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

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

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

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
Haynes
Halliday
Heybourne
Hill

Prayer was offered by Rev. E. G. Hunt, of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The journal of the twenty-third day's session was read and approved.

Reports of standing committees.

The committee on legislative reported as follows:

MAJORITY REPORT.

Your committee on legislative, appointed to draft and present an article on that subject, to whom was referred:

File No. 3, introduced by Eichnor, of Salt Lake.

{394 - EDUCATION AND SCHOOL LANDS}

File No. 13, introduced by Eichnor, of Salt Lake.

File No. 14, introduced by Maloney, of Weber.

File No. 19, introduced by Hart, of Cache.

File No. 27, introduced by Evans of Weber.

File No. 28, introduced by Maloney, of Weber.

File No. 38, introduced by Ryan, of Juab.

File No. 39, introduced by Ryan, of Juab.

File No. 51, introduced by Eichnor, of Salt Lake.

File No. 55, introduced by Varian, of Salt Lake.

File No. 94, introduced by Thompson, of Millard.

File No. 100, introduced by Bowdle, of Salt Lake.

File No. 103, introduced by Strevell, of Weber.

File No. 115, introduced by Brandley, of Sevier.

File No. 122, introduced by Francis, of Morgan.

File No. 129, introduced by Kimball, of Salt Lake.

File No. 131, introduced by Bowdle, of Salt Lake.

File No. 138, introduced by Kiesel, of Weber.

File No. 140, introduced by Howard, of Emery.

File No. 154, introduced by Raleigh, of Salt Lake.

Respectfully report that we have carefully considered said propositions, and return the same herewith, together with the draft of an article upon the subject referred to us, and recommend its adoption as a substitute for said propositions.    

VAN HORNE,

Chairman.

MINORITY REPORT.

While we approve of the matter presented by the majority of the committee on legislative, and to that extent concur in their report, we are of the opinion that the additional sections which are herewith submitted should be incorporated in the Constitution. They are designed to prevent any grant or appropriation of public property or money by the State or any political subdivision thereof, to any individual, association, or corporation, and to prevent the State, and its counties, and municipalities, from giving or lending credit to private corporations, associations, or persons. Similar provisions have been adopted by other states, and as a part of the organic law, with favorable results, and we respectfully recommend that these sections be inserted in the Constitution of the State of Utah.

Respectfully,

LORIN FARR,

EDWARD PARTRIDGE,

CHAS. H. HART,

EDWARD H. SNOW,

B. H. ROBERTS,

F. S. RICHARDS,

W. J. KERR.

Members of the committee on legislative.

Your committee on apportionment and boundaries report the following article for the Constitution of the State of Utah, and recommend its adoption.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, the pending business before this committee is the consideration of the article on education. It is a very long article, and the committee has reached the consideration of section two only. Sufficient has been developed to show that there are considerable differences of opinion existing. In accordance with what I believe to be the feeling of the committee, and at least to sense the same, I move that when the committee rise it report the entire article back to the Convention, with the recommendation that it be recommitted, with the direction that it be remodeled and simplified.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake if his motion contemplates passing from this business now to something else?

Mr. VARIAN. Certainly.

Mr. THURMAN. I am in favor of the motion, but I am in favor of continuing work and going through the article, and get the sense of the Convention on the various parts of it, so that when it is referred back, the committee who has charge of getting up the article can understand something about what the Convention thinks about it.
{395}
Mr. VARIAN. The intent of the motion is not as the gentleman understands it. The idea, if this motion prevails, is, that the entire article be removed now from the consideration of this committee and reported to the Convention when the committee shall rise at the proper hour, with the recommendation indicated. It is conceived by many that this article is entirely too elaborate. There is too much in it; and if this committee has to go to work and revise it section by section, it is believed that it will take more time than it will if the committee on education and school lands shall revise it and present a shorter article for the consideration of this committee. If we are to discuss it and debate it section by section, as I am quite clear we will, I know for one, from looking through the article, that there are several propositions, if not more, which will require elucidation, explanation, and perhaps modification, and I am informed by a number of my fellow members, that they entertain the same views, but, of course, it is a matter of no concern personally.

I simply make the motion to test the sense of the committee upon it.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be better to allow this matter to go until Mr. Pierce, the chairman of this committee, is present. I do not know whether the gentleman will be here before long, or whether he will be here at all this morning, but as chairman of that committee he could probably tell us better whether or not their report would change the matter if it were referred back to them. If it could be temporarily laid over until he comes, I think it would be better.

Mr. VARIAN. I just want to suggest to the gentleman, that the purpose of this motion is that the instructions of this Convention shall go to the committee to remodel and simplify it. To that extent they must obey the directions of the Convention, if it is so ordered.

Mr. CANNON. I simply wish to state, that that being true, I would favor Mr. Thurman's idea. I do not feel that it would be well to refer this back to them, without telling them in what respect we want it modified, and how we want it simplified.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, I wish to state by way of explanation, in behalf of the committee on education and school lands, that that article was of necessity made cumbersome, from {396} the fact that we gave them an additional committee's labor to perform. We imposed upon them the necessity of making provision for school lands and added that to the duties of the committee on education, and consequently the length of this article; and I am in favor of the suggestion made by Mr. Cannon, postponing the consideration of this question, until the chairman of the committee shall be present.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the motion, but I do not think that the article, comprehending as it does the school land question, is exceedingly long. I noticed in other constitutions where similar provisions have been handled under the same heading, that a general school law is enacted, and then separate and apart from that, the university clause comes in,

which if it was simplified in this manner would at least meet all the objections that have been raised here on the floor to the article as it stands.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks in defense of the committtee on education and school lands, I do not object to having this article referred back to the committee, but I think in view of the statement which has been made, and in justification of the work of the committee on education, I should state that the article is not any longer, when we consider what it contains, than the article in the constitutions of many of the other states, including that of California. As suggested by one of the speakers, we were not limited alone to the common schools, but it includes also all that is to appear in the Constitution on school lands. Now, in California there is a long article on education, another article on state institutions, and then under public lands are the provisions which we have made in this article on school lands. There are really included in this article three matters, one on the general education of the State, one on the State institutions of higher learning, and one on school lands. Furthermore, Congress has granted to this State upwards of six hundred thousand acres of land for higher institutions of learning, nine million acres of land for the maintenance of the common schools of the State, and in accordance with the provisions of the Enabling Act granting these lands, we have included sections which shall provide for the location and disposition of these lands, and for the investing of the funds. Personally, if this should be referred back to the committee, I think we should have some instructions from the Convention showing just what is required of us. It is not sufficient to say that we should cut it down, because I believe that in the main the committee on education are unanimous in the opinion that there is little that can be accomplished. In what particulars do you desire to have it revised or cut down?

