[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.


TUESDAY, April 2, 1895.

The Convention met at 10 o'clock a. m. President Smith in the chair.

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Apostle F. M. Lyman, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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

A petition, signed by G. F. Hickman and forty-eight others, (file No. 171), was presented, requesting that the question of prohibition be submitted, as a separate article, to a vote of the people.

Referred to the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Mr. Eldredge presented, by request, a petition from Mary A. Freeze and twelve others, asking that the Convention adjourn to the Theatre. Also a petition asking that the Convention change its place of holding sessions.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move these petitions lie upon the table.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee on water rights, irrigation, and agriculture, presented a report, which was referred to the committee on printing.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I move we now resolve ourselves into committee of the whole for the further consideration of the article on elections and right of suffrage.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I move as an amendment to that that we remain in session until article 1 is disposed of.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I accept that amendment.

Mr. CRANE. Before that motion is put, Mr. President, I have a resolution I would like to present:

Resolved, that for the purpose of accommodating the public to hear the closing debate on woman's suffrage, that it is the sense of the Convention that we adjourn to the Salt Lake Theatre until after Mr. Roberts has concluded his remarks.

Mr. CRANE. I think perhaps that this resolution may be out of order, but I am informed that there are a thousand people waiting in the hallways and down to the ground to hear the eloquent speech of Mr. Roberts.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order.

Mr. CRANE. I know the Convention is not on wheels, Mr. President.

Mr. VARIAN. I arise to a point of order.

Mr. CRANE. And I want everyone to hear these remarks_

Mr. VARIAN. The gentleman ought to sit down when I arise to a point of order. Such a resolution as that is out of order. It would violate the standing rules of this Convention, for one thing.

The PRESIDENT. We cannot adjourn to any place unless_

Mr. CRANE. Then, Mr. President, I would move that the rules be suspended and that we adopt this resolution.


Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to lay the resolution on the table. The motion was agreed to.

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

The CHAIRMAN. The question, gentlemen, before you is the substitute offered by Mr. Eichnor, of Salt Lake City, to section 1 of the report of the committee on elections and rights of suffrage.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a question of personal privilege. I was not present in this room yesterday afternoon, when it was arranged that the debate should close and that Mr. Roberts should be the first speaker this morning. I was crowded out of the hall and out of my seat by the great influx of visitors. It was my intention to occupy five or ten minutes, in order to set myself right in relation to a portion of my speech on Saturday, which has not only been misunderstood, but grossly misrepresented; I ask permission to use five or ten minutes. I shall not need any longer time nor desire it, before the honorable gentleman from Davis County takes the floor.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I will move that the gentleman have thirty minutes if he choose.


Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, before the motion is put, I would like to ask a question. How many more gentlemen are there in the house that want thirty minutes besides the gentleman who

has just spoken?

Mr. VARIAN. None.

Mr. BUTTON. If there are none, I have no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, Mr. Whitney, of Salt Lake, will be permitted to occupy a few minutes of time.

Mr. VARIAN. Thirty minutes.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Thirty minutes.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I am in order or not, if not I will be so informed. I would like to renew the motion to adjourn to the Salt Lake Theatre instead of depriving the sovereign people of Utah of admission to its own halls; I do not approve of that. I think they want to hear this great debate and they have a right to hear it, and I think that is the place for us to go.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitney has the floor.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not deem it an unreasonable request that I have made.
It was I who seconded the motion giving to the gentleman from Davis County the privilege of closing the debate upon this question; he having requested that privilege in view of the fact that as he has been asked by his constituents to resign, it would probably be his last speech on the floor of this Convention. As this is probably the last speech I shall make on earth [laughter], for there is no telling what or where I shall be when the gentleman from Davis County gets through with me_I think it only right that I should be given a few minutes now.

In my remarks on Saturday I made mention of the fact that in the church to which the gentleman and myself belong, women are allowed to vote, and incidentally I stated that Mr. Roberts had been elected to a high ecclesiastical office by a congregation, two-thirds of whom were women. Because of this I have been accused of bringing into this discussion matters which should have been left outside. Some have gone so far as to say that I advocated the idea that the State of Utah should model its institutions after those of the Mormon Church. I am not afraid that my eloquent friend, in replying to me_for in his intelligence and fairness I have confidence_will revamp such an absurd and ridiculous idea. But I wish him to understand me clearly in every respect, so that he may answer, not what I have been falsely represented as saying, but what I actually did say.

My friend argued, you will remember, that suffrage is a privilege and not a right; that it ought not to be extended {580} to any class incapable of independent action, meaning that married women were not capable, and that they ought to be satisfied with the fact that at the polls and in public life they were represented by their husbands. By the way, I tried to convince my wife the other night that this was correct philosophy. I had stepped into the theatre on my way home and witnessed an act or two of the play in progress, and on reaching home, I endeavored to persuade

Mrs. W. that she had witnessed the performance as well as myself, because, forsooth, in accordance with the philosophy of my admired friend, I represented her at the play. But it wouldn't work

And now passing on. I have stated Mr. Roberts' position. Let me now state what I said, or meant to say, in answer to him. I held that the right of consent_the underlying principle of the elective franchise_is an inherent right, possessed by every human being; that it existed before governments were formed, before constitutions were heard of; that it is a right which woman enjoys and exercises when she accepts or rejects an offer of marriage. She says yes or no, and thus votes upon the proposition as to who shall rule her in the household. The family, I averred, was the type of the state, and I contended that woman in the state was entitled to the exercise of the same right that she exercised in the family_the right to consent as to who shall or shall not rule over her.

In connection with this matter I mentioned that in the church to which Mr. Roberts and myself belong, this right is recognized and exercised, for the women of the church vote as well as the men, and vote independently and of their own volition. And I added that if a church which is generally though mistakenly supposed to be illiberal, especially to women, could afford to recognize that right, the State of Utah could afford to be equally liberal.

That is what I said and what I meant. I did not say, or mean, or intimate, that the State of Utah should model its institutions after those of the Mormon Church.

I meant no disrespect to Mr. Roberts in stating that he had been elected by women's votes to a high ecclesiastical office. I referred to that incident simply to remind him in a mild way of the inconsistency of his present position.

So far as the charge of bringing into this discussion matters that should have been left outside is concerned, I have this to say, that while I do not see any thing improper in what I said, I should sit down quite comfortably under a vote to the contrary if carried by a non-partisan majority of this committee. But granting, for argument's sake, that what I said was improper, it seems to me that the last person to cast a stone should have been the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Mackintosh) who called me to account for it upon this floor; he being the first signer of the minority report impugning the sincerity of the Mormon people in dividing on national party lines_the cause of all the acrimony exhibited in this debate.

The gentleman, in commenting upon my statement that probably six thousand women voted for Mr. Roberts on the occasion in question, declared that that was just what he was afraid of_that forty thousand woman would so vote. He was answered by Mr. Wells, and I answer him now, that he, being a republican, probably feared that the forty thousand women would be democrats.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, I think in justice to my constituents as well as to myself I should occupy a small portion of time. On this question my contention is that women born in America have the natural, inherent {581} right to vote, because of the freedom of our government, and have had the right though not the privilege from the incipiency of our government. When we say

that we are a representative form of government_a republican form of government, and that we have a government for the people and of the people and by the people, the ladies compose a large component part of that people, and hence naturally have the right to vote. Now, every man that is on this floor that has studied up the power and policies of governments knows that we are directly the opposite to an absolute monarchial government. We are the sovereigns. If there are any sovereigns in this government, the people are the sovereigns, and the women are a portion of the sovereigns, and have just as natural right_a born right_every women that has been born within this government within the last 120 years or thereabouts has been born to that right. The simple fact that she has not had it conferred upon her legally is no reason why she should not have it, or no reason why she does not inherit it_no reason whatever. There have been many things put forth on this floor, that were not reasonable at all; that is they were not relevant to the case or the matter before us at all. And also every woman that has come into this country and conformed to the right_that has been naturalized, the right is inherent in them. It is a simple natural consequence. It is a simple natural result. It has never been denied. Men have put in all kinds of talk trying to reason why_but there is no cogent reason why women should not vote or should not have voted all the while. Now, because men got together in our government_our revolutionary fathers, and said what they did say in relation_in fact they did not say anything about women at all_didn't include them, with anything except silent consent; they went to work, that the free white male citizens should have the franchise, and from such an age upwards. Well, now, that was perhaps as much as they could say. They left the rest unsaid at that time. Perhaps that was all they could have said at that time. But now the time has come for us to say that the women shall exercise the franchise just the same as men. The time has arrived. We are supposed to be a world of progress, and if we are going to get into a higher plane, why, we had better be about it. It is time, high time. It is true that in all respects they did not say at that time everything they thought to be so. They said in words in their Declaration of Independence that we had certain rights, that man was born free and equal, and so on. That did not happen to be true in every sense of the word, because there were slaves at that time, but later, in the providence of God, President Lincoln was forced by sheer circumstances to knock the shackles off the black man, and we, I think, had better knock the shackles off women before we are obliged to. Just let us do it freely and voluntarily. I had a great deal rather do a thing because it is right and just and proper to be done than to be forced to do it. I am not of that make-up that I like to do things because I am obliged to. I prefer to do them because they ought to be done, and when this is put into the balance_that is, that justice and right and everything is put in the balance, expediency may go to the dogs and the devil so far as I am concerned. I believe in doing right_the justice and the proper thing to be done under the circumstances, and when it justifies that to be done. This is about all the time I care to take. I could go on and enlarge upon this, but I do not wish to do it. I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts, the chair observes no other member upon his feet. The time will be at your disposal. [Applause.]

The chair must request that during {582} the course of the gentleman's debate, he be not interrupted with noise or with applause on the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Convention that the discussion relating to the

first section of the article on rights of suffrage and elections is now about to draw to a close. All gentlemen who desire to speak, have expressed their views, and their opinions, and have explained the position they occupied in relation to this question. I take it, sir, that it is not only a courtesy that has been extended to me to close this discussion, but I believe that in consequence of my relationship to it, that it is my right to do so. Logically the position of affirmative ought to have been taken by gentlemen who have opposed me on this proposition, and indeed I have endeavored to urge them to do so, making a special request of the gentleman from Salt Lake, of the fourth precinct, Mr. Whitney, who entranced the Convention by his eloquence, to do so, but he declined. And hence the privilege of bringing the debate to a conclusion has devolved upon me_a privilege I would have been willing to have accorded him had he taken his logical position upon this question.

There are, sir, a few personal matters that it is necessary for me to refer to before proceeding directly to the subject of debate, and that grew out of the remarks made by one of my colleagues from Davis County, Mr. Barnes, in which he read a letter or a copy of a letter addressed to me from the chairman of the democratic committee of Davis County_the gentleman who subsequently gave me notice that I must either change my position on this question, or he would be compelled to ask me to resign. My colleague said I had paid no attention to that letter. I think at the time he forgot that the day after I received the letter, and before an answer could be sent, the gentleman who wrote it, together with another prominent democrat of Davis County, waited upon me in this building. We had a long interview upon the subject matter of that letter; as we drew our interview to a close, I told him that our conference in relation to it would obviate any necessity for my replying, at least for a few days, to which he assented. I had the letter I intended to send him as a reply, nearly completed, when his dispatch calling upon me to either close my mouth on this subject or resign, came to hand, and my reply to that of course, shut off all further necessity of consideration of that subject. I refer to this because I do not wish to be placed in a position before this Convention as being either disrespectful or inattentive to my constituents. I shall always treat them with the greatest respect and listen to whatever suggestions they may have to offer me, so long as I am their representative. The gentleman did me justice as I knew he would, because there is no man who possesses a higher sense of honor than my friend from Davis County, Mr. Barnes, who spoke on the occasion to which I refer; that is, he did me the justice to say to this Convention that he was the man who met me after the convention in Davis County had nominated me for delegate to this, Convention; and that he told me when a proposition was introduced binding the delegates to work for and vote for suffrage, he himself refused to be bound and instructed in that way.

The gentleman, however, is of opinion that there was a modified resolution passed by that convention in Davis County, and perhaps, sir, that is correct; the gentleman may be entirely correct in regard to it. But, sir, there was no mention of that matter in the minutes that were published of the action of that convention. I took occasion on Saturday night to go through the files of the Salt Lake Herald, until at last I obtained a copy of those minutes, and gentlemen will look in vain i {583} them for any reference whatsoever to woman suffrage matters. These published minutes, with the conversation I had with the gentleman, since I was not in Davis County and in contact with my people, was the only thing upon which I could draw my conclusion in regard to the extent to which members from that county were to be bound on this

proposition; and when the territorial convention assembled, and put in its platform the plank on woman suffrage, I felt myself at that time so opposed to it, that I had serious thoughts of declining the honor tendered me by the people of Davis County. I took into my confidence a number of leading democrats of this Territory, and went over the ground with them, explaining the conversation with Mr. Barnes, the absence of any mention of the subject in the minutes of the Davis County convention, and it was their united opinion that I could not be bound to support woman's suffrage, and that there was nothing that called for me to decline the honor that was tendered, especially as it was neither thought the proper thing to do, nor was there any necessity of making that question prominent in the campaign. I take the trouble to speak of these matters to the Convention, that gentlemen may understand that however much other members may have considered themselves bound by the action of conventions in the respective counties from which they hail, conscientiously I have no bonds upon me, to act in favor of this proposition. There are no obstacles in my way on that subject, and again, I repeat what I before said, if there were, if I considered myself bound by the platform of my party, and by the wishes of my constituents, in the face of facts that have since developed, and which, as I believe, are a menace to the attainment of statehood, I would still, sir, endeavor to serve my people in spite of their protests, and work for their best interests, which as I look upon it, lie in the attainment of statehood for Utah.

