! The Capitol Complex is closed to the public due to COVID-19. All meetings will be held virtually online. View virtual meeting instructions (PDF).

[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.

FIFTEENTH DAY.


MONDAY, March 18, 1895.



The Convention was called to order at 2 o'clock p. m. by President Smith.

The secretary called the roll 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
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Farr
Francis
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Hammond
Hart
Lambert
Larson, L.
Larson, C. P.
Lemmon


Lewis
Low, William
Low, Peter
Low, Cache
Lund
Maeser
Mackintosh
Maloney
Maughan
McFarland
Miller
Morris
Moritz
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Wasatch
Murdock, Summit
Nebeker
Page
Partridge
Peters
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete
Pierce
Preston
Raleigh
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Robinson, Kane
Robison, Wayne
{197 - MEMORIALS}
Haynes
Halliday
Heybourne
Hill
Howard
Hughes
Hyde
Ivins
James
Johnson
Jolley
Kiesel
Keith
Kearns
Kerr
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Ryan
Shurtliff
Snow
Spencer
Squires
Stover
Strevell
Symons
Thompson
Thoreson
Thurman
Van Horne
Warrum
Wells
Whitney
Williams.

Prayer was offered by Rev. J. D. Gillilan, of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The minutes of the thirteenth day's session were read, corrected and approved.

Petitions and memorials.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a memorial of the Woman's Suffrage Association of Salt Lake City. I move that it be read in full and referred to the committee on elections and rights of suffrage.

The secretary read the same as follows:

The undersigned delegates of the Woman's Suffrage Association of Salt Lake County, appointed to represent that association in presenting the memorial to your honorable body, respectfully state, that the women of said association, together with all the women of the Territory of Utah, are at present deprived of the privileges of American citizenship and the right of suffrage, notwithstanding the majority of them are native born citizens of the United States. We further represent that though amenable to the laws and pay taxes for the support of the municipal and territorial government exactly the same as male citizens, yet we are not permitted a voice or vote in the levying or expenditure of said taxes nor in making the laws by which we are governed.


We further represent that though a few women may not be willing to exercise the right of suffrage, we believe that the majority of the women of this Territory desire and will conscientiously use this great privilege of citizenship, and that it is not just that the large number who desire it should be longer deprived of their rights as citizens, because of the few who are indifferent.


We rejoice that both of the great political parties in Utah have declared in favor of equal suffrage, and we

now ask that the pledges made to the women of Utah be kept and that the new State of Utah may have a Constitution framed upon the basis of justice and privileges for all citizens.



Believing that you are actuated by sentiments of true liberty and justice and because you have solemnly pledged yourselves to the enfranchisement of the women of this Territory, we respectfully request that you insert a clause in the Constitution of the State of Utah, conferring upon women the rfght of suffrage, and your memorialists will ever pray.


Ellen B. Ferguson, Elizabeth J. MacFarlane, Mary E. Irvine, May P. Silver, Jemima R. Midgley.


The memorial was referred to the committee on elections and rights of suffrage.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I have the honor to present a memorial from the Suffrage Association of Utah Territory, asking for the equal suffrage for men and women. I ask that the memorial be read and referred to the committee on elections and rights of suffrage.

The memorial was read as follows:


To the Honorable Members of the Constitutional Convention of Utah:


We, your petitioners and memorialists representing the great majority of the women of Utah, and more particularly as the official representatives of the great woman organizations of Utah, numbering in aggregate membership over thirty-five thousand, viz:


The Utah Suffrage Association, auxiliary to the National American Woman's Suffrage Association, the National Woman's Relief Society, and the Young Ladies' National Mutual Improvement Associations, these thousands of women standing in a general way, or in virtue of direct official relationship, as our constituents, we your memorialists, speak in their names, and in behalf of the women of Utah, herewith present the woman's cause.


It is a matter of congratulation that in these closing years of the nineteenth century, the cause of woman can, without the stigma of partisanship, be laid before a body of chosen men to the work {198} of creating a new sovereignty within the galaxy of states as an equal member of the indissoluble Union. The men of Utah, in their respective parties, have, with equal unanimity, said that woman shall be accorded equal rights and privileges of citizenship, that sex distinction shall no longer be a ban and a bar to equal opportunity with men to exercise the God given power and capabilities which women are endowed for purposes of equal self government and equal enjoyment of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We take it that the men of Utah have spoken honestly, sincerely, conscientiously, as men, to that equally large number of citizens who are now disfranchised, who are now deprived of authority to speak a word or cast a vote in the framing of an organic law which determines their personal and property rights, their civil and political status in the social organism.


We are glad to feel assured that our brothers are dealing honestly and righteously with us, and that they will ordain truth and justice in the name of God and humanity; and we are happy, too, in the belief that these overtures made by the men of Utah, are in line with the onward march of civilization, that the bow of promise is rising higher and brighter in the heavens of human hope, that with the elevation and emancipation of woman, “the plans of God are ripening with the process of the suns.” And we say to you that we contemplate no rival sovereignty, no sphere peculiar and apart, no conflicting regime or antagonistic legislation, no hostile policy or divided councils. No, the woman movement means only true

human progress, it means higher and truer harmony, more genuine and enlightened fellowship, more real co-operation, more vital and perpetual union. The key and the clue to all true progress is the large harmony that the Infinite Spirit is breathing into the rising grandeur of human development.



As constitution makers, as framers of the chart that shall guide us on what we hope to be a long and prosperous future, you will cherish in your deliberations a sacred regard for the principles of liberty, for those undying axioms that we have laid at the foundations of our temple of freedom. We have thousands of women in Utah who are property holders and taxpayers in their own right. Probably no other state furnishes as large a roll of taxpaying women. “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” This was the key note, the bugle call of the revolutionary fathers in their struggle for liberty. Says James Otis, in 1764, in one of the pamphlets that made our independence. 'The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights. For one civil right is not worth a rush after a man's property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure without his consent. If a man is not his own assessor in person, or by deputy, his liberty is gone.'' Hon. Charles Sumner, in his speech on March 7th, 1866, endorses the declarations of James Otis, and he says, “Stronger words for universal suffrage could not be employed.” His argument is that if men are taxed without being represented they are deprived of essential rights.


