[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.

Roll was called and all members found in attendance except Thatcher.

Prayer was offered by Archdeacon Crook of the Episcopal Church.

The journal of the 31st day's session was read, corrected and approved.

By request, Mr. Madsen and Mr. Maiben were accorded the privileges of the floor.

Mr. Christensen presented a petition (file No. 174) signed by Joseph Christenen and 500 others, 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.

The PRESIDENT. Are there any reports of standing committees?

Special orders.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that we now resolve ourselves into committee of the whole for the consideration of the next article on the calendar.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. That is not in order at this time.

The PRESIDENT. Special orders are called for, and the gentleman moves to go into committee of the whole.

Mr. THURMAN. That is not a special order. That comes up under the head of motions and resolutions. There is no special order before the house at all.

The PRESIDENT. The objection having been made, I think the point is probably well taken.

Third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution.

Motions and resolutions.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move we now go into committee of the whole.

Mr. HART. Mr. President_

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Squires has the floor.

Mr. THURMAN. We call for the regular order.

Mr. EICHNOR. That has not been passed.

Mr. THURMAN. It has not been passed. It was called for and the chair went right on. We say that there is a regular order here.

The PRESIDENT. The chair called for the third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution. There was nothing said and {669 - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS} the chair called for motions and resolutions, and there is now a motion before the house to go into committee of the whole.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to ask a question for information. When the chair announces the third reading of articles, whose business is it to proceed with the third reading? Is it the duty of any member on this floor to stand up and commence the third reading, or is it the duty of the secretary of this Convention to read the first article that is on the calendar here in third reading? My understanding is that is the procedure, and that is the order we are calling for.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I hardly suppose that it is in order without the unanimous consent, but I would like to say something on the subject. The early part of this Convention_

Mr. THURMAN. If the gentleman wants unanimous consent, I object for one. I insist on the regular order.

Mr. SQUIRES. All right.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary will go to the regular order.

By request, the privilege of the floor was granted to Mr. McArthur of St. George.

Third reading of article on municipal corporations.

Sections 1 and 2 were read by the secretary.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment to section 2, by substituting for the word “four,” in the eighth line, just after the word “in,” the word “six,” so that the proposition for removal of county seats shall not be submitted oftener than once in six years, instead of once in four. I believe in the first instance I favored putting in four years, but since reflecting over it I believe that six years would be better.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to strike out all of section 3 after the word “state,” in the sixth line, because I think it belongs to the legislative business and not a constitution proper.

The motion was agreed to,

Section 4 was read.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I move that the words in the tenth line. of section 6, “with water at reasonable charges,” be stricken out so that it would read, “that all such waterworks, water rights, and sources of water supply now owned or hereafter acquired by any municipal corporation shall be preserved, maintained and operated,” etc. I think “water at reasonable charges,” smacks so much of legislation that to my mind it is almost undignified in a constitution. And I therefore move to strike it out.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, there is only one objection, it seems to me, to that amendment. The question whether it might not be held that municipal corporations would not charge any rates, and that it must be maintained by the population for the supply of its inhabitants, whether it would not preclude the collection of water rates.

The PRESIDENT. Whether the city could make a corner on it?

Mr. VAN HORNE. No, sir; but whether it might not exclude the city from charging water rates if that is stricken out.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am very strongly inclined to the idea that the words “reasonable charges,” ought to be left as they are, otherwise a city would have arbitrary power to make unreasonable charges to the consumers of water. I do not see any harm_in fact it seems to me it would be a better guaranty to the people to, have these words remain. Of course, a city may not be arbitrary in its charges, but it is well enough to say that they shall not.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move to amend the amendment by {670} striking out the words “with water,” in line 10.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think these words ought not to be stricken out. It is true, as has been suggested by the gentleman who made the motion, that they are to some extent, in one sense, in the nature of legislation, but they are words of restriction of the power of the city, it seems to me, and ought to re-main there; but whatever construction might be placed upon those, it seems to me that the striking out of those words would be unfortunate. If, as the gentleman from Salt Lake has stated, it would be possible to construe this section in such a way as to prohibit the city from charging water rates, that would be a misfortune in some of the cities in this Territory. If, on the other hand, as suggested by the gentleman from Weber, the doubt should be the other way, and it be said they might charge water rates and exorbitant water rates, that would be unfortunate. I think the supply of water for domestic purposes for the inhabitants of any