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I favor the motion to report as suggested. At the same time, I think we will save time in the future if we would devote a half hour or an hour in running through this bill, and in determining at least what ought to go out. There are probably a half a dozen sections or more in this article that I am satisfied this Convention will say ought to be struck out, because it is purely legislation, and we could determine that, and that would be an instruction of this committee, or a basis for it when we arise.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to recommitting the article. The committee on education had the article in hand and devoted a great deal of attention and thought to it, and it was in the main, as the gentleman from Cache says, almost unanimous consent that the article was to go in as it is, and I endorse the remarks of the gentleman from Utah County. If there are any provisions here that the Convention does not desire {397 - COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS} to have inserted in the bill as passed, this Convention ought to notify us what they are as we pass along through. It seems to me, perhaps with the exception of one, two or three sections, that the article ought to stand as it is, and probably will stand as it is with some slight amendments, and I think, as chairman of the committee, I would be at a loss to know what was the wish of this Convention, if this article was referred to the committee as it is, with instructions to make it shorter, and I am opposed to referring it again.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, of course, if we were going to go through this article and spend days finding out just what our views are, there is no use in referring it to the committee. Of

course if you are going to do that, we do not need to send it back. Now, it occurs to me that that committee can take this article and look it over, and can see many places where the pruning knife of elimination will be applied. This article has developed as it proceeds into legislation. I think it ought to be remodeled, and I think more, with all deference to the committee, that so far as our State is concerned, at least_the leading educators, and those charged and entrusted with the administration of the schools here, may well be called upon and permitted to give their views to the committee. It is not the design to cast any reflections upon the committee. I suppose that committee is like other committees, they may or may not present views concerning the subject matter committed to them which will be acceptable to the Convention. If they should happen to miss it, it does not imply any reflection upon the committee, but my idea was, Mr. Chairman, that a committee of eleven would be better enabled to revise in the line indicated and strike out everything that may be safely left to legislation, than we. That is, they can do it more conveniently. It is going to take time to go through this, and when they get through then it can come back to the Convention and be taken up in the committee of the whole carefully. That is the way we feel today, and in accordance with the suggestion of my colleague, Mr. Smith, I suggest that there seems to be no difficulty about many of these subsequent suggestions, modifying them or eliminating them wholly in some instances, and still retain the grand work of constitutional prohibition. The committee should bear in mind, of course, that the State Constitution is a very different matter from the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution is simply an instrument in which certain powers are expressly granted by the people to the Congress and the departments of government. Those not expressly granted or by implication are not exercised. The Legislature has full power to do everything in accordance with the function of government unless appropriated expressly or by implication by the Constitution, so that we simply need restraint, not grants of power, not implications of how the law should be, but simply lines of demarcation beyond which the Legislature may not go. Bearing these principles in view, it seems to me, this committee will be enabled to present an instrument here that we can act upon.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The next order of business on the calendar of the committee of the whole is the article entitled, “counties, cities and towns.”

Section 1 of the article was read and passed without amendment.

Section 2 was read as follows:

No county seat shall be removed unless two-thirds of the qualified electors of the county voting on the proposition at the general election shall vote in favor of such removal, and two-thirds of the votes cast on the proposition shall be required to relocate a county seat. A proposition of removal shall not be submitted in the same county more than once in four years.

by vote of the people, a proposition should not be renewed oftener than once in ten years. In that length of time, conditions might have so changed that it would be advisable to remove the county seat. But I think if you leave it that every four years they can be agitating the subject, it may put the people of the Territory and the different counties to a great deal of trouble. For this reason I would like to see the period made longer.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 3 was read as follows:

There shall be no territory stricken from any county unless a majority of the voters living in such territory shall vote therefor, and then under only such other conditions as may be prescribed by a general law applicable to the whole State. Every county which shall be enlarged or created from territory taken from any other county or counties shall be liable for a just proportion of the existing debts and liabilities of the county or counties from which said territory shall be taken; provided, that in such accounting neither county shall be charged with the debt or liabilities then existing incurred in the purchase of any county property or in the purchase of any county buildings then in use or under construction, which shall fall within and be retained by the county.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it was considered in the committee, only by members individually. I think that lines 4 and 5_“and then only under such other conditions as may be prescribed by law applicable to the whole State” covers it.

Mr. VARIAN. As at present advised I do not like it. I move to amend by adding after the word “territory” the words “and the county to which it is to be annexed.” Certainly the burdens of debt ought not to be imposed upon it by the will of the voters of the territory desiring to be taken off from a debt-ridden county and to be annexed to a prosperous debt-free county.

Mr. EICHNOR. I second the amendment.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to the fact that territory may be stricken from one county and yet not annexed to another. It may be creating new counties.

Mr. VARIAN. I will suggest to Mr. Richards, that if it is to create new counties, the territory itself is already provided for. The voters of that territory would pass upon that.

Mr. VARIAN. I suggest to the gentleman that if a new county is to be {399} created out of a territory belonging to an old county, or out of territory belonging to several old counties, the prior provision would cover the case, “a majority of the voters living in such territory.”

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the motion as offered by Mr. Varian would be a just one, unless he would permit an amendment. I would offer as an amendment that the language be changed, so that it would be “as well as of the county to which it shall be attached.”

Mr. VARIAN. I have no objection. I will accept it

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the section by striking out of line 1 the words, “there shall be no territory” and inserting in lieu thereof, the following: “No new county shall be established which shall reduce any county to a population of less than five thousand, nor shall a new county be formed containing a less population than four thousand, nor shall any territory be,” etc.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide for an amendment at the end of section 3, by adding the following: “Provided that any public indebtedness, created for any public improvements made exclusively in the territory stricken off, said indebtedness shall be borne by the new county, or by the county to which such territory shall be annexed.” I have known of several circumstances, where counties have been separated twice, or a portion of a county taken off and attached to another, where public improvements have been lately made exclusively in that territory, and the old county from which it has been taken has had to assume the debt, when it has been no good to it whatever. I will note an instance of a year ago this winter. Emery County was divided and a new county made out of the northern portion of it. Emery County had just finished building. several large bridges, one of which cost in the neighborhood of $1100, and the others cost large sums of money, and amounting in the neighborhood of $3000, and the following winter the county was divided, and these bridges all thrown in Carbon County, and Emery County had to pay for them, and is in debt for those bridges. I think that Carbon County should assume the debt for public improvements made in its territory. This will obviate anything of the kind happening in the future.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that amendments do not seem to go this morning, I have one which I wish to offer. It is in relation to the creating of new counties where the taxable property is not sufficient to maintain a county organization. I move to amend

by inserting in line 6, of section 3, after the word “State” the words, “new counties may be created when the taxable property therein amounts to $3,000,000 or more and when the majority of the voters residing in such proposed county shall, by a vote at an election held for that purpose, approve of the creation of such county.”

The amendment was rejected.

Section 4 was read as follows:

The Legislature shall establish a system of county government which shall be uniform throughout the State, and by general laws provide for precincts or township organization, under which any county may organize whenever a majority of the qualified electors of such county, voting at that general election, shall determine; and whenever a county shall adopt precinct or township organization, the assessments and collections of the revenue shall be made, and the business of such county and the local affairs of the several precincts or townships therein, shall be managed and transacted in the manner prescribed by such general law.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I now move to amend, by adding the letter “s” and a period after the word “organization.”

The amendment was agreed to. Section 5 was read as follows:

Corporations for municipal purposes shall not be created by special laws, but Legislatures, by general laws, shall provide for the incorporation, organization, and classification in proportion to population of cities and towns, which laws may be altered, amended, or repealed. Cities and towns heretofore organized or incorporated may become organized under such general laws whenever a majority of the electors voting at a general or special election shall so determine, and shall organize in conformity therewith; and cities and towns heretofore or hereafter organized and all charters thereof framed by the authority of this Constitution, shall be subject to and controlled by general laws.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to still further amend that section, by striking out all of line 6. What is the use of saying that a clause may be altered, amended, or repealed.