These axioms are as clear as sunlight, and it would be in violation of the fundamental principles of our institutions for the men of Utah to frame laws whereby women propertyholders shall be taxed without their consent, given through such represention as is accorded to men as a condition precedent to their being taxed.


Again, all our constitutions, either in terms or in substance, commence their preambles with the comprehensive formula, “We the people. Our government, “of the people, for the people and by the people.”


Whatever the status of women may be, they are at least a part of the people. As such, the government provides a place for them and by no form or principle of reasoning can they be deprived of such rights and privileges as inure to men under government, without at the same time destroying the natural rights which men hold for themselves to be inviolate.


Furthermore, by the Declaration of Independence, the existence of government hinges upon “the consent of the governed.” This consent is to be given through the form of provisions whereby governments are made and administered. This consent goes to the framing of the constitution, to the enactment of laws under that constitution and to the administration of those laws; and there can be no consent without representation. Hence, the disfranchisement of half the people and a large proportion of taxpayers and creators of wealth is tyranny pure and simple, even though it be under the shadow and in the name of liberty and free government.


But we seek not to weary you with the recital of axioms; what we desire is, that we may uphold your hands in revealing them to the world and making them effective in human government. Jefferson laid a deep foundation for human freedom in planting equal rights at the roots of the tree of liberty; but it was given to Lincoln to make these principles most effective, and to cause {199} them to shine as the noonday sun in the firmament of American history.


He said, “I believe the day is not far distant when woman will wield the ballot to purify and ennoble politics. I go for all sharing in the government who assist in bearing its burdens, by no means excluding the female.”


To you, gentlemen of the Utah Constitutional Convention, it is given to make other deep and

fundamental principles of our government effective in the administration of law. We do not doubt your ability and willingness to do so. But we come to greet you in behalf of the women of Utah to strengthen your hand and to assure you that we are keenly alive to the importance and far reaching consequences of your labor in our behalf.



And above all we would impress you with the fact that the women of Utah are by no means indifferent spectators of the drama that is now being enacted. We believe that every age has its rising and its setting sun. We believe that the woman movement has come because the sun of our civilization has thrown across our social horizon the dawning of a new and more glorious era in the history of man. We believe that “through the ages an eternal purpose runs,” and that in the full enfranchisement of women there will come a larger, truer sovereignty, a national conscientiousness in fuller harmony with the temporal welfare and happiness of man. We believe that both men and women will be benefited morally, sociably, and economically. We believe that now the time clock of American destiny has struck the hour to inaugurate a larger and truer civil life, and the future writers of Utah history will immortalize the names of those men who, in this Constitutional Convention, define the injustice and prejudice of the past, strike off the bonds that have heretofore enthralled woman, and open the doors that will usher her into free and full emancipation.


We, therefore, ask you to provide in the Constitution, that the rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex, and that male and female citizens of the State shall equally enjoy all civil, political, and religious rights and privileges.


Signed: Emmeline B. Wells, President of the Woman's Suffrage Association of Utah.    Emily S. Richards, Vice President; Zina D. H. Young, President of the National Woman Relief Society, Jane S. Richards, Vice President; Ellen B. Ferguson, Salt Lake County Suffrage Association: Electa Bullock, Utah County Association; Lucy A. Clark and Jennie Nelson, Weber County Association; Celia Bean, Sevier; Silvia L, Cox, Sanpete; M. A. Grover, Juab; M. H. Cannon, Salt Lake; E. T. Stevenson, Salt Lake; Louisa L. Wright, Joanna Milton, Cora G. Carlton, Isabella Horne, Ada Williams, Kate S. Hilliard, S. E. Anderson, Sarah A. Howard, Elizabeth J. MacFarlane, Mary E. Irvine, Jemima B. Midgley, Lydia D. Alder, Maria M. B. Horrocks, E. K. Peke, Rebecca H. Boolan, Margaret A. Caine, Ella W. Hyde, Jane A. Hatch, Rose E. Hatch, Emily Stevenson, Priscilla J. Riter, Mattie A. Brieger, Aurelia S. Rogers, Monica Secrist, Harriet A. Badger, Mary A. Freeze, Mary Elizabeth H. Shipp, Mary J. Holden, Josephine Howard, Annie Farley, Ellen C. Clawson, Mrs. Katie L. Paxman, Mary L. Moser, Susan Grant, Sarah H. Roberts, Harriet Beers, Eliza Jenkins, Hannah Jenkinson, Christina Atley.


The memorial was referred to the committee on elections and rights of suffrage.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I have a petition here from 750 of the residents of Cache Valley. I move that the petition be read and referred to the committee on corporations other than municipal.

The secretary read the same as follows:

To the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Utah:


GENTLEMEN:_The undersigned respectfully petition your honorable body to consider the advisability of placing in the Constitution of the State of Utah a clause to prohibit the forming of trusts or combines to control the prices of the necessaries of life.


The petition was referred to the committee on corporations other than municipal.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. President, I ask the Convention to excuse the committee on education and public lands for a while. They desire to continue the work
of the morning.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection the committee will be excused.
The committee on printing submitted the following report:

Convention Hall, March 18th, 1895.

MR. PRESIDENT:


Your committee on printing beg leave to report that they have received bids from bookbinders of the city for the {200 - REPORTS} making of covers or holders for the minutes and reports of the Convention, and recommend that the contract be awarded to Kelly & Co., who offer to make 220 for $32.50.


LAMBERT, Chairman.