city ought not to be made the subject of speculation. The city ought to raise its revenue from some other source than that, and the charges should be reasonable in their character, and such as would be sufficient simply to carry that department of the city, and in view of that, I feel confident that the language as it stands or as amended by the amendment to the amendment could not do any harm. I would prefer to see it stand as it is, although I seconded the gentleman's amendment that he might have an opportunity to speak on it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I don't suppose those words would do any real harm if they were left in. The only thing is that to my mind they are altogether unnecessary and unworthy of a document of this kind_the Constitution of the State providing that municipal corporations shall not charge exorbitant water rates to the inhabitants. To me, sir, notwithstanding what has been said, it seems an absurdity. I think, sir, that city councils will be elected with reference to carrying out the wishes of the people, and if the people of these municipalities will be able to control that matter, if they go to charging exorbitant charges for their water, I believe that the city council can be re-elected with reference to making whatever changes may be necessary, and I hope that the motion to strike out these words will prevail, for the sake of the dignity of the Constitution, if for nothing else.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, there can be no possible harm done by leaving them in. If it should smack a little bit of legislation, it will be but very little. There is a possible construction to be put on the articles when they are stricken out that would be mischevious, and therefore, in view of that, I am in favor of leaving the article just as it is.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I think the suggestion of the gentleman from Davis is perfectly in line. The words are surplusage. If I understand it, they never pretend to charge anything for water in these cities, but only to make charges for the expense and labor of carrying the water to people's doors; and if that is true, the words amount to nothing, because if the city council wanted to charge extra for that purpose, they would do it regardless of the words. The article requiring the cities to maintain the system carries with it the implication that the charge shall be reasonable, and I believe that all rates that ever have been made here haven't been a charge for water itself, but the charges put on for laying the mains_people thinking that too much percentage was demanded. As I understand it, the water in this city from City Creek belongs to the city and everyone has a right to it. Every one has his pro rata right to the water, and all charges are for another purpose altogether; that is, when it is carried to a man's house, they charge him for it, {671} and those three words in the article are simply surplusage. Of course the city council might be dishonored, but I don't think they will be after our experience in this city. There might occasionally a corrupt man get in under the new order of things, but it is not reasonable to charge that in advance even by implication.

Mr. SQUIRES. May I ask the gentleman a question? He is probably familiar with the education we have had in our own city here within a short time.

Mr. GOODWIN. I have never seen a city that there wasn't an agitation of some kind in.

Mr. SQUIRES. A very large increase of water rate, much to the dissatisfaction of the people, and

I don't see why those words should not remain in there to prevent any such thing as that.

Mr. GOODWIN. The water rates were not for the water.

Mr. SQUIRES. This talks about the supply. It does not make any difference what they put the cost on, whether to bring the water there, for the use of the water, or what it is, as long as the cost is there.

Mr. GOODWIN. The question is, does this strengthen it at all? Couldn't you attack the authority just as well without this as with it? If you could, then the words are superfluous. I am astonished at hearing the gentleman from Salt Lake make any fuss over water at all. I never knew him to take it. [Laughter.]

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I take water.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, there is something more in this section. It seems to me on careful consideration the leaving of those words in would save any possible question. This section contemplates not only the supplying of inhabitants with water rights that are now under the ownership of the town, or municipality, but it implies the control of such water rights as may be required by such municipality hereafter, and it might well be that the expense of the supply of the city or the town with a company water system could well be taken off of the burden of general taxation, by charging a reasonable rate for the use of that water, in proportion to the amount used, of course, by individuals, until such time as the water supply would be free to the city, and then it might become free to the inhabitants. It seems to me that there can be no trouble about leaving the question of reasonable charges in there. It does not legislate as to what reasonable charges are. It is simply a general declaration that the municipality shall reserve its control over water rights for the supply of its inhabitants. Why not at reasonable charges, if reasonable charges are necessary to the proper administration of a municipal government? If they are not, we can trust the people of our municipality, as I think, to elect such men to the control of their towns or cities as will, whenever the water supply becomes such that the city can give it absolutely free to the inhabitants_to elect such men as will make it free at once. The fact that we should say this does, not preclude them, under such circumstances, from saying, “we have cleared the cost of our water supply; the reasonable charge now will be nothing at all, consequently it shall be free to the people,” and undoubtedly the people will insist upon their municipal officers making such declarations whenever the water-works of a city or town are free of debt incurred through acquiring them and carrying them to the people_     

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I just want to make a few observations. The city of Salt Lake owns very complete waterworks at the present time. They have cost a great deal of money. We also own at the present time quite a large bonded indebtedness. Now, we {672} have no provision for a sinking fund or raising any money. Twenty years from now, or less, the indebtedness of this city will come due and we have nothing to fall back up on excepting our water-works. Now, I happened to be in the east when our last $800,000 in bonds were placed, and took some little interest in assisting the city to place those bonds.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, of course, it may appear like quibbling at words, but I think the amendment ought to prevail, “water at reasonable charges,” Now, I take the position that if we leave the balance of the section stand, requiring cities to hold this property as a trust for the benefit of the inhabitants to supply them with water, the courts will always construe the question of a reasonable charge, because it will be a trust fixed and formed by the Constitution for the purpose of supplying the people with water, and they will have no right to charge more than a reasonable amount. But let us take another view of this, which has not been suggested. The gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Van Horne) spoke of a time when the city might want to supply the inhabitants free with water. Suppose that day comes and some stubborn member of the council who would have no other excuse, would say, “you cannot give them water free. The Constitution of the Territory says that you have got to charge for it. It is true you have got to charge reasonably, but it says you must charge.” And he makes his point. This may be attenuated, but there are some men who would raise just that question.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Do you think that time would ever come when cities would furnish water free?