Mr. SQUIRES. I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out lines 1 and 2 down to the word “the.” The words to be stricken out are as follows: “Corporations for municipal purposes shall
not be created by special laws, but.”

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment ought not to prevail. If we do not provide that corporations shall not be created by special laws, then the Legislature will have the power to create them by special laws.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we had better consider this section a little more carefully. I confess that this is the first time I have seen it_this morning. The question is whether we should not permit cities, certainly of the magnitude and class of Salt Lake City, to have their own charters framed especially. Now, it is doubtful whether a general law concerning the framing of municipal charters will in every particular be applicable to a city after it reaches a certain stage in population, etc. Still, I have not given the matter sufficient reflection and consideration to antagonize or affirm any proposition surrounding this section. I confess there is something about it that I do not just quite understand. Now the proposition to strike out the provision that corporations for municipal purposes shall not be created by special laws, would be all right. I would prefer to see a proviso in some place permitting the creation of municipal corporations by special laws. That is the idea. I would like to hear from the committee whether they considered that question in its application to these larger cities.

Mr. EICHNOR. I will state that I introduced a proposition enabling cities having more than three thousand inhabitants to frame their own charters. It was thoroughly discussed in the committee. The proposition was modeled after the California constitution. I was {401} the only one that advocated it in the committee. All the other members opposed it very strongly, and claimed that it would create confusion, and I withdrew my proposition. I think the section the way it stands now, is perfectly good.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee on legislative, or some member of that committee, if they have reported a similar provision in their article, a prohibition on legislative power.

Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the section as it stands. I know that if you strike that out, there will be frequent importunities upon the part of small villages to the Legislature to have special charters. I do not think we ought to do that. I do not think we ought to permit it. I think the Legislature always ought to make general laws for the incorporation of

cities. We have had experience in this Territory about that, before the law prevailed, that there should be a general law for the incorporation of towns and cities. Little villages, cities here and there and everywhere, will constantly apply to the Legislature for charters, and I see the trend of modern legislation is to make general laws by which cities containing a certain amount of population may be incorporated without such frequent application to the Legislature. It is an expense for the people to get their representatives together, and look into each particular locality and determine its fitness in incorporated towns.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, this provision was copied from section 10 of the Washington constitution. It seems to me that if this amendment prevails, and these lines are stricken out, it would not leave the act complete within itself, as it ought to be.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to inform the gentleman from Weber County,
Mr. Maloney, that it was copied from the California constitution.

Mr. MALONEY. That may be, but it is also copied from section 10 of the Washington constitution.

Mr. THURMAN. That settles it, if it is copied from Washington.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I hope this motion to strike out the lines will not prevail. I do not think that we ought to allow the Legislature in an unlimited way to pass special charters.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to be inserted at the end of line 6, “provided that special charters may be granted to all cities having a population of 20,000 or more.”

Mr. KIESEL. I move to amend, and make it 15,000.

Mr. VARIAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I put in 20,000 there on the spur of the moment, expecting the gentlemen to indicate their preference. I accept 15,000; I understand that is to meet the wants of Ogden City. It must be manifest to the gentlemen of the committee that at the present day, as towns grow into cities, and cities increase in population and wealth, and amplify their area, that it is almost impossible, practically impossible, to make a general law applicable to the ever changing conditions. Everywhere special charters are granted as being adapted to the particular wants of certain cities, differing as they do in different localities in the state, and of course in Salt Lake City we are under practically a special charter now, just as much so as if it was standing out alone from the general statute law. As a matter of fact, the entire system of government in this Territory, from its foundation, has been in accord with this system of special charters. You will remember, gentlemen, that during all the years up to the time when this general municipal act was passed in 1888, each town_each city in your Territory had a special act, each one was a a special charter. The general provisions {402} were alike in all, but particular provisions applicable to one city and not applicable to others. We must have special provisions not applicable to other towns and cities in the Territory, in this city. And this provision is necessary

because of the provision preceding it, “corporations for municipal purposes shall not be created by special law;” that is all very well as a general rule.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I favor the gentleman's amendment for the reason that this amendment puts into the hands of the people the control of their own affairs, so far as the charter of their cities are concerned, and it is getting down closer to the people, and I believe in that principle, and therefore I shall support the motion.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, in order that I might vote understandingly on this proposition, I would be pleased if the gentlemen were able to point out some special reasons why a general law providing for the establishment of municipal corporations could not include all the conditions that exist in Salt Lake City. I am not in favor of the proposition with my present understanding of the evils arising out of granting special privileges to particular corporations, and the argument that has been made that the Territory of Utah up to a few years ago had municipal corporations established by special laws has failed to convinced me of the wisdom or the necessity of that provision. I am rather inclined to the opinion that the experience of Utah Territory has converted the people away from that system of establishing corporations, and I can see no reason why the Legislature cannot pass a general law in regard to corporations, that will include Salt Lake City and Ogden and every other city in this Territory.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, up to 1886 the Legislature of the Territory had the right to grant special charters for municipal purposes. Ex-President Harrison, who was then a senator of the United States, drew a law, which is published in our compilation of 1888, by which the legislatures of the territories were required to make general laws for the incorporation of municipalities, etc. Of course, I do not pretend that that law is an inhibition upon the action of this Convention, but I cite it, together with other matters, to show that the general trend of legislation everywhere, in the states as well as in the nation, is to pass general laws for the incorporation of cities. There is nothing that would have prevented the people of Salt Lake from having just such organization as the Legislature would give them under the section as it now stands. For instance, it seems to me that my friend from Salt Lake, Mr. Varian, does not really understand the force of it, or if he does, it was not clearly expressed. The first clause of the section is an inhibition upon the Legislature from passing or granting any special charters for any municipal purpose, but the second clause fully meets the exigencies of the case as stated by the gentlemen who have spoken upon the other side. “But the Legislature, by general laws, shall provide for the incorporation, organization, and classification in proportion to population of cities and towns, which laws may be altered, amended or repealed.” Now, in 1892, the Legislature of Utah had under consideration a charter which would affect Salt Lake City alone, because of its numerous population, but when the Legislature considered that law, of course it had to pass it, if at all, in pursuance of the act of Congress of 1886, and consequently called or denominated, “an act for the incorporation of metropolitan cities.” It was a charter, which, if it was made acceptable, would have met all the exigencies of Salt Lake City, and were any other city of the same population as Salt Lake City, they would come in under the provisions of that act. It is {403} wholly unnecessary that each city should apply to the Legislature for those special charters. In fact it would not be right. It would not be uniform. If Salt Lake City were to apply to the Legislature for one kind of a charter, it might have such influence with the Legislature, that it

would secure such charter as it desired. Ogden might be in the same class, and apply for a like charter, and not have such influence as to secure it. Provo might do the same, or Logan, or other cities. The idea of the law as it now stands is this, that the Legislature may by special laws provide that municipal corporations may organize or that they may be classified according to the population, wealth, etc. Now, what is there to prevent the Legislature from doing this? It is expressly authorized. The amendment of Mr. Varian would seek to give a city of a certain number of inhabitants special charters. I do not oppose the Legislature, by general law, granting certain charters to cities having a certain number of inhabitants; it ought to do that, because some cities require one character of government and others a different character, but the cities can be classified. Each city then of that class will have exactly the same kind of charter. But if the amendment prevails, one city might have one kind of a charter and another city of the same population and wealth might have a different charter.