With so much of preliminary, I may come now to consideration of remarks by members upon the subject proper. Of course, sir, if you look at a range of mountains, there are here and there lofty peaks that rise above their fellows, and upon those peaks the eye naturally rests. So in this discussion, rising above the common level, there are few gentlemen who have spoken, to whom I shall consider it my duty to pay particular attention. I refer to this matter so that if I do not mention each one who has not entered the arena against me, he will not feel slighted [laughter], and perhaps if I discuss some of the remarks made by those more prominent speakers upon the subject, I shall be able to satisfy you all. Among these particular ones to whom I ought to pay attention is my personal friend, a gentleman for whom I have the highest regard, from Weber County, Mr. Evans, a man I take it, sir, who thought he answered my argument by telling me I was mistaken, and that my fears were ill-founded. Apart from making those statements with more or less of flourish and eloquence, the gentleman concluded by saying that if he was conscientiously opposed to woman suffrage, no party platform would stand in his way of opposing it, if he believed that suffrage would degrade woman, no party platform would prevent him from opposing it. So I take it, that in the opinion of that gentleman, since I am of the opinion that it would be injurious to the State and degrading to woman, I am absolved.

One thing else the gentleman asked in fervid rhetoric, and that was, he would like to know what possible harm could come from his mother accompanying him to the polls. Well, sir, as I am of the opinion that his mother must be a most estimable lady, I think no real harm could come from her accompanying him to the polls, and I am rather {584} inclined to think it would be a good thing for her to do so [laughter]; and not only accompany the gentleman to the polls but I doubt not it would be a most excellent thing for him if she were constantly present with him to guide his footsteps through the meandering pathway of life. [Laughter and applause.]

Another of these mountain peaks in debate to which I ought to refer, was a gentleman (Mr.

Wells), who spoke to us yesterday, out of his place, as he himself puts it, but nevertheless “in the ring.” That gentleman, after detaining the Convention for a considerable length of time in a set speech, which both amused and instructed members, conscious, I doubt not, that there was not much force in it, finally told the Convention that he had an aunt, who if she could have the privilege of the floor and the freedom of debate, would be able to make such a speech on this subject that the committee of the whole would immediately take to flight and pull the hole in after it. Now, sir, I doubt not that that possibly would be the result, that we all would be converted if the lady instead of the gentleman had had the privilege of the floor and the freedom of debate; but there was one thing that appeared very curious to me, and that is that the eloquent lady had not more effectually converted her worthy nephew to her views, for, as I remember the whole tenor of his discussion, he believes in woman suffrage in a very attenuated form. Why, sir, I could almost strike hands with him and vote as far as he is willing to vote for suffrage of women.

And then, sir, the gentleman wondered in his soul how it was that anybody who had lived under the gentle sway of Victoria, queen of England, could object to woman voting in this country. I think, sir, that the gentleman overlooked what are well known to be the facts of history, and what he knows to be the facts of history, if he would but take a second thought of it, and that is this; Queen Victoria, however worthy the lady may be, is not, nor has any king or queen of England for three hundred years, been the ruler of that country. I presume we have all seen a figurehead upon the prow of a vessel, but not one of us has ever been deceived into thinking that it was some force in that figurehead that drew the mighty vessel through the stormy waters of the Atlantic.

If you would know what force propels the mighty steamer against the ocean currents and head winds, you must needs look to the rear, where plays the throbbing wheel and the helm guides the vessel through the waters. And so if you would know who the real governors of England are, you must look to parliament and the prime ministers of the country. Gladstone, Disraeli, Lord Derby and others, are the men who have governed England, and not the queen, not the king. For more than three hundred long years there has not sat upon the throne of England king or queen who has dared to oppose the will of the people as expressed through parliament. What do crowns and coronets amount to when they are reduced to this extremity? The have become nothing but figureheads, an insignia that in ancient times was the emblem of power. And I wish to say that to- day the thing that enshrines Victoria, queen of England, most in the hearts of the world, is the fact that she was a faithful, devoted wife, a pure and noble mother. [Applause.]

Against this lady spoken of so eloquently by the gentleman, I put the queens of the White House, unenfranchised it is true, and uncrowned, and yet who have every reason to be prouder than Victoria upon her throne; because, sir, their positions grow out of the fact that there is behind the husband, by whose side they stand, intellect, ability, force of character, that have been recognized by their fellow {585} citizens, and she has cast an influence upon his efforts. she has lent courage to him in the hours of darkness, and the glory is not his alone, but they share it together; and the unenfranchised wives of presidents in this United States have reason to be more proud than those who come to places of honor simply by the accidents of birth.

Now, we come to the proudest peak of them all. [Laughter.] You seem to know whom I mean. Before I enter into a criticism of what that gentleman had to say upon this subject, I ought to pause upon the threshold of the undertaking and ask myself what I am, what hero in the history of the world I am not, what hero has been selected to represent me; but most important of all I ought to discover whether I am a fish, flesh or fowl, and locate myself in the animal kingdom, as well as to seek out my place among the heroes of history.

The assault of the gentleman, for it could be called nothing else, was deliberately planned. In the silence of private study the arrows were sharpened and I must need think, sir, dipped in the gall of the gentleman's own bitterness. He denies me the honor of being Horatius at the bridge beating back the Tuscan enemies of Rome. He would not permit me in his comparisons to be represented by Leonidas at the pass of Thermopylae He elevated me one moment, only that he might debase me the more the next moment, and finally, sir, concluded that I was a bull without judgment, an ass without inspiration. I grant you, sir, that the thought was negatively expressed, by that peculiar trick of rhetoric, which affirms a truth in the form of a denial of it, but in his graciousness, and some pity perhaps, coming into his heart, he finally gave me an alternative from those dire comparisons; and I might choose Napoleon flying from Leipsic, imprisoned at Elba, back to Waterloo, thence banished to St. Helena, to die in solitude; or if I chose I might be compared with that proud spirit that looked omnipotence in the eye and told Him His good was evil. I thank the gentleman for the alternative. I presume that either Napoleon or the devil would be preferable to Balaam's ass, especially when inspiration shall not accompany it. [Laughter.]

But the gentleman overshot the mark, if he intended to wound my feelings; because, sir, he kept me in such a state of suspense to know what my final destiny would be, that in my anxiety to find that place, I forgot that I was receiving a castigation. However, if the gentleman is satisfied with his elegant comparisons (and of course he is a gentleman of refined tastes, as we all know, a poet, too, of no mean ability), if his remarks are satisfying his soul, why then, I shall not complain. But I would be pleased to know what relevancy all this had to the discussion that was brought upon this floor. I can see only one means of explaining it and that is this, the gentleman sought to break down the force of my argument, by making me appear contemptible. Well, sir, I am not very proud. I have no reason to be, and I am willing in this long list of comparisons, to take the humblest of them all; and in doing that I presume I shall please the gentleman, and at the same time I think I shall be able, even in the capacity of Balaam's ass, to still instruct our poet delegate. [Laughter and applause.]

The facts in the case in regard to Balaam's ass, if the gentlemen would but read the story, are decidedly instructive, especially, sir, as there are so many points of resemblance to this case. One Balak, the son of the king of Moab, discovered how merciless was the war that Israel waged upon the Amorites, and sent for this prophet, Balaam, to curse Israel, offering him high honors and rich rewards if he would do it. It seemed that the prophet, dazzled for the moment by the {586} glamor of the promises of the king, forgot his true office both to God and the people, and started out on this mission of cursing. It is said, sir, in the narrative, that an angel with a drawn sword stood in the way to head off the prophet, and the ass taking alarm at threatened danger, fled into a field near by. The prophet, if he did not use imprecations, at least did use blows, and finally brought the ass back to the road. Presently, when the road entered into a narrow lane, with

a wall on either side, the ass was again confronted by the danger that threatened the prophet, and in his mad effort to get by the danger, he jammed the prophet's foot against the wall, and this again aroused the wrath of the misguided prophet and with blows he brought the poor ass back to the middle of the road. The next time the danger confronted, the prophet was in a still narrower way, where there was no escape whatsoever from the threatened danger, and the ass laid down and refused to go any further in the direction of the danger and the mad prophet beat him again, but at last the kind powers above, in pity of the dumb brute, spake through him, and the ass reasoned and said, “Have I not been thine ass these many years? Have you ever known me before to treat you after this manner?” As if he would say, “Know you not there is some danger in the way? You ought to know that an ass so docile, so faithful, so careful of you as I have been, would not have taken the course I have unless there was some obstacle of danger threatening?” [Applause.] And then, sir, the eyes of the prophet were opened and he at last saw what the ass had seen. He beheld the danger, and in humiliation, he said, “I have sinned.” Now, sir, when this question was first brought upon the floor of this Convention, knowing, believing, aye, and I was not mistaken in the word that first came to my lips, knowing that there was danger for
statehood for Utah, if this matter was pushed to an extreme, I sounded the note of warning in this Convention. Your ass ran away with you into the field, if you will. [Applause.] Beaten back into the narrow way, I again endeavored to shun the danger; and again was belabored and beaten. We have come now into the narrow pass and I lay down. I ask these gentlemen, who have known me, if I am an alarmist in my nature, or am I disposed to cry there is danger, when I really see none. And now in this third issue of the narrow pass, I would to God that some kind power would touch the eyes of my blind prophet friend, that he too might see the danger and say, “I am mistaken.” [Applause.] That we might not see the humiliating spectacle of an ass instructing a prophet. [Laughter.]

The gentleman, as I remember, makes two complaints against me. One is, he thinks I have tried to absorb in myself all the virtues of noble motives in this Convention, and that I brand the rest of you with cowardice. I will explain, I hope to the gentleman's satisfaction, and also to the Convention's satisfaction, the meaning of my remarks in that particular line. With the gentleman from Salt Lake who has so earnestly declared that his convictions run parallel with his action in this issue, and with all gentlemen that are in the same condition as he, on that subject, I take no issue, and I give to them credit for all the noble sentiments and motives that belong to honorable men. But, sir, I am aware and so is this Convention, from positive declarations made upon the floor of this house by gentlemen, that their actions run one way and their convictions another. Whenever I see men occupying the equivocal position, I have some misgivings in my own mind as to the result of their action under such circumstances. And when men would come to me and speak their fears to me, and tell me of their convictions being against this, {587} and yet they were bound down by those ill-considered party pledges, and, were going to do something for the people which they believed would work an injury to the people and to the coming State, I brand all such with cowardice, and they may make the most of it. [Applause.]

The next complaint of the gentleman was that I was too harsh, too severe in the course of my argument in reference to the ladies. That, too, I think I shall be able to explain to the gentleman's satisfaction. The line of my argument was this, that public political life, mingling in political strife, partaking of the bitterness which is injected into politics, coming to primaries, struggling

through the mass of men who surround the ballot boxes upon election days, that women expose themselves to gibes and jests, which if they could but hear would bring the blush of shame to their cheeks. In support of this proposition, I read what dispatches said of the meetings held by the board of lady managers of the Chicago World's Fair, and pointed out the fact that these women were among the first and most intelligent of all our land, and if coming together in a public hall to engage in the management of the affairs of an institution of that kind would bring about such shameful scenes as were there enacted, and if the dispatches relative to women in politics from Kansas and other parts that I read were true, the whole tendency of this public life was degrading to woman and that it was the part of wisdom for women to keep separate and apart from such places and such embroilments, that they might not become the subjects of jests and gibes of low-down characters whose mouths you cannot stop. That was the trend of my argument and I produced the evidence of it. The ladies frowned, their valiant supporters looked displeased. All I have to say is, that if I was unkind, it was the unkindness of the surgeon who cuts into human flesh, not to wound, but to heal. And, sir, I take it that it is time that someone should point out to woman, even if it does bring to her face the frown of displeasure, that she is in danger of sacrificing that which is dearer than the ballot to every sensitive woman_that she is in danger of sacrificing that sensitiveness of soul, in danger of sacrificing the high regard of men, which ever goes with true womanhood. [Applause.]

In answer to this, I think the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Thurman), asked, “Do not men fight and quarrel?” and instanced a scene in the Indiana legislature. I grant you that men often do this thing and it is degrading and disgraceful to them. Ten times more would we feel the disgrace had women been engaged in it. It is no answer to the argument to say that men do these things. I once saw a woman chewing tobacco. It was a vice, a hundred times more disgusting in her than in man; and because men indulge in these things, and because the spirit of political strife is rampant, when men's passions are aroused, and their interests and their ambitions are at stake_it is for this reason I would exclude women from participation in political life. They tell, however, that this evil will not run side by side with granting the franchise to women, and in evidence, they point me to Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming. Why, gentlemen, it is as if two men stood by the side of a beautiful tree, in full leaf in the month of June, when the sap runs through the channels of the bark, and gives freshness and life to its verdure. One says to the other, “If you girdle that tree, cut off its bark, the leaves will wither and the tree will die.” The other man immediately proceeds to girdle the tree. As soon as he does this, he steps back and says, “there is not a leaf that has changed its form. It is as beautiful and fresh as it ever was.” And yet we know that only a few short {588} days shall pass and the leaves will wither and curl up, grow dry, and the winds will carry them away and the tree never bear a leaf again. So is it with the influence of political life upon women. Let it operate twenty years, let it operate fifty, a hundred years, we will have a womanhood from whom we will dispose to flee. [Applause.]

My friend then took the illustration I used in regard to the tumbling and mingling together of the waters of the Mississippi and the Missouri, and in a poetic flight which was one of the most sublime that I ever listened to, carried those streams muddy, and bearing filth in them, to the ocean, where purified by the elements operating there, the muddy stream was again converted into sparkling drops to bless the hill tops and make glad the valley with verdure again. Oh, sir, that was a poem in itself, and out of my respect and regard for the genius that could thus pick up

this stream and make it pure, I joined with you heartily and sincerely in a tribute of honor to the genius of my friend by applauding him. But, sir, there is only one thing that injures the gentleman's work on that particular matter, and that is the stream of politics has no ocean in which to run. The only means of its purification are fountains and small rippling streams flowing from those fountains, bringing clear fresh water into the turbid stream of political life. Those fountains are the homes of the people; those streams the influence that glides out from those homes, and these fountains and these streams, my friend would corrupt until there is no purification left for the main stream of political life. [Applause.]

