committees, and they have been unable to agree, and they said the only thing they could do was to get the sense of this Convention. Inasmuch as the resolution that was first presented here, did not cover the ground, and members of the legislative committee desired this question mooted, because they raised it themselves, I thought to bring it to an issue, and I think it is proper and should be decided upon by the Convention. Now, in relation to precedent. I have endeavored in my votes here to follow precedent. That is, a well established precedent of constitutional law. I hope every member of the Convention can say the same thing, but I do not think men who have voted here in this Convention on matters which they thought to be right against precedent ought to have anything to say about precedent now when a matter of right is before them. I contend that this is a matter of right,_of right it belongs to this committee, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Emery, that it is a representative committee composed of members from each county. Moreover, we have a very notable precedent for this. In the convention that framed the Constitution of the United States this same question came up and was referred to a committee consisting of a member from each state, with the express purpose of giving them all representation, not only as to the apportionment, but also as determining the number, the smaller states claiming repretentation in the senate with the larger ones, and the larger ones denying their right. Mr. President, there are quite a number of precedents in recent constitution making for the committee on apportionment having this jurisdiction. I have on my table the journal of the proceedings of the North Dakota constitutional convention, in which, on page 195, the chairman of this same committee on apportionment and boundaries makes a report to the house or to the convention, in which it says {179} that they have had under consideration files number 20, 33, 66 and 108, all of which refer

to and determine the number of senators and representatives and their apportionment in senatorial and representative districts throughout their state. Throughout the proceedings of this convention this committee had jurisdiction entirely over this determination of the number and of the apportionment. It is true that the constitutions which we have before us have, in the legislative department, incorporated the number that the senate and house shall consist of, but the journals do not substantiate the view that that committee has always had the jurisdiction of the determining of the number. Wyoming, I am credibly informed by members of the apportionment committee_Wyoming also in their journal gave the jurisdiction of this matter to their committee on boundaries and apportionment. It has always been represented to me that Michigan did also, but of the latter I cannot state from personal fact, as I have not had the possession of these journals, but I will say that in these two instances of recent constitution making they have delegated this power to this committee, and I think that it is proper, and it is right and eminently fit that this committee should handle it. As I said on the floors of this Convention some few days ago, there is no disposition in this committee to do anything that is unfair or unjust, but they desire that in this important matter every county shall be represented, and I contend that it is the most fit committee that we have of all our standing committees to decide on this important question, and bring in a report to this Convention.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, as a member of the committee on the various standing committees, I wish to say in reply to the gentleman who has just taken his seat that the committee has never talked, so far as my information goes, to the effect that we should allow the committee on apportionment and boundaries to have anything to do or say with the number of senators or representatives. That belongs, according to my judgment, to the legislative committee. The object that I had in view, and I believe the majority of the committee had, was that the committee on apportionment and boundaries take into consideration and perfect senatorial and legislative districts throughout the Territory, and the object of having a member of that committee from each county was to see that that county was properly apportioned and had its representation. I don't think there is any doubt in the mind of any member of this Convention, except perhaps one or two, in regard to the true construction of these committees and what the intention of the committee was who formed these committees. The resolution reads:

Resolved, that it be the sense of this Convention that the jurisdiction of determining the number of senators and representatives properly belongs to the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, as one of the committee that helped create this committee, I wish to say that my understanding was exactly the reverse of that of the gentleman who has just spoken. He understood that that would be the purpose_that was discussed and the name of this committee was brought in question and it was so decided as I understood that this committee was the one that should have that jurisdiction, and it appears to me to be right and proper, for the reason that the committee consisted of one member from each county and that it would be proper for that committee to say how many it should consist of and where the boundaries should be, and there has been no precedent cited to the contrary. The precedents mentioned by Mr. Eichnor were not cited. We have no precedent {180} before us to the contrary of what was stated by Mr. Snow.