Mr. VARIAN. Why shouldn't they.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I do not think there ought to be any discrimination. One Legislature might grant a municipality in a certain locality through certain influences which are brought to bear upon it most extraordinary power_powers that are not wanted by the people. It is better to legislate in such a way, that when one city is incorporated, another city of the same class must accept of the same provisions that that city accepts of. The reason is this: That when you classify in that way and generalize, the Legislature is composed of people from all over the Territory. They look after the interests of each particular section of the Territory, and if a few people were to go into the Legislature desiring a certain charter for Salt Lake City, and the people outside of Salt Lake City not being interested at all in it, would say, “all right, you can have just such a charter as you want;” the charter given to Salt Lake may not be the character of a charter that the people of Salt Lake want, although its representatives may be working for it. But when we make them all uniform and classify them, then there certainly can be no danger. My friend from Salt Lake will admit with me I think, that the history of this country is trending in the direction I am talking of; that is a refusal upon the part of the constitution makers, and also upon the part of legislatures, where they are not prohibited by the constitution, to make general laws for the incorporation of cities, but classify them just as we have done here. We have cities of the first, second and third classes. When Ogden City becomes as large as Salt Lake, which will not be very long, then we are entitled to exactly the same privileges that they have. So it is with Provo and Logan. But to say that each one of them shall have a special charter when it arrives at a certain population, is wrong in principle.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I now move an amendment to section 5 by adding file No. 10 which was introduced by myself.

File No. 10 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a matter of some importance. I think the reason why the committee seems to be ready to dispose of the proposition so soon, is because

they probably had not given the matter any investigation. I think that this matter should be considered, and I therefore suggest that this amendment be printed, and that we postpone {404}
the further consideration of this section, that is, that we pass the section temporarily until we can have this printed, and give the matter proper consideration. I am opposed to voting down proposed amendments in this way without giving them any consideration whatever.

Mr. WELLS. I second the motion.

Mr. PRESTON. I think that this is strictly on the line of legislation, and it belongs to that body, and I submit it can be very consistently left for the Legislature to frame such laws in regard to the matter as they want, and it does not belong to us as a Convention to consider.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say in answer to the gentleman from Salt Lake, while this is legislation it is no more legislation than anything else that we have done or are doing in this Constitution. It is fundamental in its character. It is simply determining that a charter may be granted in a certain way by certain people. Now, if such a provision as that is not in the Constitution, it cannot be done. The general power that a Legislature has to do this business would not confer that power upon the people as it is proposed by this section. Therefore, it is not objectionable upon the grounds that it is legislation, because it is not legislation in that sense. It is the fundamental law, or it would be if it is adopted. Now, this has been adopted, as I am told, in California with satisfactory results, and with some modifications in the state of Washington, with very satisfactory results, and I say it is a proposition that is worthy of the consideration of the committee. That is all I ask, is that we have it printed and have it before us, and have an opportunity to consider it before we vote upon it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order on the motion made by Mr. Richards, a motion to postpone in the committee of the whole is not in order.

Mr. RICHARDS, I do not make a motion to postpone, and I insist that the motion is in order. A motion to postpone indefinitely, I do not believe is in order, because that would be an equivalent to a motion to lay on the table, but a motion would be proper to postpone and consider this section at the next session or the next day.

Mr. THURMAN. I am opposed to the motion. I would like to ask for information, whether or not this article was not referred to the committee?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. THURMAN. And reported back adversely.

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes; I was the only one who advocated it, and I introduced it here at the request of gentlemen deeply interested in municipal corporations. As far as I am personally concerned I do not care, because I introduced it, but I think at the same time, out of due deference to the request that was made, the matter ought to be considered. You can argue it if you please.

Mr. JAMES. I am in favor of Mr. Richards' motion for the reason that {405} probably some of us are not quite so well informed upon the necessities of cities as Mr. Thurman, who has just spoken, seems to be. Now, let us have an opportunity to look into the matter; I do not think it will do any harm.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion now pending before the committee is the motion of Mr. Richards to pass section 5 for the time being.

The motion was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Eichnor.

Mr. FARR. I do not understand why it is that this Convention wants to tie up the hands of the Legislature and confine them down to a certain routine and route. Why not let them have some latitude to work, as seems under the circumstances to be for the best good of municipalities? I do not underderstand why we are legislating so much in order to tie up the Legislature. I think the Legislature should have power to draft special charters on special occasions, and I could give my reasons why. I will read a suggestion_a proposition which I do not seek to adopt or make any remarks on, if it does not obtain a second it can go for what it is worth, which I think will cover the entire section. I do not see any provision in this bill providing authority to the Legislature to incorporate cities, hence I offer a little suggestion here, which will cover, I think, the whole section, and will provide for the whole business of municipal corporations:

“Section 5. The Legislature shall provide by general law for municipal corporations.”

This covers the whole business, gentlemen. If they can provide by general laws, they can provide, if they want to, for any body of men, of four, five, six, or ten thousand. If they see fit to give them a charter, they have aright to, and they have a right to organize under general laws, hence I make this suggestion that the Legislature shall provide for corporations, which will cover the whole ground.

Mr. VARIAN. I second the motion.

The motion offered by Mr. Eichnor was rejected.

Section 6 was read and passed.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move now that the committee now arise and report progress.

Mr. VARIAN. Does that include the report of this section showing its adoption?

Mr. RICKS. Yes.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT:

Your committee of the whole have had under consideration the article entitled education and school lands, and report the same back to the Convention with a recommendation that it be referred back to the standing committee on education and school lands for modification and simplification. Your committee further report that they have had under consideration the article entitled counties, cities and towns, and have adopted the same with amendments, and report the same with the amendments to the Convention with a recommendation that it go on the calendar for a third reading.

The Convention re-assembled at 2 o'clock p. m. with President Smith in the chair.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Inasmuch as the regular order was not passed this morning, because of the declaration of rights not having been printed as amended, I now move that we go back to the regular order, and take up the declaration of rights on the third reading.
{406 - AMENDMENTS}
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I hope that this motion will not prevail. A number of very important amendments were made to this declaration of rights, and we have not had an opportunity since it was printed to give it the examination that it ought to receive before being read the third time. I think it ought to go over until to-morrow and give us an opportunity to examine it carefully, and individually, before it is brought up on a third reading.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I would like to ask if that has been printed and distributed yet?

The PRESIDENT. It is being distributed now.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then I suggest it is manifestly hurrying things too fast. We have had no opportunity whatever to examine it, and the hurried reading of it here in the presence of the Convention is not sufficient.

The PRESIDENT. That is the proposition.

Mr. WELLS. A number of the delegates have asked me when the matter came up to move that it be deferred until to-morrow, so that they may have to-night to look over the printed copy and consider it a little further. If it is in order, I will make that motion as an amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I now move that we go into committee of the whole, to consider the order of the calendar.

The motion was agreed to, and the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Kimball, of Weber, in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the next order of business on the calendar of this committee is the report of the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous, and the article reported by them entitled, “amendments.”