Imagine a man, after struggling in a primary for the success of that candidate whom he believes will serve the interest of the people, coming home from the sweat and heat of a campaign meeting, with the frown of displeasure on his face and bitterness doubtless in his heart, tired and weary of the world. In a short time, the prattles of his babes, the kind attentions of his wife, joining with her in some intellectual pursuit common to them both, or mingling in the social circle with friends, from which circle by a wise common assent political discussions are banished, the frown leaves the face, the hard lines are softened, his heart is filled with the song of gladness and he begins to feel that there is something in life worth living for after all. But suppose he came from his political struggle to his home, and was met at the door by a wife opposed to him in politics; and again he had to go over the fight on tariff or free trade; free silver, or a single gold standard; or else observe a sullen silence because of the impropriety of engaging in a discussion with his wife on these lines. Where then will the brow be cleared of the frown and the heart lose some of its bitterness, so that when the man leaves his home and again enters the arena with his foes, he may have some milk of human kindness running in his veins? Gentlemen, leave the home alone. Keep political strife out of it. Women of Utah, be content to reign over the empire of domestic life, and it will bring more joy to your hearts than all the success you could have in casting your ballots at the polls. [Applause.]

But all this is preliminary. The fight is still ahead. [Applause.] I come to the arguments of the gentleman. I understand him to announce in his first speech and he emphasized it here this morning, and I am particularly glad that he did emphasize it, because now it is fresh in your memories, and I shall not be under the necessity of repeating what he said upon these subjects, for you heard him, that woman's right to a voice in the selection of those who rule her, whether in the family, the state or the church, is a God given and inherent right. This he emphasized upon the floor of this committee this morning. I believe this gentleman to be a man who {589} has the courage of his convictions, and if he believed the elective franchise to be an inherent, indefeasible right, I wonder how it is that in writing the declaration of rights he did not say in emphatic language and submit it to this Convenvention [*note*], “The right to vote is an indefeasible, inherent right, the same as the right to enjoy and defend life, and liberty, to acquire and possess and protect property, and to worship according to the dictates of conscience.” Gentlemen of the committee, in the bill of rights, did he introduce his doctrine? If he did, you smothered it in committee. Did he introduce it upon the floor of this Convention? Had he done so, members would have laughed it out of the door. Because it is not true. You know it is not true. The elective franchise is a privilege conferred by governments and may be hedged about by conditions prescribed, that natural and inherent rights are never hedged about by.

The gentleman, in illustration of this position of his, untenable as it is, and the fact that it is denied by the governments of all the American states, by the government of England and of Europe at large, would have been a sufficient answer to the claim had it been made in the emphasis that he ought to have put it in, insisted that the woman ought to have the same right in the state which is accorded to her in the church, and accorded to her in selecting her partner for life. I take it from the explanation that the gentleman made us this morning, that he has learned that he added nothing to his reputation for sound judgment and good taste by bringing in those comparisons upon this floor. I understood the gentleman in his first speech as I understand him in his second speech. All I shall do in taking note of his position and the character of his argument, is to simply ask him this one question: Can he see no difference between the exercise of the franchise in voting in the church and in the state? Are the offices of the church to which he has alluded the objects of ambition among the members? Are there primaries held, are there emoluments to be clutched, are there advantages to be gained for parties, or is it the theory of that church that the Divine wisdom make the selection to which the people merely give their consent? Can he see no difference in sitting quietly in a great congregation and assenting to what Divine wisdom has already pointed out, and the wrangling and struggling, the quarreling and bitterness and strife that pertain to political elections? When he can bring the state into such a high condition of perfection, that through the channels of its administration, there shall be no more friction than in the church he names, and when the offices of the state, as they are in the church, are above ambition, then, sir, the chief objections to woman's suffrage so far as I am concerned will have ceased. [Applause.] Next, I wish to ask the gentleman if he can see no difference between a woman engaging in the embroilment and strife, the bitterness and hate, which grow out of political life and a struggle to get to the polls to vote, and a woman, beneath the quiet stars under some friendly tree, whispering the sweet “yes” to the proposition of marriage, or under other circumstances giving a firm decisive “no” to the proposition? As I understand it, sir, those things are not preceded by any of the circumstances that make political life unfit for women to engage in. I know not what the experience of the gentleman has been upon this subject. [Laughter.] I remember that he singled out my friend from Sanpete County who was kind enough in this fight to stand by me and do yeoman service in the cause. I observe that he singled him out, since he is a single man, and told him with very great emphasis that he would discover that a woman could say “no.” Considering the dogmatical air with which that was said, I must {590} needs come to the conclusion that the gentleman's positiveness is based upon a very wide experience in that line. [Laughter.]

I observe in the rest of the gentleman's argument the same confounding of things as to church and state; because the gentleman states than under other circumstances and in other places he had heard me discourse upon the individual responsibility of every soul to his God.

And for that reason, the gentleman seems to come to the conclusion that I have disregarded all secondary relations and that by urging this proposition to which he alluded, I would disrupt the secondary relationship between the child and the parent, between the citizen and the state, between the subject and the monarch, between the husband and the wife. I fear, sir, that the gentlemen, in taking this position, has most distinctly exhibited to us what I should characterize as the great fault in his great character. I accord to him high gifts; he is a man of learning and of parts; and when I say there are defects in his composition, it is not for the purpose of lessening

him in the opinion of his fellows. To say that a man is not great in every point in character is not to deny him greatness. If any of you were to say of me that I am not a poet, while he is, I should take no exceptions to that, and I say that the gentleman in his argument has exhibited to us his inability to segregate things and accord to them their proper relationship, but he rolls all things into a mass and reasons upon premises that lead to diverse conclusions. If my friend from Utah County, Mr. Thurman, (who, by the way, as I understand it, was the one who was to enter into this debate with me,) will permit me to be critic long enough, and to use that criticism upon my friend whom I am answering I would say, that he lacked the logical sense, philosophical sense, which separates each thing to its proper place and eliminates sentiments and poetics from legislation, and recognizes the fact that you must deal with humanity as it is, and not as his poetic ideas would paint it. [Applause.]

There is one other argument that I ought to refer to, not advanced by the gentleman from the fourth precinct in Salt Lake City, but advanced by another gentleman on that side of this question, and I presume he would take it as a slight almost if I did not pay my respects to him in passing. [Laughter.] I believe also, this same argument was suggested by my esteemed friend from Utah County, and that was this, that the staple, reliable vote of this country came from its married men (an idea with which I am in strict accord. Of course all of us married men would be in accord with that sentiment, though my friend from Sanpete County might possibly take issue with us on that proposition.) And if you grant woman the suffrage, the result will be that you double the good vote. Well, sir, when I first had that argument hurled at me, for a moment I thought a point really had been made, but I happened to remember that our government is conducted by parties, and if I understood the gentleman's theory right, in the main man and wife would vote one ticket, standing side by side, as this gentleman and his estimable wife stand side by side, and you double the vote; but upon second thought, I happened to remember that on the republican side you do the same thing, so that the two votes would neutralize each other, and there was nothing gained in the gross, one family casting two votes, one on the republican side and one on the democratic side, when heretofore the same thing had been done by only one vote. Now, sir, I was somewhat astonished that the argument should come from a democrat. Had it been a republican who advanced it, I would have understood it, because they have been trained {591} in a school that holds that if you tax B in the interest of A and then turn around and tax A in the interest of B, both will get rich at it. [Laughter.]

But when the kind of reasoning introduced behind this point is made by a democrat, I say, “Oh, fie, upon it! we thought for better things.”

I think, sir, that in all fairness I may say, I have passed through the arguments offered by gentlemen. There are no other arguments that occur to me that are worthy of consideration upon this floor, or that were joined in issue. And now I want to ask how has it affected the question as discussed upon this floor?

I laid down first, the proposition that the franchise ought to be confined to those who are capable of acting independently. Has that proposition been controverted by argument? I have failed to hear them if it has. Still further, I stated that such was the relationship of woman in the family that she was not capable of acting thus independently without the dictation or the suspicion of

dictation from her husband_has that been controverted? Gentlemen will deny that there will be such dictation, but is that an argument? Do we not know from the great facts of human nature that it will be so? Do we not know from the difference of man's nature and woman's nature that it will be so?

Second, I laid down the proposition that the elective franchise was a privilege, not a right. Has it been proved to be an inherent right? On the contrary did I not show that this doctrine, first announced in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments derived their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is subject to such modification as to lead our statesmen to exclude women from expressing their consent?

Third, have they proved that the great mass of women of voting age are not already sufficiently represented in politics by husbands, fathers, sons, or brothers?

Fourth, that in the case of unmarried property owners, have they proved that there is discrimination made against woman in the matter of taxation? And here let me refer to this great clamor of theirs about taxation without representation. The married women have without representation, those who are unmarried and are property owners. I went so far as to say that if gentlemen who intended to enfranchise these, I had no serious objection, because it would meet the demand for no taxation without representation, and the number would be so few as not to materially interfere with the welfare of society or domestic peace. But I argue that there was no real occasion for this, for the reason that women in taxation are not discriminated against, that there was no possible means by which they could reduce taxation, and therefore, even this much of a concession was not necessary,

Fifth, have my opponents proved that the principle upon which franchise has been hitherto extended, was for the purpose of protection, and has never been granted because of intellectual equality? That is the principle upon which franchise has ever been granted, for protection against oppression; and notwithstanding all the talk about oppression and tyranny, there has not been an instance of oppression and tyranny produced that would lead us to say that woman ought to have enfranchisement to protect her from man; in other words, men and women are not natural enemies, one needing protection against the other; but that they are on the very best of terms. The fact that they marry proves it.

Sixth, have my opponents proved that the steady refusal of statesmen to grant woman the elective franchise for the past two hundred years was unwise? All change is not progress. All the customs that have been bequeathed {592} to us by antiquity ought not to be stricken down, because some customs ought to be. Some of these customs, sir, are monuments, that bespeak the wisdom of our ancestors, and we ought to have a decent respect for them.

Seventh, have my opponents pointed out how women are to work the wonders and the reformation that they will when given the ballot? Have they told us what laws women would change, or what law is desirable to change? Have they explained to us in what manner they will be able to elect all good men to office to administer the laws?

I have heard nothing of all this. These, I take it, are the arguments that ought to have occupied the attention of my friend, and it would have been more effectual than to undertake to break their force, by an attempt to debase me. He gave us a beautiful reference to the forces of Wellington and Blucher. Why, sir, had Wellington and Blucher led the grand army of France alone, had they ceased to pursue the old guard and turn all their attention to capturing the “Little Corporal,” it is quite possible that under Ney or some other mighty leader the broken army might have been gathered together through the night and hurled with renewed force upon the British and the Germans the next morning, and we would have had another history for Europe than that we have now. The gentleman made a mistake in pursuing his Napoleon and leaving the grand old guard of his arguments to live and meet him here again to-day. [Applause.]

I might, sir, before this discussion had proceeded so far, have had some timidity about the position I assumed and the arguments I advanced in support of it; but after throwing them out here for the inspection of this intelligent Convention, with champions arrayed against them, whose eloquence and power of analysis were sufficient to point out the fallacies in them if they exist; since, sir, I say, the attempted argument was abandoned and I was singled out for their pursuit, I stand here to-day more firmly convinced of the correctness of my position than ever before in all my life. [Applause.]

Next, I must pay a little more attention to my expediency argument, which I thought was sufficiently explained, having given reasons why I introduced the question of expediency; and yet it seems there is one member who spoke this morning on that subject that did not understand it, and this gives me a double justification for going into the matter again. Is my argument upon this branch of the subject answered when men get up here and mock my fears and tell me that my apprehensions are ill-founded? Are they ill-founded? Let us consider it. What means the interest that is suddenly awakened in this subject? Why are these halls crowded? Why are mass meetings called? Why is the press of this Territory warning you members of the Convention by giving voice to the fears that I have the honor to express on the floor of this house? I read, sir, from the Ogden Standard of March 29th, a few lines of its editorial:

A few days ago the Standard warned the Constitutional Convention that it would be exceedingly dangerous for the acceptance of the Constitution if it had to run the gauntlet of high taxes, prohibition and woman's suffrage. In an impassionate though logical speech, Delegate Roberts took up the fight upon the lines marked out by the Standard, and opposed incorporating the equal suffrage clause in the Constitution. Mr. Roberts declared, as the Standard had already done, that equal suffrage in the Constitution would do much to defeat it with the people and would be the excuse why Cleveland would not accept it. Reference was also made to the lingering idea that some antediluvians still foster that the Mormons would act with bad faith. While we do not share this sentiment in the least, it is well to anticipate the effect it will have at Washington.

You will understand that this is only one editorial out of a number that have been written in the same line. Now, I call your attention to a publication {593} printed in this city under date of March 30th, in the paper known to you all, the Salt Lake Argus, from which I will read a few extracts:

The article relating to elections and rights of suffrage (the woman's suffrage plank) was received and

debated with an energy and a vehemence that left no doubt as to the position of those who participated. The debate gave the politicians a glorious opportunity for scoring records, which will be of some benefit to them in the sweet bye and bye, but of the many known opponents of the measure conferring the elective franchise on women, only a few had the courage to express their honest convictions and sound the note of warning, which, if not heeded, will, it is predicted, result in a political strife beside which the contentions of the past will sink into insignificance. The minority in its report voiced the fears of over 30,000 of the people of Utah, that if the privilege of voting was restored to the women of Utah only a short time would elapse before the old political conditions would exist and of necessity the old contentions be revived. It called attention to the fact that it has only been a few years since Congress withdrew the privilege of voting 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 them in order to begin to place this Territory in harmony with the Union under her laws. The hand of a politician did not write nor the brain of a schemer conceive those plain Anglo-Saxon sentiments. The fears expressed therein are held by men who acquiesced in the insertion of the woman's suffrage plank in the platforms of the two political parties; they are voiced every day by hundreds of men on the streets of Salt Lake, they are entertained by almost every Gentile in the Convention, and yet a Mormon led the fight against it.