The report was adopted.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I beg leave to submit the report of the committee on preamble and declaration of rights, and in doing so, I wish to explain that while the committee have given the subject as much consideration as time would permit, they have necessarily been somewhat hurried and hampered by the knowledge or the understanding that this Convention expected them to submit the result of their work first; that is, before any of the other committees had presented theirs, so that we are free to admit that the instrument is not perfect. We do not claim perfection for it by any means. We are aware that the instrument will be subjected to the fusilade of a hundred guns, and we have endeavored to construct it with a view to withstanding such bombardment, but, if it does not withstand it, we have this consolation, gentlemen, that like gold in the furnace, it will be purified and improved by the fire. And before you begin your bombardment, I desire to say that the committee have endeavored to keep this fact well in mind, that in their opinion a constitution should not be a code of laws, but rather the magna charta of our liberties, upon which the laws may be afterwards founded. If there are rights dear to the people of Utah which we have not enumerated, we hope that you gentlemen will discover and insert them. And if, on the other hand, we have inserted rights which ought to be left to the Legislature, we shall not be offended if they are stricken out. Our desire is that the people of this commonwealth shall have all the rights and all the privileges enjoyed by the people of the other states of this Union, all the rights which a free and enlightened people, who have been too long kept in territorial bondage, have the right to expect. And now, gentlemen, we recommend our work to you in the hope that it may meet your wishes and the needs of the people of our great Territory and the future State of Utah, and in the further hope that when this Convention shall have finished its work, the declaration and preamble, as well as the entire Constitution, may be as perfect as it is possible for human brain and ingenuity to make it; a Constitution that may be looked to by those states which may follow us into the Union as a model for them to pattern after, one that it may be said of that nothing need be added to it and nothing taken away. I have one request, gentlemen, to make, and that is that Mr. Whitney, of Salt Lake County, who has all

along acted as the secretary of our committee, and who is therefore entirely familiar with the construction and rhetoric of the document, be permitted to give it its first reading.

The PRESIDENT. Under the rule it goes to the committee of the whole.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, under the rule, it is ordered printed and referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, we don't insist upon this being read now, if the Convention don't wish it. But if it is read now, that Mr. Whitney do the reading. That is all.

The report was read by the secretary by its title and under the rules went to the committee on printing.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, that being the initial work of our Constitution, I move you that the rules be suspended and that the report of the committee on preamble and declaration of rights be read in full in this Convention.

Mr. KEARNS. I second the motion.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would prefer to see that go in the regular order to the committee of the whole. We will have that printed, if it is not {201 - PROPOSITIONS} already printed, and we can read it at our leisure, It is not worth our while, unless we are going to consider this in the committee of the whole now to have it read.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, it seems to me that it would be an entirely useless thing to have this read before this body. It will be printed. This is an instrument which ought to be taken by each member and carefully studied. A mere casual reading of the instrument at this time would only occupy considerable space and at the same time would be purposeless. I am informed that the committee have taken steps to have it printed and that it is already in type. I think this is a matter which ought to be studied carefully by the members. If every report is going to take this course, it is going to consume a long space of time.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, if what the gentleman from Weber has said is true, that this report is in type, I move as an amendment to this question that it be distributed to the members so that we may have time to examine it.

Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. President, I see by looking at our rules that every ordinance, proposition or other matter reported by any committee for insertion in the Constitution, shall, without further orders, be printed and referred to the committee of the whole. I think it is a waste of time to read this here now.

The amendment was agreed to.

Introduction of ordinances and propositions for insertion in the Constitution.



Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended in all of these cases and that the propositions be read by their titles and referred to the proper committees.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Maloney introduced a proposition relative to the committee on judiciary (file No. 99), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. Maeser introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relating to a system of public instruction (file No. 98), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to committee on education and school lands.

Mr. Bowdle introduced a proposition for insertion in the Constitution relative to exemptions of homesteads and other property to heads of families (file No. 100), which was read a first and second time by its title.

The PRESIDENT. It will go to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, it is certainly an error to refer that to the judiciary committee. I am not a member of the judiciary committee, but it is certainly an error to refer it to the judiciary. If you refer that to the judiciary, you might refer every proposition to the judiciary and let them make the laws.

Mr. CANNON. What committee would you refer it to?

Mr. EICHNOR. I think it goes to Mr. Cannon's committee, revenue, taxation and public debt.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, other propositions on the same subject have gone to the committee on judiciary. I think there should be a uniformity.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I admit in legislative bodies it ought to go to the committee on judiciary, but in this constitution making, the judiciary will have absolutely nothing to do with exemptions. I move that it be referred to the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Bowdle introduced a proposition providing liens of mechanics and others (file No. 101), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on labor and arbitration.

Mr. Morris introduced a proposition {202} relative to permanent location of the capital (file No. 102), which was read by the secretary as follows:

Section 1. The city of Salt Lake is hereby declared to be the seat of government of this State and shall so remain until changed by law; but no law changing the seat of government shall be valid or binding unless the same be approved and ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the State voting therefor at a

general election, under such regulations and provisions as the Legislature, by a two-thirds' vote of the members elected to each house, may provide, submitting the question of change to the people.



Mr. THURMAN. What constitution is that taken from?

The SECRETARY. No reference is made.

The resolution was referred to the committee on public buildings and state institutions not educational

Mr. Strevell introduced a proposition regarding the election of United States senators (file No. 103), which was read by the secretary as follows:

It shall be the duty of the Legislature to elect United States senators in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States during the first thirty days of the session of the Legis-ture at which a senator or senators are to be elected.


The proposition was read a second time by its title and referred to the committee on legislative.

Mr. Clark introduced a proposition relative to exemption from taxation (file No. 104), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt.

Mr. Symons introduced a proposition relative to taxation (file No. 105), which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt.

Mr. Cushing introduced a proposition relative to the veto power of mayors, (file No. 106), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. Cushing introduced a proposition relative to the indebtedness of cities (file No. 107), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I think this proposition ought to come to the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt. I think it especially applies to that. I would ask if the gentleman has any reasons for requesting it to go to the committee on municipal corporations?

Mr. CUSHING. I would prefer it to go to the committee on municipal corporations.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection it will go to the committee on municipal corporations?
Mr. Shurtliff introduced a proposition requiring the county officials to file sworn statements of moneys received and disbursed (file No. 108), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. Stover introduced a proposition relative to poll tax (file No. 109), which was read a first and

second time by its title and referred to the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt.

Mr. Kimball, of Salt Lake, introduced a proposition relative to equitable arbitration to settle difficulties between employers and employes (file No. 110), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on labor and arbitration.

Mr. Miller introduced a proposition relative to irrigation (file No. 111), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on water rights, irrigation and agriculture.