Section 1 was read as follows:

Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either house of the Legislature, and if two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses shall vote in favor thereof, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their respective journals, with the ayes and noes taken thereon, and the Legislature shall cause the same to be published in at least one newspaper in every county of the State, where a newspaper is published, for three months immediately preceding the next general election, at which time the said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the electors of the State for their approval or rejection, and if a majority of the electors voting thereon shall approve the same, such amendment or amendments shall become part of this Constitution.

If two or more amendments are proposed, they shall be submitted in such a manner as to enable the electors to vote on the same separately.

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 2 was read and passed without amendment.

Section 3 was read as follows:

Any constitution adopted by such convention shall have no validity until it has been submitted to and

adopted by a majority of the electors voting at said election.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we amend section 3 by striking out the word “said” in the fourth line, and inserting “the next general election.”

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that by referring to line 4 of section 2 we find the following: “they shall recommend to the electors {407 - ELECTIONS AND SUFFRAGE} to vote at the next general election for or against a convention.” Now this other refers to said election.                            

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, that provides for the electors to vote on whether they shall have the convention or not. It does not provide for the electors to vote on the question of the revised constitution.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, I move you to amend section 3 by inserting after the letter “a,” in line 3, the words “two-thirds.”

The CHAIRMAN. I hear no second to that amendment; unless I hear further amendments, the article entitled “amendments” has passed this committee.

Gentlemen of the committee, the next order of business on the calendar of this committee is the report of the committee on elections and right of suffrage.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman. I move the committee now rise and report on the article just passed.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

Your committee of the whole have had under consideration the article entitled “amendments,” and after considation of the same, report the article back to the Convention with amendments, and recommend the article and amendments go on the calendar for the third reading.

The minority on elections and right of suffrage reported as follows:

Committee Room, March 27, 1895.

To the President of the Constitutional Convention:

The minority of your committee on elections and suffrage regret that they feel it their duty to disagree with the majority of the committee on the question of woman suffrage in Utah, and beg to present, briefly, their reasons for such disagreement.

We do not seek to dispute in the least the argument that in all intellectual attributes and attainments women are qualified to vote as intelligently as men, except that women are better than men; they are ruled more readily by their sympathies, impulses and religious convictions, and do not realize as much as men that law is an arbitrary and imperial machine, and knows neither impulse nor sympathy.

But conditions are presented to us that never confronted a people before. The masses of people of Utah have only just begun to study seriously the principles of the government of the United States, and the duties which pertain to citizenship. They have been reared in a school which taught sincere allegiance to a local government and in that allegiance has been woven an absorbing affection and pious devotion. It is hard for a woman's nature to swiftly change, when her sympathies and sense of duty have long controlled her in a particular channel.

Again, it is but a few years since the Congress of the United States thought it necessary to withdraw this privilege from the women of Utah, because in the friction between the nation and the ruling power in Utah, the sympathies and devotion of the women, all bending in one direction, in the judgment of Congress made it necessary to take suffrage from her, in order to begin to place this Territory in harmony with the Union under the laws.

A widespread fear prevails that with the privilege restored, the old overwhelming force would destroy the present equality of parties_which always leads to confusion, if not tyranny_and awaken a terrible temptation on the part of those who ruled before, to resume their sway by working upon the generous impulses and religious instincts of women, which would result in political, if not social and business, ostracism of the minority.

This feeling is not only widespread throughout Utah, but it awakens keen apprehensions and forebodings throughout the nation at large.

As a people we are poor. We need the strong arms and the capital of the more thickly settled portions of our country.

To adopt the report of the majority will be to keep both away until the unnecessary experiment may be tried.

But it is not on selfish grounds that we interpose this report. We are looking not only to the prosperity but the future peace of this region. Surely no one desires a return to the contentions which prevailed here only seven years ago. As true citizens, none of us can look forward with anything but apprehension to the possible placing of the entire power of the government of the new State in the hands of a power in {408} our midst which might easily, under statehood, become omnipotent.

We are reminded of the pledges of respective political platforms, we do not forget them, but we remember likewise that all platforms are changed from year to year and we are forced to take cognizance of the fact that a most decided change of thought has been wrought on the people of this Territory on this particular subject, since they began to seriously contemplate the possible results of the carrying out of the will of the majority of this committee.

Why not permit the question, which is making so much unrest in the thoughts of men, to be held in suspension for the present?

With the adoption of the Constitution, a Legislature will speedily be convened. The members of that body will come directly from the people. Why not leave the question to them?

We respectfully oppose the report of the majority of your committee, and recommend that the suffrage of women be kept out of the Constitution.

Respectfully submitted,

R. MACKINTOSH,

FRED J. KIESEL,

ROBERT MCFARLAND.

Mr. PRESIDENT. Under the rule it is to be printed and goes to the calendar of the committee of the whole.

What is the pleasure of the Convention?

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I move we resolve ourselves into committee of the whole for the consideration of the regular order.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I do not think it is usual to print reports. The matter submitted for consideration to go into the Constitution is always printed, but reports of committees are not as a rule printed. If it is desired to have this one printed, it would be unusual. I have no objection to it.

Mr. KIESEL. I think the majority report has been printed.

The PRESIDENT. I will read rule 19. (Reads.)

Mr. THURMAN. That does not necessarily say that the article reported by the majority shall be deferred; it does not even intimate that it shall be, and when I made my motion for the regular order, I understood the regular order to be as indicated on the board.

Mr. CANNON. Question on motion.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that the rule read by the chair is very emphatic on this question. Every ordinance, proposition or other matter for insertion in the Constitution when reported by any committee, shall, with all reports thereon, without further order, be printed and referred to the committee of the whole. The gentleman undertook to say that only the part that is proposed to be inserted in the Constitution ought to be printed. The rule, however, is emphatic, that all reports thereon, which, of course, contemplated the minority report as well as the majority report, and I cannot understand how the Convention can resolve itself into committee of the whole and consider this matter of election of rights of suffrage now, for the reason that here is a report

which is not printed and not properly before the committee for its consideration. I wish further to say on this subject, that this proposition proposed brings before the Convention, and before the committee of the whole, the most serious question that it will have to consider; and while, perhaps, the gentlemen who made that minority report, will also be in the minority both in this Convention and in the committee of the whole, I nevertheless believe, sir, that a careful consideration of those suggestions that they have made, ought to be entertained by this Convention and by a committee of the whole, for the reason, according to the judgment of this report of the minority, this question puts in jeopardy the very Constitution that we are framing itself. I say that we ought not to go into a consideration of this subject until this minority report of the committee shall be printed and be before members for their serious consideration.

Mr. CHIDESTER. That is exactly {409} the condition of things that I was looking for the other day, when I made a motion to make that a special order that it might come up. Now, you see that my fears have been realized; that this minority report comes in here just in time, if their theories are correct, to postpone this matter and put it off. Now, then, I submit that this is not proper, that this business is not on the calendar and it should be considered in the order in which it is placed on there, and the reason that their report is not in is no reason why we should defer this matter_

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

Mr. CHIDESTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. The report of this committee is now in and before this Convention.