Not more than four years ago, in a public political meeting, a prominent lawyer declared that if the scheme to disrupt the liberal party was successful, there were but three plans for the Gentile portions of Utah's population to pursue, submission, emigration or revolution. It is evident from the attitude of the Gentile members of the Constitutional Convention, and from the apathy shown by the opponents of the measure, that the plan of submission has been adopted. Men, during the years that have passed, have been the tutors of the masses in politics, in this Territory, men who, with pen and voice, have inflamed the Gentile mind against the dominant people; men who schemed, not at all times honorably, to disfranchise men voters, and who succeeded in depriving women of the right of suffrage; men who have stumped the Territory having for their principal ammunition the woman's suffrage issue, and in language lurid depicted the ruin that would be wought to Gentile industries if it again should prevail, and who even now in secret voice their distrust of Mormon sincerity, and at all times openly denounced their alleged duplicity in matters political, sit silent in that Convention and by their silence stultify what many of us have imagined heretofore were honest, patriotic, and unselfish records. None of the old time leaders have had the courage to express what are undoubtedly their convictions, but instead, like captives at the stake, sulk, and by their assumed fortitude expect to gain sympathy from their once blind followers, on the ground that no effort of theirs can ward off the threatened calamity. The Argus understands that a tacit agreement was entered into by many of the Gentile republicans, not to fight or vote against the measure, and in defense of their position they have raised the baby cry that not a single protest or remonstrance had reached the Convention in proper form. They forget that had they met the issue as honest men and not avoid it like scheming politicians, there would have been ten thousand men and twice that number of women and children wishing them Godspeed. That even the pulpiteers would have stopped long enough in their mad race for the prohibition cup to have voiced their opposition; that a sentiment would undoubtedly have been created throughout the country that would have caused at least a temporary shelving of a measure, which, if successful, will undoubtedly be a bar to the State's progress, and an excuse for waging the old fight on the old lines; that they would have earned the plaudits of all respecters of manly courage and escaped the just sneers of men who have heretofore looked upon them as honest and sincere foes_as men who have battled for what they conceived to be the right and the achievement of that which would redound to the benefit of all and not to their personal political advantage.

This committee, in language that neither you nor I approve, pointed out this danger. This comes in confirmation of it. Read this morning's paper on them. The Salt Lake Tribune warns you of

this danger. Even the Herald {594} has begun to move sufficiently to confess that a clique exists to prevent the attainment of statehood. These voices that you hear from all parts of the Territory warn you of the danger into which I believed from the first you were running, and it is idle to close your eyes or your ears to these circumstances. You may as well, like brave men, look them in the face and prepare against the evil day. I hold in my hand a bundle of letters and dispatches from all parts of this Territory, one from the chairman of the democratic meeting in Ogden, informing me that two-thirds of the people of Weber County are against this proposition. [Applause.]

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I believe he is right.

Mr. ROBERTS. They join, both democratic chairman and republican chairman, in asking you to delay action until the sentiments of the people may be voiced in Ogden City tonight. It is folly to tell me that there are no grounds for these fears. I wish to say further that it is not alone this fear that concerns me. I want statehood for Utah first of all. The gentleman from the fourth precinct, (Mr, Whitney) refused to accord to me the position of a Horatius at the bridge: I am not Leonidas in the pass of Thermopylae. I am not a hero fighting for freedom. That sir, may be true. I only ask this, as my standing in this Convention, an honest man, who asks that statehood shall be worked for in behalf of the people of Utah, and secured, and I believe that that is the first essential to liberty for our people, and for that I mean to contend, and ask this Convention to remove even the pretext that men erect as an excuse for acting against it.

Gentlemen say that if we cannot have statehood with suffrage, they prefer territorial vassalage to a statehood that would not permit suffrage! Woman's suffrage is your only battle cry of freedom! Statehood must be relegated to the rear, and gentlemen, with eyes shut and teeth set, are determined that, statehood sink or swim, they are going to have suffrage. If it should come to a question in reality and in truth as to whether we should have suffrage or statehood, they demand suffrage in preference to statehood without it.

You will pardon me now and not take offense at what I am going to say; if you get excited, hold on to your chairs; it is only this_I am taught by my eloquent friend from Salt Lake, of the fourth precinct_that if, in spite of all the dangers that exist, you will rush on and have suffrage, whether or no, I want to tell you, that it would not be even bull sense, it would be bull folly! Pardon the coarseness of the remark, I learned it from my poet delegate. [Applause and laughter.]

There is another gentleman to whom I must pay my respects. I cannot accept the views expressed on the floor of this Convention in relation to duties of the representatives of the people. The remarks of the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian) who laid down as the political law that a delegate had no choice but merely to voice the sentiments of the people who make him their representative, I think I were mistaken. I am not unmindful of the fact that his political experience is such, his wide practical knowledge of the affairs of government is so much greater than mine, that I ought to defer to what he said upon this subject, upon which he has special information, of course; but he will bear me out when I say that leaders of political thought and men who have been in representative life take different views upon that subject. There are some at least who do not believe a delegate becomes a stick, that he does not rise above the condition

of an agent to carry out the wishes of his constituents. Among that line of statesmen who claim for themselves a wide margin for the operation of judgment upon which to act for the good of their constituents, {595} as circumstances arise_a man who stands at the head of that school of statesmen_is no other than Edmund Burke. Let me read to you what he has said upon the subject:

But authoritative instructions, mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of embassadors from different hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberate assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where no local purposes, no local prejudice ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavor to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it. But I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life, a flatterer you do not wish for.

The peculiar ideas pertaining to the duties of representatives of the people held by some have reduced our Congress, our legislative assemblies, to a most degraded condition. It is this idea advanced upon the floor by this gentleman that has brought into existence those hybrids in politics, bounty-paying, high-tariff democrats, and free-trade republicans, until, when Congress meets, you find men struggling for the advantage of their own particular district, and your representatives become mere politicians, fawning at the feet of their constituents, without the courage to look over the whole land and like statesmen declare what would be the general good and legislate in its interest. Statesmanship is being sunk into the pool of mere political clap-trap.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You would not apply that to the gentleman from Ogden, I suppose?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). There you say two-thirds of the people want woman suffrage?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am speaking upon the general principle in this connection and I have done so for the reason that I wish to call attention of members_     

Mr. VARIAN. Will the gentleman permit me a question before he leaves that subject? With permission of the chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VARIAN. Is it not true that in England candidates for parliament make their own platforms, and announce themselves to the electors of the respective districts as willing to stand on the platforms they have written, and is it not also true that our system of nominating candidates and

directing party policies is entirely different?

Mr. ROBERTS. I grant the gentleman that the custom is largely as he has stated it; but in addition to that also, their exist political parties in England, which also have platforms, and if not written, are none the less real on that account; and both the individual platforms and the general platform of the party to which he belongs influences his conduct. Now, sir, upon this point it occurs to me to say that what we need is men who shall have the courage to stay the headlong force of their constituents if they see that it is running into danger. I grant you that members are elected to Congress upon well settled principles, not novelties, not fads, and when these fads and novelties find their way into political platforms, and members become convinced that it would work mischief to the constituency, we want men that shall have the courage even to offend {596} their constituents, if necessary, to arrest the progress of the evil.

I wish now, briefly to refer to the manner in which suffrage came into the platforms of the parties. In my first speech I charged that there had been no anterior agitation of this question of suffrage; it was based upon the idea that was supposed generally to prevail, that it was a pet subject universally accepted in this Territory when the republican party met in convention, it was confronted by this fact_and if I speak of Mormons or Gentiles I want it understood that there is nothing opprobrious either in the one name or the other to me; I use them simply for distinction; but the republicans were met with this condition, that the great majority of their members were also members of the old liberal party; it was anxious of course to increase its membership and gave a welcome to all their Mormon friends to come into their party, Which of course, was strictly right and proper. One of the means to attain that end was the consideration and final adoption of that plank on suffrage.

There has not stood upon this floor, I think with the exception of one man, and he told us he was not present at the convention, who has said I was mistaken, and that suffrage was introduced into the party platform purely upon the love of the principle of it. On the contrary, members in private tell me that the one consideration was_how will it effect us practically? And it was decided that it was the only way of salvation for them. Thus they adopted it in language which technically is equivocal, not that they intended it to be so. I accept the statements of the gentlemen here that it meant woman's suffrage in its broadest sense, but you will observe that the language is, “we favor equal suffrage for women.” That might mean that so far as suffrage should be granted all women should enjoy it alike, without saying that it meant equal suffrage with men. And then again it did not say how far it should be granted. Our democratic caterers, and caterers they were, because I believe what they say in regard to it_undertook to make themselves solid with the Mormons_because it is notorious that the great majority of the rank and file of that party are of the Mormon faith_they undertook to outbid you republicans and to stand solid with those who were supposed to be in their ranks. Nobody had contradicted these statements on this floor, or denied that it was in this manner and for political capital that this stand on suffrage was taken. Now, with these as the uncontradicted facts in this case, you come into this Convention, where you are laying the foundation of the new State, and under-take to tell me that no matter what dangers may look up, no matter what mighty crags may be thrown up in the sea over which we are sailing, you are going to stand by those platforms, as if they contained all of God's truths. Do you know why you are going to stand by them? I will tell why you are going to stand by them.

The republican members of this Convention are going to stand by them to the last inch_and you will have the pleasure of voting me into silence this afternoon on this proposition_we will be through with it, and I know now well how your votes will go_you republicans who will vote in the affirmative for woman's suffrage will do so because you are afraid that if you shrink one poor hair's breadth from the position you have announced, you will put into the hands of your democratic opponents a club with which they will belabor you next fall in the campaign, worse than the prophet belabored Balaam's ass. [Applause.]

I will tell the democrats why they refuse to budge on the question of suffrage, and that is this: if they do not stand pat upon this proposition and {597} vote for it to its desperate conclusion, you republicans then will have the club and they expect no mercy at your hands. Those are the conditions, gentlemen, that are operating, and would you believe it, my friend who has inherited his opinions on woman's suffrage, and of course there is no use arguing against hereditary opinions, paid me the doubtful compliment that possibly I had been selected by the democrats as a decoy duck, for the purpose of leading you republicans astray and getting you to go back on your records on this proposition and then when done, the democrats could say, “Roberts did it; the democratic party didn't do it;” and hence they will belabor you.

Another thing has been said. A gentlemen whose honor could not be questioned and whose character would place his word beyond all suspicion of doubt, told me only last evening that a member upon the floor of this Convention said to him that it was his opinion that all I was doing was simply for a blind; that I had been by church authority ordained and set apart unto this work, that I was not sincere in my opposition to woman's suffrage. The studied assault of my friend from the fourth precinct, though his arrows were pointed, and though his comparisons were coarse and offensive, if one chose to look upon them so, said nothing that could so wound my feelings as the charge that I am not sincere in that which I have done upon the floor of this Convention. Of all the cowardly, of all the contemptible creatures on earth, that man is he who in such an assembly and on such an issue as this could consent to act such a part. Men ought to shun as the vilest and uncleanest thing on God's footstool, a man who could consent to do that. I am in earnest. My God! don't you see that I am terribly in earnest? It is a question of the liberties of my people among whom I have been reared. [Prolonged applause.]

I have but little more to say. I am about ready to be buried by your votes on this question. But if there is no appeal can be made to the members of this Convention, I will make one more appeal to the women of this Territory. It is within your powers to avert the dangers that threaten us; I care not if it does endanger statehood, it does endanger the future peace, it does endanger the stability of the coming State. Let in this large influx of women into the political arena, and the disgruntled party, whichever it may be, will assign ever and anon as the cause of their defeat, the interference of ecclesiastical authority with women. I know it will be the case and you know it. It means bitterness, intense strife, it means ebullitions of wrath, it means unsettled conditions in this Territory, whether it defeats statehood immediately or not. Why, we were doing famously before we began playing the tricks of politicians to gain power and votes. Men were getting together, the old struggle was being given up. Good feeling was being engendered, and now this must needs come in to disturb our peace and threaten the stability of the State whose foundations we are supposed to be laying. Therefore, in consequence of this, let me say to these women who

are agitating the subject, I want to tell you and them now, in frankness, that from the great mass of women of this Territory there comes no spontaneous, heart-felt demand for woman's suffrage. I know what whips and spurs have been used to drag women into these woman's suffrage meetings in my own county. The demand is not spontaneous and widespread, notwithstanding your petitions. We all know how petitions may be brought in and piled up_such a thing is easy enough. When you bring in a petition signed by five hundred, two hundred, one hundred and fifty, the list looks long, but remember it does not to contain forty thousand names or scarcely a fraction of them. We want {598} to remember how numerous are the class we propose to enfranchise, some forty thousand. Now, to these ladies who are agitating this question, I say this: release these men from their obligations, since they, because of political effect, dare not do it, lest they should lose one of the tricks in the game of politics being played upon this floor. Release them, I say, and save us from this impending danger.

Oh, I thank you with all my heart for your kind attention. [Prolonged applause and cheers.]