Mr. Miller introduced a proposition relative to the use of public money (file No. 112), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on revenue, taxation and public debt.
{203}
Mr. Creer introduced a proposition relative to sale and rentals of public lands (file No. 113), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on public lands.

Mr. Allen introduced a proposition relative to labor (file No. 114), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on labor and arbitration.

Mr. Brandley introduced a proposition providing for popular initiative and referendum (file No. 115), which was read by the secretary as follows:

Section 1. The popular initiative may be used when ___ voters of the State of Utah present a petition for the enactment of the laws, abolition or alteration of certain law passed by the Legislature of the State of Utah.

Section 2. State laws shall be submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people if the demand is made by ___ voters of the State.


The same was read a second time by its title, and on motion of Mr. Hart, referred to the committee on legislative.

Mr. Thoreson introduced a proposition concerning the removal of county seats, division of counties, county officers and their compensation (file No. 116), which was read by the secretary.
Said proposition was read a second time by its title and referred to the committee on municipal corporations.

Mr. KIESEL. I desire to be excused to-day.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection Mr. Kiesel will be excused.

Mr. Page introduced a proposition (by request) relating to the judiciary (file No. 117), which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the committee on judiciary.

Mr. THURMAN. Does that say that is presented by request? Does the gentleman endorse the request? Does he take the resposibility to endorse it? I would like the fact to be known, because I

think it is out of order if he does not assume it.

The PRESIDENT. Under the rule it should be endorsed.

The SECRETARY. He put his name on it.

The PRESIDENT. That is all right; he put his name on it_he has endorsed it.

Mr. Maloney introduced a proposition relative to compact with the United States (file No. 118), which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the committee on federal relations and compact.

Special orders.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I suppose it is contemplated in our rules, under this order of business, the Convention should resolve itself into committee of the whole. That was my understanding when Mr. Varian presented the rules. I move the Convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider file 83, referred to the committee on Saturday.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. We will go into committee of the whole. I will ask Mr. Kimball, of Ogden, to take the chair if his health will warrant it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I would like to move a reconsideration of the action that we have taken. I think we are entirely out of order. I voted for it upon a misapprehension. We were upon the sixth order of business as I understand it, special orders.

The PRESIDENT. Yes.

Mr. SQUIRES. We had not passed unfinished business.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). We cannot go into committee of the whole until we dispose of the business of the Convention, then under the order of motions and resolutions, it might be in order to move that we go into committee of the whole, but we cannot do that at present, without disarranging the order of business. I therefore move a reconsideration of the vote by which we agreed to go into committee of the whole.
{204 - BOUNDARY}
Mr. ROBERTS. Second.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the gentleman from Weber was a member of the committee on rules and also a member of the sub-committee which drafted the rules, and was present when the rules were adopted and must have heard the explanation made by the chairman, which I noted upon my copy of the rules, that the purpose of this was not only to finish up other unfinished business, but to go into committee of the whole. I noted it upon my copy of the rules at the time.

That is the reason the motion was made, Mr. President.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am opposed to the reconsideration of the motion or at least to decide not to take up this matter until it comes to the order of motions and resolutions, for the reason that if we do, that will have to pass to the third reading to-day without having anything to read. We go into the committee of the whole, now; reports from the committee of the whole can be considered then on the third reading and in the interests of economy of time to get down to the work we have to do, I would vote in favor of remaining in committee of the whole, or going into committee of the whole now.

The motion to reconsider was lost.

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

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the Convention, the matter before the committee of the whole is file No. 83, entitled, “boundaries,” reported from the committee on apportionment and boundaries. Under the rules adopted by the Convention, I will read file 83.

Reads file 83. Article one._Boundary.

Sec. 1. The boundary of the State of Utah shall be as follows, to-wit:


Commencing at a point formed by the intersection of the thirty-second degree of longitude west from Washington with the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude, thence due west along said thirty-seventh degree of north latitude to the intersection of the same with the thirty-seventh degree of longitude west from Washington; thence due north along said thirty-seventh degree west longitude to the intersection of the same with the forty-second degree of north latitude; thence due east along said forty-second degree of north latitude to the intersection of the same with the thirty-fourth degree of longitude west from Washington; thence due south along said thirty-fourth degree of west longitude to the intersection of the same with the forty-first degree of north latitude; thence due east along said forty-first degree of north latitude to the intersection of the same with the thirty-second degree of longitude west from Washington; thence due south along said thirty-second degree west longitude to the place of beginning.


Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask here why this is article one?

The CHAIRMAN. I am not familiar with the object of the committee in calling it article number one; it is what they reported on Saturday, with a recommendation that it be adopted as a part of the Constitution.

Mr. WHITNEY. I am under the impression that the declaration of rights is article one, I may be mistaken.
Mr. WELLS. Make it article two.


Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, preliminary to a motion that I am about to make I wish to say that at the last session of the Legislature of this Territory a memorial was introduced asking the Congress of the United States to change the southern boundary line of the Territory of Utah, extending it to the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. A bill providing for this change of boundary was introduced by Mr. Rawlins, the delegate from Utah. The legislature of the Territory of Arizona is now in session and a bill is pending before that body providing for this change and asking that the boundary line of the two territories be fixed at the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. The legislature of the Territory of Arizona will adjourn on {205} the 26th of this month and in order that we may be advised of the action taken by them I wish to move that this file 83 be laid upon the table. It can be taken from it at a subsequent time when we shall have more fully learned what the action of the legislature of Arizona is.

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). I second the motion.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I desire to read the first section of the Enabling Act. (Reads same)

I am inclined to rule that this Convention can take no action contingent upon the action of Arizona or any other territory or state.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask an explanation from the gentleman from Washington, as to how it happens that the Territory of Arizona is going to be allowed to change this boundary line. Is that the result of a bill passed by Congress putting that power in their hands?

Mr. IVINS. I will answer, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the gentleman, that when a memorial was introduced in the Congress of the United States asking for this change, the only objection that was interposed was that the consent of the people of Arizona who were immediately interested in this question must first be obtained. The memorial that is before the legislature of Arizona simply memorializes the Congress of the United States to make this change in conformity with the memorial that we have already presented.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am to understand then, from that that no final action could be taken on this memorial until the next session of Congress, and we would not be authorized to change our boundary line until the bill had passed Congress. For that reason I do not see any use in delaying our proposition until the 26th or any other day.