Therefore, I believe that that is the proper committee. I believe that that was the understanding of the committee that created it and that it was for that expressed purpose, and therefore I favor that motion and I believe that that jurisdiction should be conferred upon them.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I also was a member of the committee which fixed or suggested the number of names of the standing committee, and I wish to say that either my recollection or the gentleman's recollection who last spoke, is wonderfully defective. My understanding of that was when discussed in that committee that the only duty in this matter that belonged to the committee on apportionment and boundaries, was to apportion the senatorial and representative districts and that it was the proper function of the legislative committee to determine the number both of senators and representatives that should be in the senate and in the house respectively. In the matter of precedent_I do not see that is a subject that need detain us very long. Gentlemen will find precedents for the contention of each side of this question. The matter of apportionment has sometimes in constitutional conventions been referred to the legislative committee, and not only the matter of fixing the number in the house and in the senate, but also naming the districts from which they should come. That has sometimes been done by the legislative committee. That, however, is something that the legislative committee does not ask to do. In other words, the legislative committee does not propose to encroach upon the ground at all of the committee on apportionment and boundaries, but it seems to me that the committee on apportionment and boundaries does propose to trench upon the ground which properly belonged to the legislative committee. The simple fact that the committee on apportionment and boundaries is made up of one member from each county, amounts to nothing in this question. I do not concede to that committee_although it is more numerous than the legislative committee_that they can any better fix the number of the legislators of the new State than the legislative committee. We have already conceded considerably to that committee. There was a minority report here that contended against the apportionment on making up the personnel of that committee, by a member from each county, but it was conceded that there might be some one who understood local positions or local situations, and that they might fix the boundaries and representative districts. Having conceded so much to them, they now come and ask for something further, taking the matter which distinctly belongs to the legislative committee, which there is one in existence in the Convention, and assuming to determine the number of members in the Legislature. The gentleman from Utah County, in speaking to the former resolution on this subject, said that he believed the name indicated what ought to be done in the case of that resolution; that when it was a case of fixing the boundaries and legislative districts, it properly belonged to the committee bearing that name. I hope that in this issue he will be equally consistent and that when a question is before the house as to whether the committee on legislative shall determine the number of senators, and the number of representatives, and the proportion between the membership of the lower house and the upper house, since it evidently tends to the organization of the Legislature, that he will vote with us and say that it is a matter that belongs properly to the legislative committee, as most certainly it does. The fixing of the number of members in the Legislature is one thing, the distribution of districts from which those members shall come, is quite a different thing, and the committee on {181} apportionment and boundaries should have charge of the latter proposition; and it is clear to my mind that the committee on legislative should have the jurisdiction over the former proposition, and I hope that this resolution will not prevail.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I am not so much of a precedent follower, unless precedent is in the line of reason and common sense, and when you go according to that, why then it usually meets my views, I believe; I might cite a great many instances that would support, perhaps, this proposition. If people had followed precedent and kept in the line of tradition the country would not have reached the state of progress that we find it to-day. We would have different modes of travel, we would entertain different theories in regard to the shape of this globe, and we would have had different manners of communicating our ideas, and the distance would not have been so completely obliterated as it is, and time brought to a minimum. But if we should go for precedents, we will find plenty of them to support both positions. However, in cases where the legislative committee has fixed the number, it has been in instances where there has been no apportionment committee. Where there is an apportionment committee, and legislative committee, in many instances the legislative committee has specified the maximum and the minimum, and the apportionment committee has named the number that should constitute the senate and the house within those lines.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman permit me a question?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you understand that the legislative committee desires to name the districts and boundaries of the districts from which the legislators shall come?

Mr. ELDREDGE. I hardly know what they do desire.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, then, if you will permit me, I will say that that is not their contention; they don't ask for that, but to do just what you proposed a moment ago, to fix the maximum and minimum of the membership of the Legislature and your committee to apportion them.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I understood and I believe that it was not to fix a maximum and a minimum, but was to fix, as I remember, what should constitute the senate, and what should constitute the house of representatives, if they so name it_the senate and the house of representatives, but if the gentleman has taken a different position, it is the first information I have had of the change of his position. I did agree in order to have harmony and that the matter should not be brought before this body to consume their time, to accord unto them the privilege of stating the minimum and the maximum, and that we should govern ourselves then on that line, but when I made this proposition to them, it did not meet with their approval, and they have forced the measure until it was brought upon this floor. I shall now stand squarely, Mr. President, upon what I consider to be right in the premises, and this Convention must determine whether that is so or not. The

sovereign power is within the people, and it is with them to say what representation they shall have in a legislative body. Then {182} if it is not in the condition that we can reach the entire voice of the people we must then take that body which comes the nearest to reaching that, and if we will simply canvass the make up of the two committees, we will very readily ascertain that the committee on apportionment and boundaries lies nearer to the sovereign power than the committee on legislative power does.

I therefore hold that it is the prerogative and it is the right of that committee, not only to designate the localities from which the senators and from which the representatives will come, but it is their right to say the number, and upon this proposition I shall rest it with my colleagues upon this floor.