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire before the delegate from Davis County takes his seat to ask him a question. I ask the delegate if it be true as he said that the apprehensions exist to the extent that he says they do, if there is the danger that he has stated of this great mass of people being influenced by improper motives_if all these things are true, is it not true that the people of Utah are not prepared for statehood, and is it not the course that we are taking, if it be, as he says, the course that will defeat statehood_is it not the only course that leads to honor on the part of the people of Utah, assuming that his premises are correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Answering the question of the gentleman, I take advantage to say that perhaps in the rush of the discussion I neglected to say that the fear that there will be improper influences used in the future politics of this State is not my fear. Let that be distinctly understood. I do not for myself apprehend it. I only take this position that I do know that it exists. Not with me, but with a very large number. The fact that this gentleman on my right from Salt Lake can come here and say that by request of some 500 people he introduced a proposition that would submit the question of woman's suffrage as a separate proposition is another evidence that such fear does exist. I ask you to understand that I do not share that apprehension, but I cannot close my eyes to the fact that it does exist, and since it does exist, the gentleman must draw his own conclusions as to whether statehood ought to be obtained in the face of it. For my single self I say that we want statehood; I would remove this pretext, I would silence this outcry, I would seek to beget confidence by frankly saying, “we will remove this obstacle_the pretext.” Gentlemen do not share that opinion with me, they call it cowardly, but it makes no difference how they may stigmatize it. I believe that it would be the proper thing to do, because, the first thing that the new State of Utah wants is confidence in all classes of the people, and we can well afford to defer final action upon this proposition of woman's suffrage until conditions at last are settled; and who knows but what if the gentlemen will do proper missionary work, and if not able to convince me themselves, will introduce me as a pupil to their aunts [laughter] that possibly I too might be converted and help work for the enfranchisement of woman.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. The motion that was made to go into committee of the whole was amended to read so that we might remain there until we decide this by a vote.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Until we dispose of section one.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands the point of order to be well taken. That motion was passed this morning.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the house be cleared and that the members who are outside be allowed to come to their seats.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire a word as a matter of personal {599} privilege. Having asked the gentleman from Davis a question, and that question not having been answered, lest there be some misunderstanding as to my motive in asking the question, I desire to say that if the conditions exist that the gentleman portrayed, however much the people of Utah wanted statehood, they do not want it and they cannot afford to take it by a trick and it would be dishonoring on their part to take it in such way as that.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands that the gentleman answered the question.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I would desire to move an amendment to the motion. It would create a great deal of confusion to clear the house, and I would therefore move that the chair appoint three tellers to count and announce the vote to the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been nothing shown to indicate that it is necessary to call in absent members. They are supposed to be in their seats until some information to the contrary is given.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to withdraw the motion I made, and I believe we can have unanimous consent to call the ayes and nays.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move we take a recess until two o'clock.


Mr. CREER. Vote the motion down.

Mr. KEARNS. And the house can be cleared then and the sergeant-at-arms can get the members in and we will have a square deal.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order, for the reason that the motion was made when we went into committee of the whole that we remain until this question was disposed of by vote.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, the motion was certainly carried, but as I understand it, it does not have the scope given to it. The motion as carried, as I understand it, was that the committee should not rise until a vote was taken. A motion to take a recess does not conflict with that motion. We are not supposed in voting for that motion to contemplate the possibility of staying here all night or going without our dinners or lunch, as the case may be.

Mr. BUTTON. I ask that the motion be read. I took it just as Mr. Varian has explained it.

The CHAIRMAN. The ruling of the chair is that the session must be continuous until this question is voted on.

Mr. EICHNOR. I believe my amendment or substitute, whatever you may choose to call it, should be voted on first.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would ask unanimous consent of the house that after the amendment is read and the question is put we can vote on it by a rising vote.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I voted to go into committee of the whole, and therefore, I move to reconsider that motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion to reconsider, the chair rules to be out of order at this time.

The question being taken on the substitute of Mr. Eichnor, the committee divided by a vote of 28 ayes (noes not counted.) The substitute was declared to be rejected.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the result of the vote. Now one side has been given.

Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, is another motion in order now?

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my request.

The CHAIRMAN. The question will now recur upon the amendment offered by Mr. Kiesel to section one of the article on elections and rights of suffrage.

The substitute of Mr. Kiesel was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Section one, gentlemen, is now before you for further {600} consideration. If there are no further amendments to be offered to this section, it will pass under the rule to its third reading.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, that disposes of the question. I move we now arise and report progress.

Mr. RICHARDS. To put it beyond doubt, I move that the first section be passed upon by this committee.


The CHAIRMAN. Under the rules that have been heretofore adopted by the committee, this motion is entirely unnecessary. I believe that no section in any of the articles considered has been thus voted upon separately. The chair rules that unless there are other amendments to be offered to this section, it will pass to its third reading.

Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here I want to offer for section one.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move we take a recess until two o'clock.

Mr. JAMES. Half past two, it is now almost one o'clock.

Mr. BUTTON. I accept that.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I now raise the point of order that you cannot take a recess until this article is passed on.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is right, we must pass upon that section before we_

The CHAIRMAN. The chair rules that unless there are other amendments to this section, it is passed to its third reading.

Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment there. I would like to say a few words.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order.

Mr. VARIAN. Is there a motion for a recess?


Mr. VARIAN, Well, that takes precedence.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman rises to a point of order. The chair was on the point of putting it.

Mr. CANNON. I did not understand the chair was going to put a motion for a recess. I understood you were considering this amendment. My point of order is upon that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. This amendment was offered after the motion to take a recess until half past two o'clock had been made.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, before you put that motion, the chair ruled that it was not necessary to put to vote the question on this section. I desire to call the chair's attention to the fact that we have only passed the section where there has been no objection to it. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the question should not come up on section 1. Further, in regard to this motion to take a recess, I arise to a point of order on that as not being in order in the committee of the whole. We went into committee of the whole, Mr. Chairman, with the express understanding of disposing of section 1 before we arose. A motion to take a recess has the effect of a motion to adjourn. If not, then it is not in order while another motion is pending. The motion of Mr. Lambert of Salt Lake was before this house.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. My point of order is against the point of order he is making.

The CHAIRMAN. He has not concluded his point of order.

Mr. HART. I simply desire to say that there was a motion of Mr. Lambert to amend this section. In the first place, the section that we went into committee of the whole to consider has not been disposed of, and that has not been the practice of this committee as I understand it. It was only when there was a unanimous consent or acquiescence in the proposition that was considered to be passed. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this motion to take a recess is simply in the nature of a motion to {601} arise. It is in the nature of adjournment and is not in order in committee of the whole unless it be considered as a motion to arise.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I insist that my motion is_

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Button has the floor.

Mr. BUTTON. My point of order is that the chairman of this committee decided this question before the gentleman raised his point of order, and the only way he can do it is to take an appeal from the chair.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I move an appeal from the chair on that question.

The CHAIRMAN. The position the chair takes is, that during the debate of this whole question for nearly a week, the rules have not been strictly adhered to. The chair takes this view of the question, that the purpose which was sought to be accomplished in the motion which was made this morning to dispose of this question has practically been effected, and that the motion to adjourn or take a recess until half past two o'clock is now in order.

The committee then took a recess until half past two o'clock p. m.


The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, section 1 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage is before you for consideration.

Mr. RICKS. Didn't I understand we had passed section 1 this morning?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; there is an amendment offered by Mr. Lambert.

Mr. LAMBERT. I withdraw that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment being withdrawn, if there are no further amendments offered to section 1, it will pass to its third reading.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I will move you to amend section 2 by striking out from the fifth and sixth lines, after the word “county” in the fifth line, the words, “and in the precinct sixty days,” and insert in lieu thereof, the words, “and precinct,” so that the section would read, “Every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have been a citizen for ninety days, has resided in the State or Territory one year and in the county and precinct four months preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote at such election, except as herein otherwise provided.”


Mr. RYAN. I would explain my reasons for moving my amendment, that it has been my experience in elections that the bad influence or the dishonest and irregular matter that come up in elections are from the floating vote, and that establishes a longer probation before the right to vote; I think that that provision would provide against any colonization schemes or the dishonest use of the elective franchise. That is, it would avoid the nomadic tribes as you might say, and we would have a better and fairer election.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I trust this amendment will not prevail, because in many instances I believe it would work a disfranchisement of citizens. The operation of that amendment would be simply this, that a man living within one of the political precincts of Salt Lake City would not be permitted to change his residence during a period of four months of the year, upon the penalty of being disfranchised at the coming election. I am not in favor of colonization or anything looking in that direction. The laws we have had heretofore require a residence of thirty days. The proposition as it stands increases that to sixty days, and I think this is sufficient to prohibit a man from changing his residence during a period of sixty days, and if he desires to rent a house in this locality or if he has been boarding in one region and {602} happens to build himself a home in a certain portion of the city, he should not be compelled to either refrain from moving into his chosen habitation or lose his right of suffrage in the coming election. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that sixty days will be a sufficient safeguard to prevent any possible scheme of colonization, but I think when you come to extend it to four months that you are going altogether too far, and it would prevent men from living in a locality that they might choose during that period of time and

it would be subserving no good purpose. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the motion will be voted down.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, our campaigns here do not last over sixty days. I don't take it there is very much colonization that will take place before the candidates have been nominated. I would not wish to disfranchise any honest voter, and I can see how this would do that thing, and I am not certain that it would be much more effectual for the purpose for which the gentleman offers it than the section as it stands. I favor the section, so far as that amendment is concerned, just as it stands.

The amendment was rejected.

Sections 3 and 4 were read and passed without amendment.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 5. It is covered by the first three or four lines of section 2.

The motion was agreed to.

Sections, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were read and passed without amendment.

Section 10 was read.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of section 10.


Mr. ALLEN. We have made considerable on this floor about taxing people without representation. Take a man that may have come into the Territory last year and because he happens to be one year ahead of another man to say that he may vote because he happens to be here a little before another one, and to say that a man shall not vote because he has not happened to be in the State quite soon enough. Now, we have plenty of honorable men_we can judge those that may come by those that are here. We have plenty of men that are honest and straightforward men and that pay a good tax, and to deprive men of that class from voting, it is not fair, it is not just. You take the men that will come after this Constitution is adopted from other states or territories, and if he is a man that will sell his vote for a glass of beer, he may vote simply because he can read the Constitution, and whereas a man that comes in after the adoption of the Constitution may be an honorable man_a man that pays a heavy tax_

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move you that Ex-mayor Gale of Springville be accorded the privilege of a seat on the floor of this house.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection the gentleman will have the freedom of the house. I

want to suggest that the gentleman might either be brought in quietly or else wait a few moments and not interrupt a speaker right in the midst of his debate for a question of privilege of this character.

Mr. ALLEN. As a rule I believe that the men who are educated are more apt to be men that are not living by the sweat of their brow; as a rule they are not men that linger around saloons or around cities, wishing to sell their vote. They are more apt to be out in the country at work, improving the country, making more taxable property in the country, therefore, I am in favor of striking out this section.

Mr. ENGBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this section being a part of the Constitution for several reasons, and one is that the naturalization laws of the United States do not prescribe that condition for citizenship or for the {603} right to vote. It seems to me that it is good enough for the State of Utah to be as good as the general government and that it is not necessary that the State of Utah be any better to commence with. In other words, I believe that that stricture should not be imposed that will deprive many honest and worthy men from exercising the right of franchise in our State when we get that far. I do not consider that to be able to read the Constitution of the United States or to read anything is a qualification that amounts to much, although education is a worthy attainment; but we should remember that among rogues in the world, we find those the most dangerous who can read and write or who have received a very liberal education. There are many men to-day living with us who have taken out their first papers, and to that extent are citizens of the United States. At least, they may become inside of the first door. After this shall pass and we reach the point of elections in the State of Utah, those men will be shut out and disfranchised, as it were_deprived of voting upon any questions that affect or would affect their rights. Again, by adopting this section we would relegate white men below the negro, for though he can not read or write he is not denied the right to vote on that account, and I believe that it would be disgraceful for our State to be stingy and to be small in any respect, I believe that we should be liberal enough to grant many of these noble, worthy men that have
labored and toiled for many years_allow them to have the right that those who have come from foreign countries and perhaps cannot read or write, but those under this section would not be deprived of the right to vote, but would retain it. Now, I claim that we should be on an equal footing. That there should not be one class of citizens humiliated below another in our State.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I favored this section in the committee and am inclined to favor it now. When this bill was reported the Tribune made reference to it and stated that the object of this section was to wipe out the democratic vote. [Laughter.] Now, I will ask my colleague from Utah County if he is objecting to it on that ground. Of course, if I thought it would have that effect I would favor this amendment, but as I think that the section as it stands will not work a hardship in very many cases, and such cases as it will work a hardship in are cases where it ought to work it. Now, who is entitled to vote now or at the time of the adoption of this Constitution that will be deprived of the right of franchise by this section? It only requires them to be able to read the Constitution of the United States. It does not even require them to read it in the English language. If the person can read it in his own language that is sufficient.

Mr. EICHNOR. Is that the intent of it_that if a man can read the Constitution in his own

language_Russian, for instance, it would be sufficient to give him the right to vote?

Mr. THURMAN. No; if he can read the Russian constitution, and the United States in addition to that admits him to citizenship, and he has resided here for one year, he would be admitted under this section, as it stands, but under the section as proposed, it would admit him even if he could not read the constitution of his native country or in his native language.

Mr. EICHNOR. If he could read the Constitution of the United States in his native language, which would be Russian in this case, that would be satisfactory?

Mr. THURMAN. I understand that is the way the section would be construed.

Mr. DRIVER. I would like to ask Mr. Thurman a question. Now, I am acquainted with a very eminent man who {604} formerly lived in Davis County, we may say the founder of a city there. He has left the Territory for a number of years, and that gentleman cannot read or write, and yet he is one of the most progressive business men that we ever had in this Territory, A man possibly that has no equal on this floor or in this whole Territory. Now, he has left Utah for a certain number of years and resided possibly in Arizona and New Mexico; he desires to change his residence, he goes back to the city that he has established, to the country he has improved and built up, and because he cannot read or write the Constitution, would he be deprived of his vote under this section?