The CHAIRMAN. I have ruled Mr. Ivins out of order under the Enabling Act.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word? A similar case to this came up in Congress_

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing pending before the house.

Mr. JAMES_Relative to the State of Nevada and the first boundaries of the State of Nevada_

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing pending.



Mr. JAMES. I ask if I might make a statement, merely for the benefit of the house.

The CHAIRMAN. With the consent of the house, yes.

Mr. JAMES. The Convention fixed the boundary at 38 north latitude, or where Congress might thereafter fix it, and Congress did thereafter fix it at 37, and I think Mr. Ivins' proposition should be made in that way, that it could be left open so that Congress could hereafter fix the boundary in accordance with what change they might make.

Mr. IVINS. The chair having ruled my motion out of order, I shall be under the necessity of appealing from that ruling, not on the ground that we have any authority to change the boundary lines of the Territory of Utah, but upon the ground that a motion to lay this file 83 on the table is in order at this time. That was my motion_that it may be called up at any future time. It is not to finally dispose of it. I think that a motion to lay on the table is in order in regard to this or any other file that may be presented.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the appeal from the chair. Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the committee on Mr. Ivins' motion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, this is debatable and I desire to be heard for a moment upon it. With all due respect to the chair, I think Mr. Ivins is entirely right. If this Convention wants it can lay the Constitution {206} of the United States on the table. It can lay the Enabling Act on the table. It can cease work. It is a sovereign body in itself, and for the chair to say that a motion to lay on the table is out of order, is something that is departing from every parliamentary rule ever written yet. I am entirely of the opinion that this Convention has no business to change the boundaries as fixed by the Enabling Act, and I should vote against laying this on the table. We are to be confined to the boundaries at present established. No act of Congress has been passed changing these boundaries of Utah and we are confined to that. To say that a motion to lay an estimate upon the table is out of order, I think is violating every principle of parliamentary law, and therefore, I shall vote not to sustain the decision of the chair, but when the matter comes up I shall vote against laying it on the table.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of supporting the chair on this proposition, for the reason that the committee have no power to lay a proposition on the table: they might make a recommendation back to the Convention and have them lay it on the table, but we have no authority, as I understand it, to lay a proposition upon the table. On that ground I will vote to sustain the chair.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, the only motions that are in order, are a motion to amend or to adopt before this committee of the whole, and therefore, I shall have to vote with the chair on this proposition.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the decision of the chair is right, and I think the proper motion to accomplish the purpose desired by the delegate from Washington was to postpone further consideration of this matter in the committee. That I think is legitimate and proper, but I

don't understand that as a committee we have the right to lay a matter upon the table. We have a right to consider, or we have a right to postpone the consideration. That, I think, should be the proper motion. I shall vote for sustaining the decision of the chair, and I desire while on my feet to read one or two lines from the Enabling Act. The first section after the enacting clause is, “the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territory of Utah as at present described may become the State of Utah, as hereinafter provided.” And I submit if we become a State under this act, we become a State with the boundaries of the Territory as they are now described.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to state that I am in perfect accord with the gentleman from Salt Lake, that we have in a committee of the whole the right to postpone the consideration of this question, and I also maintain that a motion to lay on the table means simply to postpone it; we can take it up at any time. It is simply to defer its consideration temporarily. It may be taken up from the table at any time, and therefore the motion is entirely in order in the committee of the whole, just as it is in the Convention.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Squires, from Salt Lake, is right when he says we cannot move anything except two motions. By turning to Roberts' rules of order on page 77 we find that in a committee of the whole, the only motions in order are to amend and adopt, that the committee rise and report; it cannot adjourn, nor can it order the ayes and the noes. I shall therefore vote to sustain the chair.
The ruling of the chair was sustained.

The CHAIRMAN. File No 83 is here still before the committee for action. Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the gentleman who presented this article for insertion in the Constitution has properly described the boundaries of the State. I am not sufficiently up in geography to know {207} whether that is true or not, but I believe Mr. Crane, of Millard, has done it. I therefore move that we adopt this article as printed.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to suggest; I simply want to offer an amendment that the number of the article be changed to “article number two,” for the reason that I think that the declaration of rights ought to be article number one. With that amendment I have no objection to the motion. But if the motion is now pending, I assume that an amendment is out of order.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we ought to adopt any number at all. Leave that to the committee on compilation and arrangement; we cannot tell where it will fall.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the motion of Mr. Squires, of Salt Lake County.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if that is the boundaries of the Territory of Utah as it is described in the Organic Act.

The CHAIRMAN. I so understand it, but the chairman of the committee that reported it can better state that.



Mr. ELDREDGE. No, sir; it is not, because the Organic Act provides a great deal more territory than what we find is now in the Territory. A portion of Idaho has been taken off, and a portion of Wyoming and a portion of Nevada. When Utah was formed by the Organic Act it covered a great deal larger area of country than what it does at present. For instance, all of Nevada was in Utah at one time, and a portion of Idaho.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Then I will ask the further question of the chairman of that committee, whether the description is the description that is now given in any act of Congress of this Territory of Utah.

Mr. Chairman, it is not exactly in order, but my reason in asking this is, I understand the government's survey commences from the southeast corner and runs northerly, thence west and thence south, and thence east to the point of beginning; if that is the general rule, as I understand it to be, our description not being in conformity with that, might make some trouble.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I will say in explanation of that, I was appointed one of the committee of three to secure the boundaries of the Territory of Utah as it is at present on the map. I secured a very good map, the best they had in the land office, and we bounded it as best we could. I afterwards went to Surveyor General Snow, of the Territory, and compared our boundaries with his; we found them exactly right. I also secured a copy of the Constitution of 1882 of the Territory of Utah, and of 1887, and I find that they correspond exactly as the boundaries are printed in the journal before us to-day. The surveyor general visited me and I visited him twice to compare the exact latitude and longitude and get the exact figures, and I find they correspond exactly.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the amendment by striking out the number entirely, leaving it blank.

Seconded.