Mr. EICHNOR. May I ask the gentleman from Summit a question?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EICHNOR. Your committee desires to fix the number of the lower house and the senate?

Mr. ELDREDGE. How is that?

Mr. EICHNOR. Your committee on apportionment desires to fix the number of members of the
lower house and of the senate?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EICHNOR. Does your committee also desire to fix the number of judges in the various judicial districts?

Mr. ELDREDGE. I wish to say, Mr. President, that is not the question under consideration.

Mr. EICHNOR. That is apportionment.

Mr. THURMAN. Question.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to ask the delegate from Summit a question, and that is, how is it that the committee on apportionment have gotten nearer to the sovereign power than the committee on legislative department? That is a matter that I desire information upon.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I will answer.

Mr. RICHARDS. I had supposed that all the delegates of this Convention were equally near to the sovereign power. [Laughter].

Mr. ELDREDGE. I will answer it in this way, Mr. President, I believe that the gentleman from Salt Lake will concur in the proposition. The committee on legislative is composed of fifteen

members, the committee upon apportionment is composed of twenty-six members. That constitutes one member from each county of the Territory of Utah, and in that it is voicing the whole people. So far as it can be reached by committee, I am sure that the gentleman from Salt Lake who asked the question, if he will consult to reason for one moment, will admit that a member from a county understands the wants and the interests of that county to a greater extent than a person that knows nothing about the county.

Mr. SNOW. Will the gentleman allow me to give him the information? Mr. Snow of Washington County is the only member of the legislative committee south of the county of Utah.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Convention, I think that in discussing this question, we should be dispassionate, and the committee that has most clearly the right to perform this work is the one to which it should be assigned. In the first place, the very name of the legislative committee to my mind suggests the idea that it shall propose measures connected with the legislature that shall be transacted by the people. I believe in following precedent where we can, but I always believe that it is better to be right than to have any precedent and follow it, simply because some other fellow did wrong in the past, and when the gentleman from Summit says that the sovereign is more closely represented in the committee on apportionment, I distinctly deny that any such thing is the case. Who are you here to represent, counties or people? In the apportionment committee {183} we have a man from each county.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question?

Mr. CANNON. Certainly.

Mr. ELDREDGE, What does it take to constitute a county_what would it be without people?

Mr. CANNON. It takes to constitute a county a certain amount of land, sometimes partially settled, sometimes thickly inhabited.

Mr. THURMAN. A mere question of real estate. [Laughter.]

Mr. CANNON. When the gentleman from Summit says he believes in getting near the people and acting their sovereign power, does he consider it just to have a county which comprises from twelve to thirteen thousand voters have only the same representation as a county which comprises a few hundred? Is that the proportion with which this committee on apportionment would like to fix our Legislature? If it is, I think to my mind it is clear that it is not that committee that should consider that subject. We have in this case one man who represents the people of the largest county_the most populous, he represents those people upon the committee upon apportionment and it makes no difference whether we have one from each county or not, when you want to come near to the people, go to the representatives of the people; and in this whole question_the question before both committees should be, let us be just to the people, not to the number of acres that may be represented by any representative here upon this floor. It is a question of human rights, not of sand and banks of stone, not of water, or anything of that kind,

but it is the people who want representation and those people are in proportion to their numbers, not to the size of the ground they occupy.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I do not think it is the object of the committee on apportionment and boundaries to confine the representation to the counties, that is, one member from each county. I believe that their object is to assign at least one from each county, and enough more in proportion to get a proper representation in the several counties. There is not a man on this floor, I presume, but what is a citizen of the United States, and the citizens of the United States boast that the United States is a land of progress_a civilized people_a people of progress, a people of advancement, a people of advanced institutions; and how can we ascribe that they have got that only through the people? It is because the people represent the government. They have a voice in the formation of the government; they have a voice to say who shall be their representatives, and how many they shall be. They have a voice in saying what kind of men shall go to represent them in the law-making bodies, and it is all the people that do this. It is in every state in the Union. There is no committee; there is no part of the Union that is misrepresented, or that is not represented in Congress. But all states have equal rights according to their population. Now, when it comes to this committee here that is appointed on this proposition, that is in contention, now, I claim that the committee on apportionment and boundaries is a committee that represents the whole people of the Territory. I do not say by this that this committee of fifteen on legislative does not represent the people of the Territory. We are all here to represent the people of the Territory. But this committee on apportionment and boundaries represent the people from every county in the Territory and I believe that they ought to have the right to say what their representation shall be. I have no objection_I do not suppose that any man on that committee has any objections to that committee being increased if necessary and give Salt Lake County, which has this great amount of population {184} and wealth, more representation on that committee if necessary. I would have no objection to that, but I do claim that every county in the Territory should be represented on that committee, and not only that, but they should be represented in the legislative body. For that reason I hope that the motion of Mr. Snow will prevail.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I call for the previous question.