Mr. CHIDESTER. And the report of that committee should have been in before [laughter], for the reason that they had due notice of the action of the majority of this committee, and that this section that they opposed would be reported favorably, and from the very first day that the committee met they knew of its action, and they were as well prepared to make their minority report then, as the majority was to make theirs. And now then, sir, to postpone this matter and lay this over so that other measures would come in ahead of it, is unjust and unfair, and is not treating the majority of that committee fair. They claimed it as unfairness before, but what are they doing now? How are they treating the majority? When we stated that we believed that this was their design to fetch in their minority report in this kind of a way and thereby postpone this matter for some purpose that they may have in their heads. I believe that it is unfair and for that reason I oppose it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I do not think that I ought to take any particular part in this question at this time except as a member of the committee on rules. It may be that the committee on rules would differ with me in my opinion as to rule 19, but I have a very decidedly difference of opinion from those who have urged that this matter should now be printed, and that it should be taken up after the printing of the minority report. Certainly that rule applies to the report of the committee and all other reports thereon; it contemplates that the minority report should be in at the same time as the majority report. What other construction can be put upon this rule? Have not the minority had just as much time to report as the majority? Can they delay their report until the very moment that this matter is to be brought up to be considered in committee of the whole and

then invoke this rule? I say that in fairness they cannot do it. According to the fair construction of the language, they cannot do it. It contemplates that the majority report and the minority report should be filed all together, and it should not be placed in the power of the minority to say when they shall report for the purpose of delaying the matter, even of such importance as this.

Mr. THURMAN. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. Is it not the fact also, that that rule contemplates that the minority report, if there is one, shall contain some propositions to be inserted in the Constitution in order to permit it to be printed?

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. I understood the president to rule upon this question that this rule would be printed. I raise the same point that Mr. Evans has now raised, that some time ago, as I understood the president, he ruled that the matter should be printed.

The PRESIDENT. I ruled that under that rule it should go to the committee of the whole after being printed.

Mr. WELLS. Then I submit that the {410} matter can only be reached by an appeal from the decision of the chair.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I understand that the order so far as this minority report is concerned, should stand just as the president has directed. The minority report should be referred to the committee on printing for the purpose of having it printed, but that does not necessarily imply that there should be a delay of this matter. If that rule should obtain here, the report of the committee on elections and right of suffrage will go down to the order of nine; it will take the foot of the calendar, and the very object of the gentlemen here and their purpose will have succeeded.

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to ask Mr. Evans a question. I agree with him when he says that the order of business in the matter of committee reports, contemplates that the minority report and the majority report shall come in before the Convention together. But was not this privilege denied to the minority on the part of the majority in this instance?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That I do not know. know that the question was raised here and there was a disposition to give the minority time, and I was one of those who believed in granting the time, but that does not necessarily imply that they should take their own time for reporting. I raise this matter as a question of principle, because if this course is to be pursued with other matters, a minority report might be brought in upon any measure which is bulletined, and that would necessarily retard the entire work of the Convention.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, in support of the remarks made by the gentleman who has just taken his seat, I wish to remind the committee that in the Congress of the United States there is no such thing as a minority report; it is the majority that makes the report, but the minority have the privilege of filing their views, and they are always called the views of the minority in the report proper.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would ask permission to submit a question to the gentleman?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. What material hurt to the question will it do if it is put ninth on this calendar? I presume, sir, that there are twenty-six reports of the twenty-six committees; I submit to the gentleman that there are twenty-six standing committees to report, some of them will make two or three reports. Since we are to have twenty-three numbers on the calendar of the committee of the whole, what great harm will come to this question, if it should stand so far down as number nine on that schedule?

The PRESIDENT. Eleven it would properly be.

Mr. ANDERSON. The minority have had ample opportunity to prepare their report. The second day that the committee met we passed upon and adopted this resolution, and they gave notice then that they were going to put in a minority report, and they kept reminding us of that nearly every day of our session, and they have had the last two weeks to prepare this minority report_

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to submit another question to the gentleman and that is this: You remarked that the first day this question of suffrage was considered, that the minority of the committee knew from that time that this {411} report would be made; is it customary, sir, to conclude that the committee will in no case change its mind, and is it not right on the part of the minority to presume, or rather believe, that there is a possibility of changing the mind of that committee; and they cannot, sir, be properly supposed to be able to reach the conclusion what the majority report will be until it is made out?

Mr. IVINS. I would like a ruling of the chair on what it takes to constitute a question, Mr. President?

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I move the previous question.

Mr. RICHARDS. I ask the gentleman to withdraw his request for the previous question just a moment, until I make a suggestion of a point that has not been raised yet, which I think will solve this question. Will the gentleman consent?

Mr. LOW (Cache). Just for this one case.

Mr. RICHARDS. I am in favor of this motion for the reason that I think it ought not to lose its

place, and this is the point I desire to make. There are fifteen sections in this article; now if it be true that fairness to the minority requires that their report should be printed before the committee of the whole act upon the first section, we can still go into committee of the whole and act upon the fourteen sections that follow, and be saving time, and this article not lose its place, and then be prepared to take up the first section when the report is printed. I do not say that is due to the minority, or that the rules require it, but I make that suggestion, it can be done if desired.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I ask permission to make a suggestion. I do not know whether my friends in this majority will agree to it or not, but I understand the other side_the minority of the committee_are willing to make this the special order for to-morrow morning, giving it the right of way over every other question. Now, if that be true, and we can make it so for to-morrow morning, so far as I am concerned, if those who support me on this motion will consent, I am willing to withdraw my motion to go into committee of the Whole and make it the special order, giving it the right of way to-morrow morning. I understand that will suit the minority.

The PRESIDENT. The main question has been withdrawn.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I arise for information. My understanding was, that they propose to allow this to be made the special order for to-morrow morning. Now, if it is in order I will make a motion, that it be made a special order for to-morrow morning after the usual program.

Mr. EVANS (Utah ). Mr. President, I submit the previous question is the thing to be put.

Mr. LOW. Mr. Chairman, I arise for the purpose of withdrawing_     

Mr. EVANS. I object to him withdrawing and I demand the previous question.

The PRESIDENT. I ruled upon it and the thing is gone by. The question is on the motion by Mr. Chidester that this matter of suffrage be fixed for to-morrow directly after the regular order.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, now I wish to say a word in regard to this question. I am opposed to it. In the beginning it can only be done by a suspension of the rules. We have tried twice before in this Convention to make this matter a special order and in both instances we have failed, and there is no reason to believe that we will be any more successful in suspending these rules this afternoon than we have hitherto been. The gentleman asked why the majority should be so anxious to have it come up for immediate hearing. I want to answer that question by asking why it is that the minority are so very anxious that this question {412} shall be continually postponed? They have had plenty of time to get in their report. Gentlemen, I believe that right now and here is the proper time to take this question up and decide it, and therefore, I am opposed to this motion, and I wish to offer an amendment to it, a renewal of the question made by the gentleman from Utah which was withdrawn, that we now go into committee of the whole and consider the regular calendar.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the question, and also to answer the gentleman from Washington. The gentleman has asked the reason why the minority of this committee have