Mr. SQUIRES. As the mover of the the original motion, I will accept that amendment. I apprehend that that duty would devolve upon the committee on compilation and arrangement anyhow, and I did not consider it was important in this connection.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the original motion as amended.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I do not know as it makes any difference, but personally I would have preferred seeing the preamble and declaration of rights considered first. I think it would have been a little nicer. I would have {208} preferred considering it that way myself, and for that reason I believe personally, it would be better to postpone action upon this. For that reason I move that we rise and report progress.

The motion of Mr. Cannon was lost.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thought if it were necessary to make any change in the

Constitution respecting the article that that report would be within the lines of the committee on compilation and arrangement, because the fact that states generally start out with a bill of rights in the first article, does not make it necessary for Utah to do so, and if a man was inquiring where Utah was, and what our boundaries were, we thought perhaps it would be well enough to commence the first article by giving the boundaries of the State of Utah. I see, however, that modernly the bill of rights conies further along in the Constitution in some of the states, so I should favor it as it now stands.

Mr. RICHARDS. I understand that we have already stricken out that number.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a part of the original motion now.

Mr. RICHARDS. It now stands without a number_am I correct?

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is to adopt it without a number.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am decidedly in favor of that motion, because, as I understand it, it is the peculiar prerogative of the committee on compilation to make this arrangement under our rule, and any change from that would be a suspension or change of the rule, and I think that all these articles should be adopted without a number and referred to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the motion to adopt file 83, section 1, the article number being stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. I now move that we rise and report to the Convention. The motion was agreed to.
The committee accordingly rose and the president having resumed the chair Mr. Kimball reported that the committee of the whole having had under consideration file No. 83, had adopted the same, striking out the words, “article one,” and recommend that it go on file for a third reading.

The report was adopted.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move that file No. 83 now go to its third reading.

The PRESIDENT. It goes without a motion under the rule here.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move the article be read a third time by its title.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). When we went into committee of the whole we were on unfinished business. The order of business now is special orders.

The PRESIDENT. We were on special orders in connection with this. This came up under special orders when we went into committee of the whole.



Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think there are no special orders and I think the third reading of bills is now in order.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, are we on special orders now?

The PRESIDENT. We are on the third reading of ordinance as I understand it.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I understood when we went into committee of the whole, we went there under the head of unfinished business.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I submit that this is immaterial, because the records show there is no special order and if there is no special order, there is no use arguing it.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Richards made a motion and I seconded it a while ago that this article be read by its title a third time.
{209}
Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, may I state a point of order?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). This is the first time we have gone into committee of the whole and I think we are going along a little too fast. This matter is one about which we will agree so far as the boundaries of the Territory are concerned, but we ought to get it right, because if we don't in this instance, we will probably get other propositions in the same way. I want to call the Convention's attention to rule 21. The first part of the rule provides for a special calendar, for a committee of the whole, upon which all propositions to be considered by the committee shall be placed. That is something that was not done, I think so far as this proposition is concerned. But the latter part of the rule reads as follows: “After the committee of the whole has been in session, every proposition or other matter reported from the committee of the whole for a third reading by the Convention, shall be placed upon the Convention calendar and be considered and acted upon under that order of business.” I also call attention to rule 33, in connection with that. Speaking of the sergeant-at-arms, he says, “he shall procure a bulletin board of suitable dimensions to be placed by him, under the direction of the president, in some convenient place in the chamber.” Now, that is for the purpose of putting on this order of business. If we take up this order of business and pass this proposition respecting the boundaries of the Territory, we make a final vote upon it. Some members who are not present may desire to record their votes. In this instance I think it will make little difference, but if we are proceeding with the bill of rights in this summary matter or some other proposition to be inserted in the Constitution, it would be somewhat irregular_I think very irregular. I therefore rise to a point of order in this respect_that
this proposition now having been reported from the committee of the whole should go upon the Convention calendar to be called up for its third reading at our next session.

The PRESIDENT. I think the point of order is well taken.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to appeal from the decision of the chair on this point, for

this reason: if it does not say that it shall be considered at a subsequent session of the Convention.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think Mr. Richards_

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, the report has been made. The report was made before the chair announced the third reading of these articles. It then immediately went on the calendar of the Convention and it was instantly in order for consideration. The motion to consider was in order. The delegate from Weber has discussed the proposition as though this rule read (and I understand the decision of the chair to be based on that idea) that it go upon the calendar and be considered at some subsequent session. Now, I should have no objection to a rule of that kind. I think such a rule would be very proper, but that is not the rule. The rule is that the proposition or other matter reported from the committee of the whole for a third reading by the Convention shall be placed upon the Convention calendar and be considered and acted upon under that order of business. Now, when we went into committee of the whole we had not reached the seventh order of business, to-wit, the third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution. Consequently when it arose and reported this proposition it went on the calendar and as soon as the chair announced the third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution it was in order for consideration. And therefore, I think my motion is in order.
{210}
Mr. EVANS (Weber). In support of the chair, I desire to call attention to another rule, in rule 30, speaking of the duties of the secretary, it says, “he shall prepare and post on the bulletin board in the hall of the Convention in the morning of each day a calendar of the orders and business of the day for the Convention, and a like calendar for the committee of the whole.”

Mr. RICHARDS. What relation has that to this question?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It has this relation; here is a piece of important business. The idea is to give notice to the members of this Convention when we are about to pass a proposition to be inserted in the Constitution, that they may have notice of it. I am under the impression that this business could not be transacted on the same day. I may be in error on that, but certainly it was the intention of the committee not to take up an important piece of legislation one day and railroad it right through, but that rather all business ought to be upon the bulletin board; we have provided that the secretary shall place it there so that the members may know what is coming up the next day on all these important matters. That is what these rules have reference to, is the proposition to be inserted in the Constitution. It is not supposed that the secretary can place upon the bulletin board matters which would come up promiscuously in the Convention, but those matters of importance which we are to pass upon, which are to be a part of the Constitution, are supposed to be posted by giving the time when they will be taken up, either in the committee of the whole or in the Convention. It is simply to prevent hurried legislation. It is a parliamentary rule that a thing cannot be read a first, second and third times on the same day and passed in a legislative body, and this of course partakes of the same character as a legislature.


Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I desire to ask the gentleman from Weber County a question. Do you hold that we could not pass a file or a bill, or a proposition under a suspension of the rules, if we suspended the rules?

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Certainly not. The rules can be suspended, but as long as they are in force they should be obeyed.

Mr. EICHNOR. You hold that unless we suspend the rules we cannot pass this proposition?

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) That is the idea I had, yes, sir.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I submit that this consideration of the third reading of this matter is entirely in order to-day for the reasons already stated by Mr. Richards, that we have reached the third reading of bills on the calendar and that this is the third reading of the bill, and so far as the gentleman's remarks in regard to the fact that the matter has not been placed upon the calendar, I call his attention to the fact that the bulletin board shows that file number 83, boundaries, will be considered in the committee of the whole, and I submit that that is notice enough to the members.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) We have done, Mr. Wells. I am objecting now to considering its third reading in the Convention.

Mr. WELLS. I submit that this is the rule of the Convention at present, and if the gentleman wants it changed, he ought to move to amend the rules.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think under our rules, without any suspension of them, the proposition would be considered in a committee of the whole a day before being considered by the Convention, for the reason that unless resolving ourselves into committee of the whole was made a special order to come up under the sixth order of business, we will resolve ourselves into committee of the whole regularly under this eighth subdivision, which would be motions and resolutions, which occurs after the {211} third reading of propositions and therefore the third reading would be passed and the work of the committee would come up the next day, so I think the rules are all right; and as to the question as to whether the decision of the chair should be sustained in this case or not, I call the gentleman's attention who objected to this matter, and who I think is responsible for the ruling of the chair in this direction, that Mr. Richards' motion was that the rules be suspended. We can move to suspend our rules even if they are as he states_even if we can regularly consider these propositions on the same day, it is in order to move a suspension of the rules, and that is Mr. Richards' motion as I understand it_that we suspend the rules.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) I did not so understand it.

The PRESIDENT. No; the chair did not so understand it.

Mr. HART. If there is any question about that I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his appeal from the decision of the chair.



The PRESIDENT. His motion did not embrace the suspension of the rules. Was the intention of the gentleman to do it?

Mr. RICHARDS. It was my intention to do it, and my recollection is that I did do it for this reason: the rule provides for third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution. That implies as I understand it a reading in full, and my motion was to obviate the necessity of a full reading and substitute a reading by title. So I think I said I moved a suspension of the rules and that it be read by its title.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, the question before the house is the suspension of the rules by Mr. Richards and that we proceed to the third reading of this proposition file No. 83 by title.

The motion was agreed to.

File No. 83 was then read by its title.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move this article pass its third reading and be referred under the rules to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Mr. WELLS. I second the motion. The roll was then called, showing the following result:

AYES_96.
Allen
Adams
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christianson
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge


Emery
Engberg
Francis
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Hammond
Hart
Haynes
Halliday
Heybourne
Hill
Howard
Hughes
Hyde
Ivins
James
Johnson
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lemmon
Low, William
Low, Peter
Low, Cache
Lund
Maeser
Maloney
Maughan
McFarland
Miller
Morris
Moritz
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Wasatch
Murdock, Summit
Nebeker
Page
Partridge
Pierce
Peters
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete
Preston
Raleigh
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Robinson, Kane
Robison, Wayne
Ryan
Sharp
Shurtliff
Snow
Spencer
Squires
Stover
Strevell
Symons
Thompson
{212 - MOTIONS}
Jolley    
Keith    
Kearns    
Kerr    
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lambert    
Thurman
Van Horne
Warrum
Wells
Whitney
Williams
Mr. President.

Absent or excused_9.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I desire to be excused from voting, because I have not examined this description and I have not had time to do it.

Mr. Ivins was excused from voting.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Having just come in, I don't know anything at all about it. I desire to be excused.

Mr. Evans (Utah) was excused from voting.

Mr. FARR. I will have to be excused from voting; I have not had time to examine the article.
    
Mr. Farr was excused from voting.



Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, before I vote I would like to ask if this motion, if it is carried, will preclude any further amendment, if such should be found to be necessary. The proof reader may have made a mistake. This description ought to be verified very carefully before it is finally passed upon. May the committee on compilation and arrangement verify this and change the phraseology to make it correct if need be?

Mr. ELDREDGE. I will say, Mr. President_     

The PRESIDENT. The committee shall have full power to revise the language used in various propositions and arrange the same so as to be clearly expressive of the sense of the Convention, and to make the instrument complete and consistent within itself.

Mr. WHITNEY. Expressive of the sense of the Convention?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITNEY. Of course the sense of the Convention is to have it correct?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No, the sense of the Convention is just as we have it now.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I don't think that can be the rule_the sense of the Convention, just as it may be printed. Else, why have a committee on revision at all? If the instrument as printed expresses the sense of the Convention, we do not need any committee.

Mr. WHITNEY. I will vote yes, with that understanding.

Mr. Spencer was by request excused from further attendance upon the day's session.

The PRESIDENT. The article has passed and will go to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Motions and resolutions.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I desire to offer the following resolution to meet the contingency which my friend from Weber County has raised on the question of rule 21.

Reads:

Resolved, that rule 21 be amended by adding the words, “at the next session of the Convention,” at the end of the rule.


I move that this resolution be referred to the committee on rules.

The motion was agreed to.


Mr. Evans (Weber) offered the following resolution:

Resolved, that it be the sense of this Convention that in providing for the number of public offices and the salaries to be paid therefor, the same to be as few in number and as low in amount as is consistent with the times, and the efficiency of the services to be performed.


The resolution was adopted.

Mr. Thurman offered the following resolution:

Resolved, as the sense of this Convention, that the Constitution shall contain only the general plan and fundamental principles of the State government, together with such limitations of the powers thereof as may be deemed wise and expedient for the preservation of civil, political and religious liberty.


Resolved further, that matters purely of a legislative character not intended as necessary limitations of power, {213} should not be inserted in the Constitution, but left to the Legislature, acting within its constitutional powers.


The resolution was adopted.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I move that the draft of the preamble and bill of rights submitted to the committee to-day be made the special order for consideration by the committee of the whole for Wednesday at three p. m.