Mr. RICHARDS. I arise to ask the gentleman to waive his request on the previous question until I make a personal explanation. Reference was made to my remark by the delegate from Summit, and the suggestion was made that I wouldn't dispute it, or that I would concede certain statements that were made.

Mr. KERR. All right.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to say that I do not endorse or concur in any such idea. I do not believe that any committee of this Convention or any member of this Convention is any nearer to the sovereign power of this Territory than any other committee or any other member. Furthermore, I understand that the duties of the committees of this Convention are simply to suggest to this body, as to what in their judgment is the most proper in their respective departments, and that the whole matter will be before this Convention, and it is this Convention that represents the sovereign power, and not any committee of this Convention or any delegate of this Convention.

That is my position. Now, as to upon whom devolves this duty, I care not whether the duty be performed by this committee on apportionment or whether it be performed by the legislative committee, but it seems to me there is a propriety about this. It seems to me that we ought to have, after the committees have been appointed, those committees perform the duties that usually appertain to the committees and certainly this is a duty that is usually and ordinarily devolved upon the legislative department, and I think it should be prepared by that committee.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I desire to speak in support of the resolution. It is true that the report of the committee    

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman continue to withdraw his motion?

Mr. KERR. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILL. I would like to be excused.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Hill will be excused if there is no objection.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It is quite true that the Convention will revise the action of any committee. It is equally true, that the Convention is the sovereign body, having the revisory power over the reports of all the committees, but gentlemen of the Convention, you will find that when a committee after due deliberation and investigation reports to this Convention that it will come with additional weight, especially if that report should happen to be unanimous. The gentleman from Salt Lake County states that this is a question of representation, not of sand hills and plains and mountains. Such a question as this in the early history of our country was raised when our revolutionary fathers were struggling against the tyranny of Great Britian . It was then said by the British parliament, that the colonists were living in a wild waste of country, timbered, where the war whoop of the Indians was heard and where civilization had no place.

Mr. CANNON. I would rise to a question of privilege. I would rise to explain that the gentleman does not accept my position correctly. My position, is Mr. Evans, that the question of representing the people being nearer to the sovereign people is not determined by locality.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Exactly, that is about what I was saying, it was so considered by the English parliament, that the sovereignty was in the king {185} and that the center of population was there. At that time the people of the colonies were subjects of Great Britain. They were not willing to give the proper representation to this country on account of the fact that it was partially settled, uncivilized, but that great power_the greatest on earth, was humiliated by the very people whom they sought to subject. Give these counties representation in the Legislature, and who can apportion it better than the committee on representation composed of a member from each county? These barren sand hills and plains may be fruitful orchards. They might be highly cultivated and brought into subjection by man, but it is known in the history of legislation and in all governmental departments that the success that might be obtained in the arts and industries is largely measured by the benefits derived from legislation. If those counties have the apportionment of the number of members of the Legislature, composing the two houses, they will

then have an equal part with the more populous and favored localities in bestowing the benefits which civilization will confer and will perhaps have the right to confer. Mr. President, this thing, in a small way, is somewhat analagous to the formation of the great government which we have in these United States. The smaller states at the time of the formation of the Constitution of the United States demanded the right of equal representation with the larger states in the senate of the United States. This right, which has been stated, was denied upon the part of the representatives of the larger states, but finally a compromise was made upon that question and all states were equally entitled to representation in the higher branch of the legislature; and the question of apportionment in the lower house went by population, and so I think it ought to be in this new State. I believe in the plan which has been adopted by many of the states to give representation to each county in the state senate. If we have as many senators as there are counties in the new State, I think each county ought to have a senator instead of a representative. They ought to have their representation in that way, and then in the lower branch of the Legislature, let them represent the people according to population. I therefore favor the resolution and hope that it will be adopted.