been desirous of postponing this question, and I want to answer that. In the first place, I am not on that committee, nor have I anything to do with their minority report, but when this report on the part of the majority was made, the committee reached, as I am informed, its final conclusion at a meeting about 12 o'clock in the day; it came into this Convention at 2 o'clock, made its report and asked that it be printed and be made a special order for Tuesday last. The minority of that committee then stated that they desired to make a report, that only about two hours before had the committee suddenly concluded to make its report that day, they asked sufficient time to make their report, but, gentlemen, in arrogance, refused to allow them that time, and as I said before I say now, they treated that minority with scant courtesy, because this question could have been discussed five or six days later as well as at that time. One gentleman of the majority of that committee took exceptions to this making any delay on their report, and rushing this thing through the Convention; they at that time assigned motives both to the minority of this committee and also to gentlemen who differ from their report. They then stated that there were tricks, that there were traps being laid to defeat this majority, and from that time until now, every movement on the part of those who wish to floor the consideration of this question before the Convention, have been stigmatized with improper motives, which I here, so far as I am personally concerned, resent and say they are not true.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Roberts, may I ask you a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Are you on that committee on elections and right of suffrage?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir. [Laughter.] I wish to say, however, that since I took the floor in connection with this minority and undertook to speak with them in repelling these charges, that there has not been a gentleman that has spoken on this subject from the first, to the gentleman from Washington who just now took his seat, but what has attributed not only to the minority of that committee but to every one who has spoken with them, the same improper motives, and they have been applied to gentlemen who have worked with them, as well as to the minority of the committee itself, and it is useless for men to undertake to deny it, because it is true; the whole membership of this Convention, who do not have the virtue of seeing eye to eye with a majority of this committee, and gentlemen upon this Convention, have been charged with these improper motives. I resent them, they are not right, they are not proper, and I say that these remarks directed to gentlemen of the minority of this committee have been applied to the rest of us who do not see eye to eye with that committee, and the audible smile of the Convention is out of place in that matter. I say that it has reflected upon every man who has not seen eye to eye with that committee. I second the motion to make this a special order for to-morrow morning. Are gentlemen truly afraid that deferring it until that {413} time, when it shall have the right of way, that there are some pitfalls or that there is great danger of having the ground removed under their feet, and they will suddenly discover themselves in a hole? Why gentlemen, truth_correct principles have nothing to fear from delay; as I understand it, it is always calm, it is always ready that its opponents should sharpen well their weapons and make an able attack upon it, and this feverish insight on the part of the gentlemen is not complimentary to this assurance upon this subject. And now, then, the deferring of this matter until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning gives

opportunity for that report of the minority to be printed. Gentlemen will have it before them for their consideration, and they will have all the opportunity that they certainly need to speak upon the subject.

Mr. GOODWIN. There will be more ladies in the world to-morrow than there are to-day. I don't see why this hurry comes up. The committee reported forty-eight hours ago, if I remember correctly_the majority of them; at that time one of the minority gave notice that the minority would produce a report; we are equal in point of fact on this floor. If we go into this investigation to-day, we go in on one side, and it seems to me if the motion is to prevail, it ought to read, “that we go into committee of the whole to consider one side of this question.” What is the hurry? What is twenty hours going to do? I take it that every one of that committee, minority as well as majority, are honorable gentlemen; they both have filed a report. The gentleman that has addressed us on this matter, who will, I take it, be the leader on the one side, recognizing that some courtesy was due the minority, kindly withdrew his motion to consider this matter this afternoon, and said if it can be fixed for 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, he would be content. But some other gentleman would not wait that long. Now, it took three weeks and over for the majority to report, and possibly they began two days sooner than the minority. It is an extravagant waste of time that the minority have absorbed in making up their report, we do not know but what they spent all their time in trying to convert the majority of that committee. It seems to me we cannot all keep good natured on this subject, and with the courtesy that we would like to ask for ourselves we can gracefully extend to others, all being equal, all wanting to do the right thing. I hope this motion to rush this thing on this afternoon will be voted down, and that it be set for to-morrow morning, when we will have all the reports and it will give some gentlemen two or three speeches in its consideration. If this goes on this afternoon, speeches will be made by those who favor the majority report, they will want to make another speech to denounce the minority report. Had not we better get it where we can condense it all into one? We have got plenty of time. Our salaries are not such a consideration that one day will make any special difference, and besides there is plenty of work to do this afternoon. Let us be reasonable. It is a very serious thing when we reduce the ladies of a great State from the position which they have occupied, down on the level with common men like ourselves.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I will state that instead of the report being made by the majority forty-eight hours ago, it was made two and a half times that length of time. And in the first place, at the time the report was made, and at the time the special order was asked, personally I opposed the motion for a special order, on the ground that I wanted to see the minority have time to introduce their minority report. Later, on becoming convinced from that which was told me, that the minority report would probably not be presented until the article was ready for consideration by the Convention, {414} I favored a motion which was made setting to-day as the day upon which this proposition should be made the special order. At that time the gentlemen who favored the minority report were strenuous in advocating the course of letting this matter come up in its regular order, and when the objection was raised, that the very action that is now proposed would be proposed by the minority, it was asserted on behalf of that minority that when the regular order came up_that whether or not the minority report had been presented, the matter should be considered. I desire to call attention to rule 21, and that we can only change this by a suspension of the rules. I also desire to call attention to the fact, that as I understand it, this minority presents

no proposition for insertion in the Constitution; it simply opposes one of the sections proposed by the majority of the committee, and, in the language of the gentleman from Davis County, if those who favor the minority report are so “cock-sure” of their position, why are they in such an “all-fired” slow mood about bringing it about?

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Mr. President, as one of the minority, I wish to make a little explanation. I think it will allay a good deal of the irritation and feeling that is here presented, and that is this: last Saturday I went into the committee room about eleven o'clock or half past. I was told that the majority report was going to be made. Mr. Kiesel and myself urged upon them to delay it; we had not considered and we wanted to consult with ourselves and the other gentleman, Mr. McFarland. They would not hear it. The gentlemen said that there were schemes on foot to delay this matter in order that it would be beaten in the Convention. Now, on that day, Monday, when it came up it was proposed for a special order of business_Mr. Kiesel left town on Sunday and did not arrive here until yesterday. I have never had an opportunity until yesterday afternoon to consult with him on the matter, and I was very much surprised when I arrived here_I was not at the Convention this morning_we were so near the majority report of the committee on suffrage. I got Mr. McFarland and Mr. Kiesel. We talked the matter over. Certainly we had the report all written and that was the cause of the delay. If Mr. Kiesel had been here, had not gone out of town for two days, I think we would have had the report already, and we are perfectly willing to have it come up to-morrow morning, and if the Convention says so, now, for that matter.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I wish to say that so far as the gentlemen are concerned, that in the committee they have acted very fairly_very fairly; there has been no particular harangue about this matter. There has been more done here than anywhere else, but it seems to me that they have procrastinated their time; while notwithstanding all of this if it was agreed by this Convention that it might come up to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock without any failure, I would not object, but the danger is in letting it go to the foot of the calendar; that I would never consent to, because we have done our part. Now, as to improper motives, all that has been said has been brought out simply by the actions of men here on the floor, and it seems to me to have borne out that proposition, and I presume I have said more in regard to that than anyone else, and I am willing to stand under it. I believed at the time there was some scheme afloat to defeat this or throw this back, and to let it take its place behind other matters until they could be re-inforced, and bring what force they could against it, and such forces that I knew not of. And for that reason I deemed it my duty and my place to insist upon that being favorably considered, and fairly considered, with all due speed, but not in undue speed. But now that the matter has {415} got where it has, I see no other position only that it shall come up in its regular order and we will go ahead with the business.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I wish to sustain the proposition to postpone this question until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, or until the time arrives when it is proper to take it up.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now for it to go over until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Whitney has the floor.