Seconded.

Mr. WELLS. The reason I make it for Wednesday is that some of the committee will not be able to attend to-morrow and they want to be here when it comes up.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the members if printed copies of this report can be placed in the hands of the members by to-morrow.

Mr. WELLS. Yes; I will say that the matter has already been set up and the copies may be stricken off at any time, within half an hour if so ordered.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I want to move an amendment to be referred to the committee on rules_in rule 21 considered in connection with the one presented by the gentleman from Salt Lake, that in the last line after the word “upon” that he insert “at a subsequent day” and that will leave it so that we would not have to consider it on the day following.

The PRESIDENT. Will the gentleman please write it?

Mr. GOODWIN. May I be excused.


The PRESIDENT. The gentleman can be excused.

Mr. RICHARDS. I move that the committee on rules report an amendment to the rules, providing that no ordinance or proposition reported by any committee shall be considered either in Convention or committee of the whole, at the same session at which the same are reported nor until the same have been printed and at least one day has elapsed after the distribution in printed form to the members of the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. The matter will go to the committee on rules if there is no objection.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the only objection to that that I see would be that if something would come up here on Saturday we could not consider it within twenty-four hours, unless we held a Sunday session.

Mr. RICHARDS. My motion is that it shall not be considered within twenty-four hours.

Mr. SQUIRES. Oh, I beg pardon, I didn't understand it.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is to say, the consideration shall not come up within twenty-four hours after the printing.

The PRESIDENT. I desire, gentlemen, to have read, with your consent, a letter from the Honorable Moses Thatcher, who is very sick and has sent a communication here and asked that it be read in the Convention. If there is no objection the same will be now read.

The secretary then read the following:

LOGAN, UTAH, March 18th, 1895.

Hon. John Henry Smith, President, Constitutional Convention, Salt Lake City, Utah:


DEAR SIR: Having recently undergone a somewhat painful surgical operation, I find that improper haste in resuming work has produced unfavorable results, compelling me now to keep quiet, absolute rest, and treatment for a few days, and possibly a longer period.

Will you therefore, it my behalf kindly make to the honorable members of this Convention the necessary explanation required by the rules governing such matters. I shall expect no compensation for the period covering my absence; and under no circumstances will demand remuneration, to be paid from any deficiency which the people of Utah may be required to raise through taxation on their property, should the generous appropriation of Congress prove inadequate to the expenses of the Constitutional Convention.

In the interest of committees with which you did me the honor of associating my name, I respectfully suggest the appointment of others able and qualified to do their full share of the work_ {214} a duty under other circumstances I should feel it a pleasure to perform. Trusting that the utmost harmony and fraternal feeling may attend all deliberations of the Convention over which you have the honor of presiding, and that partisanship, local demands, and individual interests may be subordinated to the general welfare, so that a Constitution may be drafted and approved, no provision of which shall ever bring a blush of shame or feeling of regret to us or our children, and one which as a whole the voters of Utah may adopt by an overwhelming majority.


If true patriotism, a high regard for the right of the governed, sympathy for the laboring masses and producing classes, united with equity, justice, and economy in all public expenditures, shall be made basic principles upon which the fundamental law of the new State shall forever rest, that a happy result must surely follow, and the people who sent, with the fullest confidence, the honorable members of the Utah Constitutional Convention, will not be disappointed, nor have cause to regret the choice made in selecting the men best qualified to write the State charter_a law of human justice and liberty, before which all may feel equally protected, while learning that untarnished American citizenship is the highest distinction to which we or our children can aspire.


Very respectfully yours,

MOSES THATCHER.


The PRESIDENT. What will you do with the communication, gentlemen?

Mr. SQUIRES. I move that it be received and placed on file.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, if Mr. Thatcher is sick, as he states, and unable to attend and desires to be excused I think in justice to himself a record should be made of why this is done and that it should be incorporated in the minutes.

Mr. SQUIRES. I will modify my motion to make it read that way.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I arise to a question of personal privilege, and to ask the chair for a ruling upon rule 20. To-day is the first time that we have gone into committee of the whole and I do this simply in the hope that a rule may be established, and that there will be no future confusion or question, being willing myself to conform to the ruling of the chair.

Rule 20 provides, “The same rules shall be observed in committee of the whole as in the Convention, as far as the same are applicable, except that the previous question shall not apply, nor the ayes or noes be taken, nor a limit be made as to the number of times speaking.” Now, Mr. President, it was with the understanding that under this rule it would be proper to temporarily defer the consideration of any question that properly came before the committee of the whole, that I moved to lay this file eighty-three upon the table, with a view that at a later date should we learn that favorable action would be taken by the Territory of Arizona, I might have inserted an amendment that “the boundaries of the State of Utah, should be as follows, unless extended by act of Congress of the United States.” Under the ruling of the chair, a motion was not in order to lay any question on the table or to temporarily suspend its consideration. I understand from this rule that the same rules that govern the Convention were to apply, except as to the previous question, the ayes and noes, or a limit to the times of speaking. Conditions may arise when more than one file will be before the committee of the whole. Now, what I want to get at is whether a measure that is brought up may be deferred temporarily, without the necessity of rising and reporting, or whether that matter may be temporarily deferred and its consideration taken up at a subsequent meeting of the committee of the whole. I know of no rule by which this can be

established, and therefore ask the chair to rule, as to how far this rule 20 is to apply to the rules that govern the Convention, and whether it will embrace with propriety a motion to temporarily defer consideration or to lie on the table.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I arise for information, is there anything before the house?
{215}
The PRESIDENT. There is nothing before the house.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then I move to adjourn.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, there is something before the house. I ask for a ruling on this question.

Mr. RICHARDS. I suggest that that ruling from the chair cannot be obtained by this method. I submit that ruling can only be obtained upon motions.

Mr. IVINS. I submit that any member who is in doubt and asks the opinion of the chair upon a question has the right to receive it.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I think that is a matter that is settled in committee of the whole, and not by the president of the Constitutional Convention. The president can call any one to the chair whom he pleases or the committee can.

Mr. CANNON. I second Mr. Richards' motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then, at 4:30 o'clock p. m., adjourned,


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