Mr. L. LARSON. Mr. President, it does appear to me that this is a matter that belongs to the legislative. That legislative ought to have the privilege to mention the maximum and the minimum number, as it has been agreed upon. I have understood it so from the beginning that that is the understanding between the two committees, not that the legislative committee will take in hand the apportionment of the senators and representatives, or that they would name the number_not the exact number, but the maximum and the minimum, and then the apportionment committee would have the privilege to select the proper number whichever they might agree upon. That is my understanding, and I do not now see why the committee on apportionment tries to draw out or kick out from this understanding or agreement. It appears to me that it is proper that a legislative committee should have this much to say and not leave it entirely to the committee on apportionment, which consists of one member from each county. All over this Territory many of those counties are small, and in this way it does appear to me an equitable apportionment would hardly be given. The legislative committee ought to state the number that has been agreed upon or the maximum and minimum, and then let the other committee decide as to the apportionment thereof. This is the way that I think is the proper way, and my vote will go that way.
{186}
Mr. SHURTLIFF. Mr. President, I move the postponement of this question until to-morrow morning.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I hear no second to that motion; I would like to be heard on the question. I judge from some of the debates which we have already had upon the subject that our friends from the lower counties are very much alarmed for fear that they will not get justice, if the matter is left to the legislative committee. I judge that also from the tenure of a resolution offered by the gentleman from Washington on yesterday_that every county of the Territory should be represented by one member in the lower house. I understood also from the remarks of the gentleman from Washington, that this action is based upon a statement published on the newspapers as emanating from the chairman of the legislative committee; that statement, I believe, was something like this, that the upper house of the State Legislature should consist of

fourteen members, and that the lower house should consist of twenty-seven members, and taking it for granted that the chairman of this committee is speaking for the committee_for I understand no other possible method by which they can use their information_they are afraid that the counties that are partially settled will not be properly represented. Now I call the attention of all those gentlemen to this fact, that if this matter is left to the legislative committee, they won't have their work to do over twice. If this matter is left to the legislative committee, and they report to this Convention a plan forming the upper house and lower house, and stating the number of members that shall constitute each body, and this house approves or if it disapproves, and settles upon some other plan, then the committee on apportionment will have its work before them. They want to go over this whole Territory and apportion the districts twice, as they may very properly have to do if we depend upon them to make their report first. I have just asked the question from the gentleman on my right here from Garfield, I believe, as to how many members the committee on apportionment desires in the lower house.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I did not understand you to ask that question. You asked me how many are they that desire it?

Mr. SQUIRES. We will take it that way. Representing the committee upon the floor and in debate, I ask the gentleman he desires to represent in the lower house and he informs me that they thought about forty.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. It is not the question now before the house as to what it is probable that shall be. The question is as to what committee should decide as to what the number shall be.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will confine himself to the discussion of
the question.

Mr. SQUIRES. I believe I am confining myself as closely to the subject under discussion as other gentlemen have. I want to look at that question just a moment. Forty representatives from the Territory. One from every county, that takes up twenty-seven. We have twenty-seven counties in the Territory. That will leave thirteen representatives to be distributed among all the other counties in the Territory.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I again rise to a point of order. I think that the gentleman is not speaking to the question that is before the house.

The PRESIDENT. I do not think the point of order is well taken.

Mr. SQUIRES. Well, Mr. President, I don't know why my friend from Weber County took us across the Atlantic and discussed the question of King George, away back before the revolution; in discussing the question, if I am not {187} speaking on the subject along the lines of discussion, I do not understand it.

The PRESIDENT. The chair's ruling is that the gentleman is in order.

Mr. HOWARD. May I ask the gentleman a question that has last spoken? Is the gentleman opposed to each county having one representative?

Mr. SQUIRES. I am not at all opposed to it.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I call for the previous question.

Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman withhold that a moment please?

The PRESIDENT. The previous question is called for.

The previous question was ordered.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house is upon the adoption of the resolution introduced by Mr. Snow.

The secretary will read the resolution, so that there will be no question in the minds of the gentlemen.

The secretary read the resolution.

The question being put, the chair was in doubt and a call of the roll being demanded, the vote was as follows:

AYES_53.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Brandley
Buys
Call
Chidester
Christianson
Clark
Coray
Corfman

NOES_37.
Bowdle
Button

The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been adopted, gentlemen.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I understand that while absent, this Convention, in a moment of hilarity, decided that the committee on compilation and arrangement should revise the minutes daily; is that true?

The PRESIDENT. That is true, sir.

Mr. GOODWIN. I move the reconsideration of that vote.

The PRESIDENT. You did not vote on it; you cannot do it.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman whether he voted on that or not?

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, to relieve the gentleman and for his benefit, I move a reconsideration of that order.