Mr. ANDERSON. Can a member withdraw a motion without the consent of the second?

The PRESIDENT. I should think not.

Mr. ANDERSON. I second Mr. Thurman's motion.

The PRESIDENT. That is all behind us. We are on a new_     

Mr. ANDERSON. I object to that.

Mr. RICHARDS. I think that the majority can afford to be generous on this matter, and I am willing that my friends on the other side shall have until to-morrow morning to get ready for the fray. As has been suggested, they need all the time, and they need the preparation, and I am perfectly willing for that, but I would like to have it reached in a different way from that suggested. I desire to have this, inasmuch as it has been insisted upon by the minority_that it shall not be made a special order up to the present moment when their convenience indicates it should be made a special order_I say let it retain its place as the regular order, and let's go on with other business, and let it stand here until we are ready to take it up tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, or as soon as the preliminaries of to-morrow's session are over. That is my notion of disposing of the matter, not make it a special order at all, but concede to them that this question shall not be taken up until to-morrow morning, but that nothing else shall be done here in place of it unless it be by suspension of the rules, that we might go on and consider the subsequent sections of this article, which I think we might do with profit, because there are propositions in the subsequent sections of the article, and the report of the majority and the minority only relates to the first section. There are propositions in other sections which I believe will require discussion and consideration, and I think that we might go into committee of the whole and consider those sections this afternoon, and let it retain its regular order and still not reach the difficult question they desire to have postponed until to-morrow morning. I am willing that they should have the time, but not willing that this should lose its regular order.

Mr. THURMAN. I desire to state that when I made the suggestion that I was in favor of letting the matter go over until to-morrow morning, it was with the distinct understanding that I had the unanimous consent of my friends. They did not consent, but, however, the motion before the Convention at the present time is, shall this go over and be made the regular order for {416} to- morrow or a special order? Now, I wish to ask a question, if it becomes a special order, it will be after the third reading of bills is disposed of?

Mr. THURMAN. Then I am not in favor of the motion, if it would defer it to that extent. We might take up all day to-morrow in the third reading of the bills, and before I take my seat, I wish to say one word in reply to my esteemed friend upon my right; he said that somebody was in a hole, intimating that it was those who favored suffrage.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to reply to the gentleman's question, because he certainly misunderstood me.

Mr. THURMAN. Very well.

Mr. ROBERTS. My remark on that was simply this: are gentlemen afraid that during the time intervening between now and 10 o'clock, that we would by some skill or other remove the ground from under their feet, and they would find themselves in a hole?

Mr. THURMAN. The gentleman said did we fear we were in a hole or would get in a hole. Now, as far as I am concerned, Mr. President, I have no fears of my getting in a hole on this question, but I have some esteemed friends here, who promised by their acceptance of the platform upon which they were elected, whether they were democrats or republicans, that they would come here and favor equal suffrage without regard to sex, so that only those who oppose the platform on which they are elected will find themselves in a hole. [Laughter].

Mr. McFARLAND. I wish to say a few words on this subject, as I am in the minority. It has been stated on the floor of this house, time and time again, that we have had ample time to prepare a minority report; that we have had the time from the day this article passed in the committee. I deny it. The first few days the committee met I was absent. I knew nothing of the article as it passed the majority, until it came here before the ladies that waited upon us one morning. It was then told them that the article would pass, that their waiting and lobbying around the hall of this Convention was no use at all, that the thing had been passed before it was asked for, and in Nebuchadnezzar's language, “I built this Babylon,” they said, “I gave you this suffrage.” Now the bill was pigeon-holed that morning until it came up before the committee of the whole. We protested against it going into the house at that time, we asked them for time that we might consider it and probably go with the majority if they would give us time. We were accused of duplicity, falsity, trickery, and all such things, and now, gentlemen, if you do not come now, this thing is going to be reported to the house immediately. We asked them to delay it a day that we might have a chance to bring in this minority report. The same answer was given unto us, “No, you cannot have five minutes, this thing is going to be reported at once to this house, and if you want to bring in a minority report, you can do so, but we are not going to delay it one moment.” Now, the fact of the matter is this: Mr. Kiesel has been away since that time; we have only had the opportunity at the present time to bring in a report and why should this be stated before the house continually that something is wrong, that we want to take some advantage? If it is so fortified in and of itself, why should the scare be raised of some advantage going to be taken? There is no need of it, there is no need of it. There is only one thing that has put the question of woman suffrage in the shape that it is to-day, and that is the anxiety of some of the committee to

rush it through without proper discussion and without due consideration. It is the worst thing that ever happened the {417} section of the article, that it should be placed in such a position before the house, to be rushed through without any consideration. And, gentlemen, this being the fact of the case, we simply ask now that our minority report may come up in its proper order with the majority report, and be reported together.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Why this dissension? Men rise upon this floor and tell us that they have not made their report. For what reason? Because they were not here. I think the government pays the men to be here present, to attend to their duties, and shall this whole body be detained because there are a few men that want to go and attend to other parts of the country where they have got business? I say it is not competent for a detention of that kind. We might offer it as competent, and it is proper that whenever a majority report is brought in that accompanying that is the minority report. And for that reason I am opposed to dilly-dallying along with this matter. And the question may arise here, why we want to hurry this along? I do not think there has been any hurry, I do not think there is any hurry now. There is plenty of equality and fairness about me, gentlemen. It is liberality, I believe strictly in liberality. I do not hesitate because there is fifteen or twenty hours asked of a detention. I am not afraid of the position I take, I am going to make my record here, and you and every one of you will make your record, and it will go to the public, and I am not afraid of the stand I am going to take. I am in for suffrage. I think it is taking its course, and if men dilly-dally along, and go to attend to their private business, I do not think it is competent for them to come up here and make such an excuse.

Mr. THORESON. I think we have wasted enough time talking about these difficulties between the minority and the majority of this committee. We were sent here and elected as has been stated, on platforms to put certain things into the Constitution of this State, among other things, equal suffrage for male and female, and I, for one, move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The CHAIRMAN. The question before the house is the motion of Mr. Chidester to suspend the rules in order that we might fix this question for consideration to-morrow directly after the close of the regular order. It is amended by Mr. Ivins, who moved that we go into committee of the whole for the consideration of those propositions.

The question being taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Ivins, the Convention divided and the amendment was rejected by a vote of 44 ayes and 52 noes.

The question recurring upon the motion of Mr. Chidester the ayes and noes were called for and the vote was as follows:

AYES_87.
Adams
Allen
Barnes
Boyer

NOES_12.
Anderson    
Bowdle    
Buys    
Evans, Weber    

ABSENT_7.
Eichnor    
Larsen, C. P.    
Moritz     Pierce
Sharp
Thatcher
Varian.

The PRESIDENT. The motion is carried and the time fixed for the consideration of this question is to-morrow directly after we get through the regular order.

Mr. NEBEKER. I understand that this gives this proposition the right of way over everything.

The PRESIDENT. Yes, after the regular order.

The Convention then, at 3:24 o'clock p. m., adjourned.