Mr. THURMAN. That is a pretty long question. It comes very nearly partaking of the qualities of a speech right in the middle of my remarks. I wish to say this, however, that this Convention cannot possibly legislate for the friend of the gentleman from Weber County or any isolated case. Now, if there is a remarkably large class of people, such as he speaks of, or quite large, there is a foundation for it, but I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that it will affect but very few and the tendency will be to teach our boys that before they can exercise the privileges of citizens of the Territory of Utah and become voters, that they must at least learn to read sufficiently to read the Constitution of the United States. Here we propose to establish an elaborate school system to educate these young men and at the public expense, and I am looking to them more than I am to the foreigner, and the effect upon them will be good for the new State. It is intended to save every right that exists at the time of the adoption of this Constitution_impair the right of no man, but the future must take care of itself, and I think that the section ought to remain.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, has not the thought crossed your mind during the last five days that there are too many that can read now? I approve this section, except that I would give a little grace. There are a great many men in the United States who have moved here that cannot read or write. Still they have clearer heads and they have better hearts than a great many gentlemen who can read and write. The right of suffrage ought to be guided by some intelligence. But the men that make the best voters are the best judges. Patriotism has more to do in the wise judgment of the voter than all the knowlledge he can get, and for the sake of worthy men who through the misfortunes of their ignorance could not obtain an education, I would like to put this off, to read that after a certain term of years, say fifteen years, no person shall have a right to vote who shall not be able to read the Constitution of the United States. A great many states are like this

Territory, they are just preparing for a great educational system. There are tens of thousands of men in the United States between the ages of forty and sixty who cannot read and cannot write, and under this law if they would move here they could not vote. At the same time they can vote more intelligently than thousands of people in many of the states who can read and write. The people of this country do not understand that anything is needed to make a competent voter except an education. Education has spoiled many a good voter. That is, it has enabled him to learn to be a scholar, to learn to deride all governments, to learn to lose faith in his own government. The man whose heart is educated with his brain, the man who when his brain is in doubt is governed by his heart, and governed right, because he loves his country, makes the best voter. At the same time all the children of this country ought learn to read and write, and there ought to be a penalty held over them that they cannot exercise the right of suffrage unless they do learn to read and write, and if the committee {605} that has this in charge will put these three words in front of the word “no,” “after fifteen years from this date no person shall,” I shall be glad to support it. As it is I shall have to vote against it.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out this section for the reason that it appears to me upon its face to conflict with section 8.

(Reads section 8.)

It seems to me that if this was left in there, it would make that more or less nugatory. But upon the principle of fairness and right and justice_the gentleman says there are but very few_I think there are quite a respectable number of citizens who are unable to read and write. I have in mind one or two_one especially in our own town, of our own inhabitants, who is one of the most wealthy men of our city, most exemplary perhaps so far as morality is concerned, and not only that, but charitable; he has no children and has to pay taxes to support the children of those who have to be educated. I think it would be unfair. This is in line with the case the gentleman referred to from Weber County_there are scores of that class of people who are liable to come into our Territory and make very good citizens, who were unfortunate in their early days not to get a good education and have become more or less stereotyped in their habits. They would have to pay taxes and would be in every way qualified as voters, and yet not be allowed to vote. I am opposed to this on principle. I know it is very well to have something to encourage education. I have seen cases that were perfectly ridiculous going through the courts and getting naturalization papers. A man was asked to name some of the states, “Well,” he says, “there is Idaho, Montana and Chicago,” and he was admitted to citizenship. There are some things that will work an injury, but on the other hand, I think greater injury would be done if we allowed this section to prevail. I am opposed to it because in the first place there are many good citizens who would be able to come in, and there are a great many now who would be held off by this section. I am in favor of striking it out.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this motion to strike out. I do not believe that this section should remain in here at all. I am a firm believer in the intelligence and patriotism of the citizens and that the welfare of the State depends upon them, but the intelligence of the citizen or the patriotism of the citizen does not always depend upon the ability of the individual to read even as much as the Constitution of the United States, and for the very reasons assigned

by the gentleman from Salt Lake who favors this section with an amendment, I favor it being stricken out because I say as he says, that we are not now ready for it. It ought not to take operation and effect at the present time. I agree with him there, and I say that if the time ever comes when such a provision should be inserted the Legislature will be competent to arrive at that conclusion and provide for it. But on principle I am opposed to it. I think it is not right. I know in my own experience of men who stand at the very head of communities other than those who have been mentioned here in this presence to-day_men who stand as high in the order of intelligence, who have acquired as much wealth and who are respected in every way as much as any citizen in the commonwealth in which they live, who could not comply with this requirement and could not register and vote if they were required to read even the Constitution of the United States. I do not think it right. I do not think it right on principle. I think as I said before that human intelligence is the thing that ought to govern and control, and integrity, and not necessarily this qualification. Now one other {606} word. One of the gentlemen from Utah who spoke suggested that this would be a stimulus to our youth to become educated; I say that with the school system that we are inaugurating, they will need no such stimulus, they will become educated and qualified, and these cases will be very rare and very exceptional, and they certainly, it seems to me, ought not to be included.

Mr. THURMAN. You say the Legislature can provide for this in the future as it now stands?

Mr. RICHARDS. I say no, if we strike it out.

Mr. THURMAN. Well, if we strike it out, unless we put something else in the Legislature cannot under this Constitution provide for any educational qualification.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, then, I am all the more in favor of having it stricken out, because I do not think any such thing ever should be provided.

Mr. THURMAN. You do not think it ever should be?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, I do not. As I said before under the school system we have the intelligence of the voter will be provided for.

Mr. SMITH. May I ask Mr. Thurman a question? From what states did this idea come? I was just looking over two constitutions here and I do not see any reference to it.

Mr. THURMAN. My recollection is that that is copied from the state of Wyoming. We got stuck on Wyoming on account of the first section, and we could not get away from it. Only there it is the state constitution instead of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, being a tail end member of that important committee on suffrage and elections, I was in hopes when this first section went through that we would surely get along with the rest, for we had considered them all as I thought and given them great attention in the committee. Now, this particular section ten, there was a number of the committee that talked harder for this clause being inserted than a naturalized citizen from Europe. Now,

while I agree with Judge Goodwin, I would be tenacious about striking it off so suddenly_to give them a little probation, but I would not want it to extend to fifteen years. This friend, that my worthy friend from Weber County mentions, I know him as well as he does, and if he had spent fifteen minutes a day for a year to improve his mind in reading and writing as diligently as he has in hunting dollars, he would have been an eminent scholar. Mr. Perry once told me his brain was made that way. He said, “My head is made for financiering,” and he was a success. Now, I believe I may safely take this position, that I am as old a member in this Territory or a citizen of this Territory nearly as any gentleman on this floor. I have had a vast experience in the class of emigrants that come to this country. I have labored among a large population of Scandinavians for twenty years, and I never knew one of them that could not read and write_not one of them. If I found a deadhead that could not read and write, why it was one among my own nationality; that is my experience. Therefore, I am not in favor of this amendment, unless it should be to put them on probation, say for a couple of years or such a matter, and I believe it would act as a stimulant_as an impetus, to school them in some “book larnin,” as the Yankee calls it.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen seem to have lost sight of the fact that this morning, after several days_pretty nearly a week of debate, we passed section 1, which provides 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; both male and female citizens of this State shall equally enjoy all civil, political and religious rights and privileges. We {607} come here now to the consideration of a section which provides that this section shall not deprive any person of the right to vote who has such right at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? In other words, every ignorant or uneducated man in the Territory who has to-day the right of suffrage will have that right continued to him, but every female who comes in under our proposed Constitution will have to submit to the intelligence clause_to the educational test. Where are the eloquent advocates of equal rights to woman in regard to suffrage this afternoon? We have had plenty of them on the floor here for the last week. Why not provide that they shall be treated in this matter just exactly the same as the men of this Territory are treated? And if we are going to allow ignorant and uneducated men to vote, why shall we not allow the same privilege to women as we have guaranteed to them in the first section of the article. For my part, I come from a state where the educational test is absolutely required, and where no man can vote unless he is able not only to read, but to write, and so far as I am concerned this section would please me if it stopped in the middle of the third line_if only the first clause of that section should remain in the organic law of this State, “No person shall have the right to vote who shall not be able to read the Constitution of the United States,” and I would be willing to go a step farther and require that in addition to that he should be able to write also. I do not quite agree with the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Richards, on that question of intelligence. I do agree with the gentleman from San Juan, who says that if this one particular man in whose interest it is proposed to amend the constitution of a state, had given sufficient time to that subject he could probably have been a well educated citizen. A man who has the ability to acquire wealth, as this gentleman has, and found cities, as he has, certainly has sufficient inherent power to enable him to secure an education sufficient to be able to read the Constitution of the United States at least. And besides, Mr. Chairman, just because these men that have been referred to have been able to acquire wealth is no reason why I want to waive any particular section of this Constitution in their favor. We are not legislating especially in the interests of the rich man nor of the poor man, but for all the people, and if we are going to

establish, as we have started in to, such a system of public schools as have been provided for in our article that has been referred back to the committee, so that all the children of this Territory shall come up to their manhood thoroughly qualified for citizenship and for the right of suffrage to which they will be entitled, I believe we should make that test upon every citizen who is going to vote in this State hereafter. I take that broader ground that we should stop this section right in the middle of the third line and require every man who is going to vote and every woman who is going to vote in this Territory to have at least that much education that they are able to read the Constitution of the United States. I am not in favor of striking this out, but I would be in favor of striking out all but the first clause.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to be consistent with myself at least on this question of suffrage, and I still say that I believe in broadening the channel and permitting as many citizens to register their votes at the polls as we consistently can. The sixth section of the article provides that all idiots, insane persons, and persons convicted of treason or crimes against the elective franchise, unless restored to civil rights, shall not be permitted to vote at any election or be eligible to hold office in this State. That is quite liberal. A person might be convicted of treason and if his rights {608} had been restored by a pardon he would have a right to cast his vote at the ballot box upon any election. A person may be convicted of any felony, he may be convicted of murder, burglary, or the whole list of crimes, and still be entitled to cast his vote at any election. There is another class of persons. Those who are guilty of crimes against the elective franchise, who are not entitled to vote unless they shall have been restored by pardon. All these classes of people have the right to vote at all elections under those circumstances, yet we say that if a man happens to be guilty of the crime of ignorance, he shall be excluded from voting at the polls. It has been very wisely remarked by some gentlemen upon the floor that we are more apt to find crime existing among intelligent men_those who are given to reading and writing_than we find among the more ignorant classes. I see no good reason why any man should be excluded from voting simply because he is not able to read the Constitution. How are we to ascertain that fact? I presume the registrar would have to get out a copy of the Constitution of the United States every time any person presented himself for registration and ask him to read it through. If we have any educational qualification at all, I should say that any person who is not able to read should not be permitted to vote, but I should not even favor that. I agree with my friend from Weber County (Mr. Driver), and I will answer the question of the gentleman from Utah, that Mr. Layton would not be entitled to vote in this Territory, should he return, notwithstanding the fact that he founded a city here. I know several people in our section of the country who are ignorant, who are not able to read or write, who own large property interests; they are as good and loyal citizens as those who can read and write. I would not narrow the channel of the franchise. I would broaden it, if anything, as we have done_as the sense of this Convention has shown we have done, and in respect to this class of people, I would say if they could not read or write, I would permit them nevertheless to cast their ballots at the polls. We should rather put limitations and restrictions upon men who violate the penal law, those men who are enemies to the government, those men who secure and receive the attentions of the courts, who require the State to put its hand into its public treasury to pay for the prosecution, than to say to a man simply because he is guilty of the crime of ignorance, he should not vote, when he is a peaceable, quiet, patriotic citizen. My vote will be cast in favor of striking out section 10 in its entirety.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, personally I would be in favor of an amendment to this similar to that suggested by Mr. Goodwin, lengthening the probationary period to five years, but the majority did not agree with me on that proposition and consequently it was reported as it is. Outside of that. I see no consistency in the section, except that should the right be given to the ladies of this Territory to vote, any lady who could not read would not be allowed to vote, but the majority of the committee did not agree with me on that proposition. I believe that there should be some encouragement for an educational qualification. I believe that citizenship of the United States means something, and I believe it should mean something to be a citizen of a state and that some restrictions of that kind should be placed upon it, and outside of that, why I should be in favor of the section. I would not question the propriety of putting in a probationary period as Mr. Goodwin suggested.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, I was about to motion to strike out this section when the other {609} gentleman had the floor. I was acquainted with a little child about five or six years of age that could take a book with a picture on one side and the reading on the other, and that child could read that book through, first having the story repeated to it by its mother. Now, it seems to me that any person that has the intelligence to acquire means without the education sufficient to read, could learn or commit this to memory, that is, the Constitution of the United States, by some person repeating it to them and in this way the uneducated could fool us, and I think the whole section superfluous and entirely unnecessary in this place, and while we seek to encourage education by such a means, it seems to me we are going to put the officers of the law in a position of being laughed at by some person that can commit it to memory and recite it.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Of course I took it for granted the gentleman can read the Constitution. I would like to ask if he can repeat now one section of the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. THURMAN. I object, I object to that. I do not like to see a member put in an embarrassing situation here. You do not want to expose any man.

Mr. MAUGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you why I am in favor of this section being stricken out entirely. I propose to be as liberal with the citizens of this Territory and those that may assemble here, as the general government has been with us upon this floor. They simply say that all male citizens of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, who have resided in the Territory for one year next prior to such election, are authorized to vote for and choose delegates to form a Convention in said Territory. I do not feel that I want it to return_have not put up any bars, but to be as liberal with the citizens of this Territory as my constituency has been with me, and I hope the section will be stricken out.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out this section. I can imagine if this is placed in the Constitution that the ground for challenge at the polls at elections_and I just imagine one man after another being called upon to read the Constitution of the United States. Some men perhaps are able to read, but more of them are not. I think, gentlemen, as has been remarked, if we deal with each other as the general government has dealt with us, it will be good enough.