Mr. GOODWIN. I second that motion. I won't detain the Convention more than a moment. I once read a story of Sir Walter Scott of an old baron who could not read or write and who had sold some land and when they brought the papers for him to sign he says, “Do you take me for a blank clark?”

Now, without confessing whether I can read or write or not, or whether the other members on that committee can or not, I want to ask this Convention if they take Mr. Thatcher, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Lambert, and myself, for “clarks.” It is the duty of the clerk to keep these records and to have them right. He gets fifty per cent. more salary than any of us. It is his duty to do it himself or employ someone else, or to give up that place to someone else that can. We will have the duty of looking over the reports of all the committees in this Convention. The place was supposed to be rather honorable. Now. how are we going to keep the minutes unless we get there behind the desk? I suppose that in a moment of hilarity, as I said before, the Convention passed that resolution. I ask to have it reconsidered and that the clerk keep his own minutes.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I was also absent temporarily from the main hall when this question was being debated or I should certainly have spoken on it then. I agree with the gentleman who has last spoken. It is a great labor that you have laid upon this committee (I think somewhat hastily and thoughtlessly), and you might just as well release us from all
other duties, as to make us minute clerks of this Convention, to compel us daily to revise these minutes and to compare them_how can we perform that duty? How much better qualified are we than any other members upon this floor to keep track of what is going on at this desk and to revise these minutes and furnish you gentlemen that you will have a correct report of it next day? It is the business of the clerks who are paid for the labor and the proper way it seems to me would have been to have elected a minute clerk competent to attend to this matter and not put it upon this committee. I do not feel that it is just or right and I trust that this motion will be reconsidered, and that we will proceed to the election of a minute clerk.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I think this motion to reconsider ought to prevail, and I therefore second it.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, you have heard the motion to reconsider. The motion was carried.

The PRESIDENT. The matter is up for further consideration.

Mr. RICKS. I move we adjourn. Seconded.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman to withhold that for one moment.

Mr. RICKS. All right.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on adjournment.

Mr. LAMBERT. He said he would withhold it until I present this matter that I have here.

Mr. RICKS. If it is desired I will withdraw the motion, with the consent of my second.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, the previous question is before the house. No other question can transpire but the adjournment. We moved to reconsider and when it carried it brought that question before the assembly, and the previous question {189} must now be put. No other matter can be considered but adjournment.

The PRESIDENT. The question, gentlemen, before the house is upon the question as to whether this matter shall be referred to the committee on revision and compilation. Shall the debate in regard to this matter now cease?

DELEGATE. Yes.

The PRESIDENT. All who are in favor of that say aye; those opposed, no.

The ayes have it.

Now, the question is in regard to the commitment of this to the committee on revision and compilation. The matter is now before the Convention for its consideration in regard to referring it to that committee or taking it from that committee. If the chair isn't right, I would like to be corrected in this matter.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion on the table.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I have to arise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT. I think the point of order is well taken. The question is on the recommittal of this, and I think the point of order is well taken.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table, which takes precedence of all other matters, except to adjourn to a day certain or to adjourn indefinitely, and should be put without debate under our rules.

Mr. GIBBS. I second the motion.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I would like to be heard on my point of order. The previous question has been ordered and when that is so ordered, the question then must be put, “the question now recurs as to whether we will make the reference to that committee or not.” I am in favor of voting it down, [*note*]

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's point of order is well taken I think in regard to that matter. Gentlemen, the question is, shall the matter be referred to the committee?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I wish to say this, I understand that the previous question was put. Now, that cuts off all debates as regards to the reconsideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. When the chair has ruled on this question the gentleman must take his seat or appeal from the decision of the chair.

The PRESIDENT. I ruled that the gentleman's point of order is well taken.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Then, I will ask that the gentleman be seated, if it requires the sergeant-at- arms to do it.

The PRESIDENT. The question is, gentlemen, upon the reference of this proposition for them to revise the minutes, that is the question before the house. All that are in favor of the motion will say aye; contrary, no.

The motion was lost.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move that a special committee of three_

Mr. THURMAN. I arise to a point of order. The motion now before the house as to the engrossing and enrolling committee, as to whether that matter shall be referred to them or not.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is right.

Gentlemen, you have heard the motion_this was the amendment to the original motion; all in favor of this going to the committee on engrossing and enrollment will say aye; opposed, no.

The motion is lost.

Mr. CREER. I move we now adjourn.

Mr. RICKS. I second the motion.