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). Mr. Chairman, whilst I am aware of the effect that this is legislating against a certain class, the idea that I have upon it is this. The idea that confronted my colleagues in that committee was, is a person that cannot read able to use intelligently the ballot? That was the question that confronted us, and I give it here just as a suggestion that if a person cannot read they have to depend upon some one else, to tell them who they are voting for, and what they are voting for. It is a question that I think should be considered.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise and make the same remarks that the gentleman has just brought before this Convention. I anticipated that was the secret of this section going into this article. Now, gentlemen of this Convention, stop and think of the proposition. We have throughout the United States, to some extent, adopted the Australian system of voting. Now, what is the result? We find that the Australian system of voting requires that a man shall read his ticket and he shall prepare his ballot. That system has given the most satisfaction probably, so far as I can learn, or the greatest amount of satisfaction of any system that has been tried in the United States. Now, in case where a man cannot read his ballot, what does he have to do? He has to {610} depend upon some man being put into the booth with him to prepare his ballot for him. Well, now, I submit, gentlemen, is it a proper thing that a man should exercise a right of franchise when he has to depend upon some other individual to fix his ticket and tell him what to vote?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, and then imagine a man being put into a booth with a woman, too.

Mr. JAMES. Well, I had not thought of that, Mr. Thurman, but it is well suggested. Now, there is something else to be added to the idea of the committee in requiring of a gentleman the qualification of being able to read, and that is that he should understand the principles of the government under which he lives to intelligently cast a vote in the interests of the government which he is being supported by and living under. I suppose that is some of the other reasons why this qualification is put into this article. Now, the argument of some gentlemen on the floor that you might do some injustice, may have been well said, but it won't do any injustice to those that have acquired the right to vote at the present time. But they say he might go away from the Territory and come back and then he could not register and vote, etc. Well, now, gentlemen, I have had some experience in my life. As my friend, Mr. Hammond from San Juan County, has said, I have worked a good many men, I have had them under my employ all my lifetime by the dozens, even the hundreds, and I never have had a man under my employ that showed a disposition to acquire the knowledge of reading and writing, but that did it, and has done it, and it goes even farther than that. Mr. President, we make a good deal of sport of our Chinese laborers that have been so badly treated by the Japanese lately. I have had in my employ in the last twenty or thirty years, on this western slope, a great many Chinamen; they are the cooks in the mines, as you all well know. We have to depend upon them. We cannot get white labor to do that cooking; I never have had a Chinaman in my employ in all that long period of time that remained in my employ a year that has not been able to make his own letters and write his orders to me when he wanted provisions for his kitchen. Now, it seems a little strange if, as Mr. Hammond has said, any gentleman cannot give a few minutes now and then to study the English or any other language and learn how to read and write, so that he can cast his vote without depending upon some one else to cast it for him. I am in favor of the article just as it stands.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I am disposed to favor the article as it stands. In relation to the statement, made I think by the gentleman from Cache Valley, in regard to the liberality of our government, and admitting those to citizenship_I have a faint recollection of having to pass through somewhat of a catechism before I had the right and privilege of enjoying American citizenship, and as the gentleman from Kane, Mr. Robinson, remarked, I hold that a gentleman who is so unfortunate or a lady who cannot read, they are simply machines in the hands of some person else and are liable to be swayed in their ideas in casting their ballots at an election. And if it would be in order, Mr. Chairman, I would offer an amendment to the amendment, something like this, “No person shall have the right to vote who shall not be able to read,” striking out the words, “the Constitution of the United States.” I think that would fix it.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to call attention to one of the arguments made by the distinguished gentleman from Davis County upon the subject of woman's suffrage, as applied to this question. He laid down here the broad proposition that no class of society should be entrusted with the ballot {611} that were not independent. I ask you what independence there is of a voter who cannot read his ballot, and I am curious to know which way my friend from Davis County is going to vote on this proposition.

Mr. VARIAN. Was that amendment seconded?

Mr. ROBERTS. I second the amendment.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask this question, and submit it particularly to the attorneys in this committee. Mr. Thurman explained a little while ago that if a person was able to read the Constitution of the United States, no matter in what language it was printed, he could vote. Now, after a little reflection, I must say that I differ with the distinguished gentleman. If you insert this clause, or insert this amendment, that no person shall have the right to vote unless he shall be able to read, I think the courts would construe that to mean the English language_the language we use in the United States?

Mr. WELLS. Why not say so, then?

Mr. EICHNOR. I am not saying on which side of the fence or on which side of the question I am.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iron, Mr. Heybourne, moves as an amendment to the original motion, that the words in the second and third line, after the word “read,” be stricken out.

Mr. VARIAN. Is not all the rest of this section stricken out by that amendment also?

Mr. HEYBOURNE. That is not the intention. Strike out all after the word “read” and up to the word “states,” in the third line.

Mr. THURMAN. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. In speaking of the construction of this language by a court, would a court, where it was ambiguous or open to two or more

constructions, construe the language in favor of extending the privilege or depriving a person of the privileges?

Mr. EICHNOR. The courts are generally in favor of putting a liberal construction upon it, but would not the courts hold as a general rule, that it must be the language in which we conduct our business?

Mr. THURMAN. Well, I think not; of course if there is any doubt about that, I would prefer it to be amended.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot for the life of me see where that section will benefit us in the least, as people in Utah. If we knew when the last one of those that cannot read or write would die or leave the Territory, probably then I would feel like sustaining Mr. Goodwin's motion or amendment, but I cannot see and I cannot understand where it would work a great injury to individuals, if it goes through. It will deprive them of being able to vote. Now, in my acquaintance there is one lady that comes under my observation at the present time, and she is a lady that would be called such among the ladies that was with us here to-day, as an entertainer, or associate in high society, and yet her life has been a practical one, and not of reading and writing. but she has been one that has a practical life, is one that has come to this country some twenty years ago and has raised a large family, and it would be a stroke that I fear she would never get over in her feelings individually if that right was taken from her and given to all the rest of her sisters. Now, this is one instance, and there are other instances that have been referred to here, and if you can do one individual good I think we ought to do it, for I cannot see where we can do any good to parties with that section as it now reads. Therefore, I am opposed to it, and am in favor fully of the first amendment to that section.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask the gentleman last on the floor if that lady that he {612} has in his mind's eye now is living in this Territory?

Mr. JOLLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAMMOND. It does not affect her at all, as I understand it.

Mr. JOLLEY. I understand it does.

Mr. HAMMOND. Why, no, as I understand this article it does not affect the present citizens of this Territory; is not that the understanding?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It does not affect the voters.

Mr. HAMMOND. I will take it all back. I want to call attention to the seeming cruelty of the section if it should prevail. Away back in 1843, I became acquainted with a people called the Sandwich Islanders, Hawaiians, where Queen Lil has been acting so nicely, and that nation then could not read or write. There was not a man that could, and they went to work and passed a law that no citizen should have the right to vote or to exercise the franchise unless they could both

read and write, and in less than twelve years there was a nation that I had never found one after twelve years but what could read and write. I spent years of my life there among the people. [Applause.] That does not seem to me such a great hardship. If we Yankees cannot learn, and this bright Caucasian race that comes from all the world around to help us build up a State, it seems to me no great hardship for them to turn in and learn as well as the Kanakas.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the gentlemen who have stood up here and argued in favor of woman suffrage, because it would restore the franchise to a large class of people and were in favor of it, because it was a step in the direction of progress, enlightenment and intelligence, will now stand up here and oppose an educational qualification for voters. I think that if there are any citizens in this Territory who cannot read that they ought not to be allowed to vote until they learn to read, and if an election comes around which shall deprive them of the franchise, that is, if they are not privileged to vote at the first election, or the second election, I say let them go to school and learn to read and then they will be allowed to vote.

Mr. L. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a question which is of some importance. I am ready to vote on it, and I would be ready to sit down if I knew the house would vote the right way_that is, the way I want them to. Then I would not say a word, but I am certainly opposed to that section. I do not think that it affects us so far as our boys are concerned_I do not believe our friend, the gentleman from Utah County_he is raising boys to-day that will not be able to read when they are twenty-one years of age. I hope that none of us will raise boys that cannot read when they are twenty-one years of age; but it does affect a great many men that come from the old world.

And I will bring an instance to your mind that I just got to think of last Sunday. Here in this town, right in the streets, I met a man who came from Denmark. He is a very intelligent man, and can read and write in his own language and has held positions in that country, but to-day he could not read the Constitution of the United States nor anything in English, and I would certainly hope that the Convention will or the committee on this floor will consider these matters carefully, because I think you will exclude a large number of people that came to this Territory, from year to year, that are good citizens, just as honorable, just as advanced in civilization as you or I that have been here for years, and when they have come to the age of forty or fifty or sixty, years, they will never learn to read the Constitution of the United States, and they will be here as it were in vassalage or in bondage {613} to some extent, because they can not have the franchise. Now, I think that this would be wrong. Now, if the amendment or the amendment to the amendment_I hardly know how the question stands, if it was put in this
manner to read, that the reading would include any language, then I would not care. Then I would be willing to vote on that, but for my part, I see no need of the article or of the section whatever.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, would an amendment be in order now?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands that an amendment at the present stage would not be in order.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I had deferred saying anything on this, but I have been unable to discern from what I have heard which way the majority will vote. I am certainly in favor of

striking out that section. I am opposed and always was opposed to putting the shackles on anybody, on any person that lives, and I say if we leave that section in we are bound to place shackles on good honorable honest people. There is no person in this Territory that is more in favor of education or has done more to educate people than I have, but I am opposed to putting shackles on anybody. I want to be free and to give people freedom, and now at the close or last end to curtail and deprive some good honest man or woman of their vote_their right to the franchise, because they cannot read, I do not think it is right, and I am opposed to it. I have not any fears of anybody being deprived of their rights if we strike that out.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, my ideas in regard to this matter are, that no difference if a man can read the Constitution of the United States_he is no more qualified after he reads the Constitution of the United States_that is, he is very little better prepared than if he could not read it at all, but there are plenty of educators as a rule around about the time that there is voting done, and there are plenty of men that will inform them and tell them how to vote, and they are not on one side altogether, they are on both sides, and if they have read the Constitution of the Uuited States, and a great deal besides, they may be puzzled then to know just exactly how to vote, and I think that many a man is converted that is a good sensible man by hearing members of each party advocate their cause and then obtain a knowledge of the candidates that are up to be elected, then I think they are prepared to vote intelligently, and I think as far as that is concerned, you can very well dispose of that section entirely, and I am opposed to the amendments as well as the original.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I should judge that some of the gentlemen are laboring under a misapprehension with regard to this matter. It has been inferred here by some of the gentlemen that it would deprive the older portions of the community of this right of franchise. By looking at the latter part of the section, commencing on line six, it plainly states there, “Nor to deprive any person of the right to vote who has had such right at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” etc.

Now, as I understand the provisions of this section, and the amendment that is now pending, it is simply the operations of the future, and I believe if adopted would be an incentive to those who may come on after us, that they may qualify themselves thereby, voting understandingly and making of themselves good and proper citizens.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is all very nice for men_the young men who have had fathers with money to put up for them while they went to school to sit here and talk how nice it would be to disfranchise men that have not had that privilege and have had to work all their lives. There are many men in the United States that have had to be {614} on the frontier and work hard to make a living from daylight to dark and put in sixteen hours out of twenty-four, and have not had an opportunity to go to school_could not go to school, and as for their taking a few minutes time as stated here and learning how to read and write, some have done it. A great many have, but others have been compelled to work continually, their fathers compelled them to work, and after they got home they were obliged to continue the work, and they have not had an opportunity to go to school, or an opportunity even to learn at home, and I do not know that we have to copy after Wyoming in everything, it looks like we will in one thing. Take some of our men that have sat at home around the fire while others have been handling a gun in defense of their country, and there

are lots of them of that kind that could not read or write, and for us to deprive them of the privileges of voting equal, that is, when they are just as honorable, and in many instances are more honorable, I do not see anything just about the matter.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. May I ask the gentleman a question; would the provisions of this amendment deprive those men now of exercising the franchise?

Mr. ALLEN. Those that come in after the adoption, it would.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I thought you were referring to men that had been unfortunate in their education in the Territory.

Mr. ALLEN. That may come here. It is bad enough to be ignorant without being punished for it.

Mr. MURDOCK (Wasatch). Mr. Chairman, I hope the motion to strike out will prevail. I think that in a few years we will have no use for a section of this kind in our Constitution. And if we have men who are not able to read and write, I should hate to hand it down to future generations to consider and to know that was the condition that our fathers and mothers were in. Let us make as good an appearance as possible before the future generations that shall come after us, and, as the gentleman has stated, ladies will probably be granted the franchise, and if there should be any among them that are not able to read I should hate to disappoint them at all. They think they are going to have their franchise, and let us be generous. We were very generous this morning. We were willing to increase the elective franchise nearly double and we are now waging a war against a few men and possibly women that are not able to read the Constitution or the English language. I think, gentlemen, that we cannot afford to do that. We can afford to be generous with those men, and I think we have but little to fear from them, and if you will make a qualification that any man whose breath smells of liquor on election day shall not vote_or lady either, I think then, we will be making a suitable and proper qualification, because I think the man who drinks on election day is more dangerous than the man who cannot read, and for that reason I would be in favor of legislation against him, rather than against the poor man who has not had the opportunity possibly of learning to read. Undoubtedly he realizes the situation he is in more keenly than anyone, and the fact that he cannot read is more apparent and he senses it more keenly than anyone else. And I say those men will not last much longer with the ample opportunities we have for education. We will have little use for such a section. Let us say nothing about it, and do not let anyone know that such a condition ever existed in our midst.

The CHAIRMAN. The question will first come up on the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iron County, to strike out from lines two and three the words “the Constitution of the United States.”

The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN, The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Piute (Mr. Allen), which provides for the striking out of the whole section.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, while I am in favor of striking this section out, for fear that the vote might be in the negative, and it might be that the proposition as it now stands would be agreed to, I move as an amendment, that the word “shall” and also the word “the” in the second line be stricken out, and that in lieu of the word “shall” the word “is” be inserted.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair rules that this proposed amendment would not be in order until the vote is taken.

Mr. HART. I would suggest to you that it would be well to make it as perfect as possible before striking it out, or if a proposition is to be agreed to in a certain form, it should be amended before it is agreed to in that form. I know, Mr. Chairman, that proposition was brought up the other day.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. I understand that the chair ruled that the amendment was not in order. If the gentleman desires to make an argument he ought to appeal from the decision of the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is well taken.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Mien to strike out the section, the committee divided by a vote of 57 ayes (noes not counted); the motion was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask to be excused indefinitely on account of news that I have just received of my mother not being expected to live.

The request was granted.

Section 11 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out in line 5 of this section the words, “unless the failure to register is caused by sickness or absence for such provision shall be made by law.”


Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the entire section. The motion of Mr. Evans was agreed to.

Section 12 was read.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 12.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Weber the object of that motion_whether he is opposed to pure elections?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No, sir; I am not. The gentleman from Salt Lake knows that I am in favor of the purity of elections, and I have never made an expression in my life that indicated anything

to the contrary.

Mr. SQUIRES. Except this?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The reason I ask that section 12 be stricken out is this, (reads section 12) does the gentleman from Salt Lake claim that the Legislature has not the power to do that without the Constitution providing that it may do it? We might just as well say that the Legislature has power to pass laws punishing crime. We might just as well say that the Legislature has power to do any other act. As every man knows who has read the first element of constitutional law, unless the Constitution prohibits or restricts the Legislature, that the Legislature is sovereign in itself. It is just as sovereign as this body and has just as much power as this body has, unless there is a restriction upon it, so that I say it is useless and there is no use in saying that the Legislature shall have the power to do a thing or shall do a thing which it has the power to do without saying it in the Constitution.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 13 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 13 be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 14 was read.
Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee that prepared this section if there was any particular thought devoted in the committee to municipal elections?

Mr. CHIDESTER. I believe not.

Mr. GOODWIN. Then, I wish to move an amendment to strike out after the word “elections” in the second line, down to the word “except” in the third line, and also to add the word municipal after the word “election” in the tenth line. I want to separate the school and the municipal elections from the general elections. This is a subject that the citizens of this town feel very sensitive over, and the more they consider it the worse they feel, and they have begged me to separate the city elections from the general elections. I believe that is the rule in places where the experiment has been tried both ways. The city election and the city and county elections ought not to come together, and I hope, gentlemen, you will vote for my amendment.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the proposition that the elections should be separated, but it seems to me that action on this whole section ought to be deferred until the Constitution is practically agreed on and then division could naturally be made in the schedule, or at least it should be delayed until we determine just when we are going to start with the elections. For instance, it has got to be considered whether there will be an election at the time this Constitution is submitted to the people. Perhaps it does not make so much difference.

Mr. GOODWIN. I believe my amendment was not seconded and I think the suggestion just made is the proper one.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It was seconded.

Mr. VARIAN. In order to test the sense of the house, not for the purpose of killing it, but in order that it may come up again, I move to strike out that section.


Mr. CHIDESTER. Is this to strike it out for good?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Mr. CHIDESTER. It can come up again?

The CHAIRMAN. I think so.

Mr. VARIAN. I will say that is my idea. After we get through with the main body of the Constitution and come to the schedule.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that ought to be stricken out; it will have the effect of killing the proposition entirely. Judge Goodwin was entirely mistaken about his amendment not being seconded. It was seconded. I think the amendment ought to have prevailed here, and if, after awhile, in the compilation we want to place this provision somewhere else we can do it, but the principle contained in this section ought to be adopted, it seems to me.

Mr. VARIAN. I agree with my friend. I want to see it adopted. I will withdraw the motion to strike out temporarily.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of Judge Goodwin's motion. I think, if after we have gone into this matter, it should be discovered from any subsequent action that any change should be made in regard to this section after we have passed it, the committee on compilation and arrangement have full authority on that measure, and therefore I am in favor of it.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I am not a politician in the true sense of the word. I have heard so much about economy, how much expense will be entailed on the people of Utah Territory by having separate elections, probably twenty-five or thirty or forty thousand dollars, just as to elect judges of the supreme court or judges of districts and school officers_     
Mr. GOODWIN. May I Interrupt the gentleman? The expense of the election is in the registration, chiefly, and this does not say this shall not come in the same year or within two weeks.

Mr. EICHNOR. Is not it a fact that

you must have judges of these elections?

Mr. GOODWIN. Certainly, but they do not always count.

Mr. EICHNOR. The expense of judges of elections and making returns_if I am not wrong in my calculations it entails a special expense on the people of the State of Utah of about twenty thousand dollars. Now, gentlemen, there is very little in this amendment. It is mere sentiment. When it comes down to a question of that kind, if we want to scratch a ticket we are going to scratch, and if we are going to vote politically, we will vote politically.

Mr. THURMAN. Is not it a fact that we have separate school elections now?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, and every time in Salt Lake City we have a partisan fight.

Mr. THURMAN. Will it take any more expense to have municipal elections at the same time?

Mr. EICHNOR. I am in favor of having them all at the same time.

Mr. GOODWIN. Changing the municipal elections does not change the expense at all. And I know, Mr. Chairman, that the taxpayers of this town as a rule do not want the general elections to come at the same time as the city elections. I believe it is so in every city that has tried the experiment.

The amendment of Mr. Goodwin was agreed to.

Section 15 was read.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 15? If not, it will be passed to its third reading.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. Chairman, if it is not too late, I would like to suggest an amendment to section 6.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, we will hear the suggestion of the gentleman.

Mr. WHITNEY. Section 6 as it stands would seem to imply that some idiots, some insane persons, some persons convicted of treason, or crimes, might vote. I would amend it so that it would read: “No idiots, insane persons, or persons convicted of treason or crime against the elective franchise, unless restored to civil rights, shall be permitted to vote,” etc.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask for information. At the time section 5 was struck out I was engaged at something else. I did not understand the reasons for striking it out, and it seems to me that it was done without consideration.

Mr. SQUIRES. Read the first part of section 2.

Mr. THURMAN. Let me call your attention, however, to the way that wiil be construed. The question is, do you want to empower the Legislature to confer the right to vote upon anybody but citizens of the United States? Section 2 does not say that anybody but citizens of the United States may vote, but it says that every citizen of the United States of certain age and qualifications shall vote or shall be entitled to vote. It does not say that the Legislature may not qualify others to vote who are not citizens, and the reason I ask for information is to find out whether this Convention intended to leave the power with the Legislature to permit others than citizens of the United States to vote. I know when we inserted that we not only copied the constitution that had already been duly considered and passed, but that very question was considered, that if we do not put in section 5 we would leave that in the power of the Legislature, if they want to confer it upon any person that they pleased, whether they were citizens or not.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, is there anything before the house?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands {618} that there is nothing before the house.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a reconsideratian of the motion to strike out section 5.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 5 is now before you as though no action had been taken on it.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I move when the committee arise it report the article as amended to the Convention with the recommendation that it be placed upon the calendar.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment as an additional section to this article.

Mr. VARIAN. If Mr. Richards wants to offer an amendment I will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Richards offered the following amendment:

All citizens of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, who have resided in Utah Territory for one year next prior to such election, are hereby authorized to vote on the ratification or rejection of this Constitution.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I find in the Enabling Act this provision:

Persons possessing the qualification entitling them to vote for delegates under this act, shall be entitled to vote on the ratification or rejection of the Constitution, under such rules or regulations as the said Convention may prescribe, not in conflict with this act.

The qualification prescribed for electors at the election for choosing delegatesis as follows:

All male citizens of the United States over the age of twenty-one years who have resided in said Territory for one year next prior to such elections, are hereby authorized to vote for and choose delegates to form a Convention in said Territory.

Now, it will be seen that a person who has resided in the Territory one year, without regard to the length of time that he may have resided in the county or precinct, is entitled to vote atthis first election. Section 2 of this article provides:

Every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have been a citizen for ninety days, who has resided in the State or Territory one year, in the county four months, and in the precinct sixty days, next preceding an election, shall be entitled to vote at such election, except as herein otherwise provided.

Now, that evidently contemplates some other provision. I submit this section to comply with the requirements of the Enabling Act as to the qualifications of the electors to vote upon the Constitution_

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake a question, whether that would contemplate the use of the franchise in this first election by the women of this Territory?

Mr. RICHARDS. I think that amendment contemplates that, yes, sir. It says all citizens of the United States who have resided one year, etc.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that this is a most remarkable proposition. It is remarkable in this interpretation of the Enabling Act. It is remarkable on general principles. I undertake to say that by all ordinary and known rules of interpretation and construction this Enabling Act clearly defines not only the qualifications of those who shall be entitled to vote for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, but the qualification of those who shall be permitted to vote upon, for or against the Constitution itself. The Congress has in terms described those qualifications, and nowhere in the Enabling Act, in the light of all the rules of construction and interpretation that are familiar to all lawyers, has it manifested any other intention. In section 2, Congress is dealing with the question of qualifications, that is the question before it. They are prescribed thus, “All male citizens over the age of twenty-one years,” with a specified residence, are qualified electors to vote for {619} delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It further provides:

Persons possessing the qualifications entitling them to vote for delegates under this act shall be entitled to vote on the ratification or rejection of the Constitution, under such rules or regulations as said Convention may prescribe, not in conflict with this act.

There the whole question is disposed of, and you may formulate any qualification you please in this Constitution, and I undertake to tell you, gentlemen, that a hundred votes cast by persons not authorized under this Enabling Act at the election for this Constitution will cause your labors to come to naught. There can be no question about this. Congress described qualifications of electors who shall be permitted to vote upon this question, and, passing from it and dealing with another question entirely, it is sought to distort the language into the meaning as presented by this

resolution. In section 4, where they are providing for the action of the executive and the counting of the votes, Congress used this language:

The qualified voters of said proposed State shall vote directly for or against the proposed Constitution.

What does that mean? Why, gentlemen, shall we propose to have a State and the voters, when the State shall come into the Union, who shall then be qualified under the provisions of the Constitution, are entitled to pass upon the question of the adoption of the Constitution? That is not what Congress meant at all. It means the qualified voters of the proposed State, using it in the sense of territory_area of land and population_the qualified voters of that body of persons, living within those defined boundaries as prescribed by the preceding section. That is what it means. The proposed State, gentlemen, is a certain area of land or territory, defined by specified boundaries, together with the population living or resident within those particular boundaries. That is the proposed State and that is the sense in which that language is used. Now this entire act simply means that those persons living within that described territory, that is within the proposed State, possessing the qualifications prescribed in section 1_namely, male citizens over the age of twenty-one years, with a specified residence_if a majority of those persons shall determine in the affirmative this question, then further proceedings are to be had, otherwise, not. It strikes me very forcibly that the gentlemen who seem to be the most anxious_more anxious than anybody for the carrying through this State Constitution and the bringing of this Territory into the Union at the beginning of next year, are blindly now attempting to throw an obstacle in the way which will be insuperable, because the President of the United States, of course, under this act of Congress is not going to issue his proclamation and admit this people into the Union as a State, unless the provisions of this act of Congress have been complied with, and they will not have been complied with if you permit persons not qualified by the act and under it to pass upon this question.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. It looks very absurd to me to think of bringing in another class of electors other than is provided by the Enabling Act, which provides that male citizens shall vote upon this question, and I think at once it would cut off all others. While we may feel very liberal towards any others that may have the privilege hereafter of voting, yet I think we are certainly prohibited by this act that we cannot allow any others only those that are citizens when this act is enacted.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Salt Lake, by inserting the word “male” after the word “all” in the first line.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman think there is a necessity for any such thing?
Mr. BUTTON. I want to arise to a point of order.

Mr SMITH. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this whole proposition is simply nonsense. There is the Enabling Act. It governs us in this matter, and any conditions are simply a waste of time

and a waste of words.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I do not object to the adoption of the article as amended, in order that there may be no doubt as to who shall be allowed to vote on the question of adopting or rejecting the Constitution; I am in full accord with the remarks made by the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian). I do not believe that any except those persons as named in section 2 are qualified to vote under the provisions of the Enabling Act.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of this proposition of the gentleman from Salt Lake, for the reason already given. I think we should vote it down and let the committee on schedule provide an article in regard to who shall vote at the coming election. I believe it should be voted down.

Mr. THURMAN. There is where it belongs, in the schedule.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make the same statement that Mr. Squires did. I do not think it belongs to this part of the Constitution at all.

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). Mr. Chairman, I was only going to suggest that matter and add that in the nineteenth section of the Enabling Act, it provides the Constitution may by ordinance provide for the election of the State officers and for the election_for the ratification or rejection of the Constitution. That the committee on schedule has this under advisement at the present time. And there should be a separate ordinance on that.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say in relation to this section, that the reason I had for presenting it at the present time was to call the attention of the Convention to this important matter. We have here in this second section a definition as to the qualifications of voters with an exception at the end of the section. Now, the Enabling Act prescribed certain qualifications for the electors at the first election, and it seems to me that that ought not to be lost sight of. Whether it be incorporated in this article or whether it go into the schedule it makes no difference to me. I care nothing about that, but as to whether the citizens or whether only male citizens are going to vote on this proposition, is a matter that I want this Convention to discuss. Perhaps we may have something to say upon it later. I do not know if the position is so absurd as some gentlemen think. I am not so clear that the language of this Enabling Act is so conclusive upon this question as has been suggested by the gentleman. It may be that whatever the language of the Enabling Act is or however much authority we may have, it may be wise to restrict the power to vote on this Constitution, to make citizens of the United States, who have been residents of the Territory one year. I do not say that is not so. I do not say at the present time that it is so, but I do say that it is not so clear that this convention, has not the power to make other citizens beside male citizens electors at the first election. Now, with the understanding that this matter shall be considered in the schedule, with the consent of my second, I withdraw the section, in order that this article may be reported. I will also move that this section be referred to the committee on schedule.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is not in order for this committee to refer anything.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

Your committee of the whole having had under consideration the article on elections and rights of suffrage, beg leave to report that they have passed the said article and ask that it be placed as amended on the file for third reading.

Mr. Cannon offered the following:

Resolved; that beginning on Thursday of this week, we hold session each evening at 7:30 o'clock.

Referred to committee on rules.

The Convention then at 4:50 o'clock p. m. adjourned.

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