Mr. THURMAN. I don't know. I was answering Mr. Van Horne; he suggested that the day might come. Now, I say if that day ever comes it would be met by a proposition from somebody that you have got to charge for it, because the Constitution says you must supply water at reasonable charges. I think it ought to go out. It is unnecessary. It is lumbering up this article with words that are unnecessary, and it does not look well to me to see this Constitution here legislating upon the question of reasonable charges of water for the people unless there is some necessity for it.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I am opposed to striking out those words, “reasonable charge.” The very fact that has been mentioned here that there will never come a time but what there will be some charge for supplying the city with water_there will be the annual expense at least of bringing it from the living stream and distributing it to the cities, and it seems to me that that would prevent the officers of the municipality from creating a fund and making a revenue from this particular branch of the municipal government, and not only that, but I would be in favor {673} of making that still stronger so as to make it read “with water at uniform and reasonable charges,” because that would then prevent a city council from making a distinction or discriminating. I think that this should be uniform and it should be so fixed that they would be deprived of making a revenue from it, as we know is sometimes done by licensing various lines

of business. They may make a business out of this and make unreasonable charges, and I think they not only ought to be confined to be reasonable simply, at the cost, but they also should be made to be uniform so that they cannot discriminate or make a discrimination between the inhabitants.

Mr. THURMAN. We may have prohibition and we may soon need water without any expense.

Mr. CREER. Very true. I do not think we ought to leave the question of water open to the principle that liquor is. And we know many of the cities make quite a revenue from licensing liquor and by placing this restriction there we can never make water parallel with intoxicating drinks. That ought to be enough to pay expenses and it ought to be uniform, because many cities are deriving their water from various sources and they are inclined to make distinctions that ought not to exist. It is simply a charge_a water rate, and it seems to me we ought to make it definite and distinct in the Constitution in order that it may be understood, and I am not only in favor of making reasonable charges, but uniform and reasonable charges.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, if I understand the motion of the gentleman from Salt Lake, to strike out the words “with water” would be equivalent to letting the words “with water” stand and leave the motion of the gentleman from Davis County “reasonable charges.” If this amendment should stand, the words “with water” are stricken out from the words of the motion of the gentleman from Davis, and would leave his motion to strike out “reasonable charges” only.

The PRESIDENT. If the amendment prevails it seems to me that we are done with that amendment. That would be the impression of the chair.

Mr. BUYS. It seems to me the gentleman from Davis offered the amendment (move to strike out the words), “with water at reasonable charges.” The gentleman from Salt Lake moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words, “with water.” As I understand it, that would strike out the words, “with water,” from the amendment of the gentleman from Davis, and would leave his amendment then to be voted upon, “at reasonable charges.” It would be equivalent to letting “with water” stand, striking it out of his motion to amend.

The PRESIDENT. The chair's ruling in regard to that matter would be that in striking out “with water,” the amendment is adopted and that the other would stand without any action.

Mr. SQUIRES. We would then have to vote down the amendment of Mr. Roberts to have the one we have adopted of any avail.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I just want to say that after listening to all this debate my impression is we had better pass this section just as we passed it in committee of the whole or else strike it all out. I hope it will remain just as it is.

The PRESIDENT. The question then is on the amendment to strike out the words “with water.”

The amendment was rejected.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I would move to strike out in line 10, at the end of the line, the word, “that” and in line 12 the word “any.”
{674 - AMENDMENTS}
The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to strike out all the words after the word “supply,” in the fifteenth line. The amendment was rejected.

The President here called Mr. Varian to the chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is upon the final passage of the article relative to counties, cities and towns.

The roll being called the vote was as follows:
AYES_92.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Evans, Weber

NOES_0.
ABSENT_15.
Driver    
Evans, Utah    
Kiesel    
Keith    
Kearns    
Kimball, Weber
Lambert    
Mackintosh
Nebeker
Pierce
Ricks
Thatcher
Wells
Whitney
Mr. President.

Third reading of article on amendments was then taken up.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would move to strike out the word “three” in line 11, and the word “two” inserted in lieu thereof.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, I move to strike out the whole of section 2. The motion was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). Mr. President, in order to make it uniform with the law in regard to the adoption of the Constitution in the first place, which requires a two-thirds majority of the State, I would amend section 3 by inserting before the word “majority” the words, “two-thirds.”

No second.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the passage of the article as amended.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Mr. President, I just want to make an inquiry whether that section 3 fully covers that article. This article is upon amendments to the Constitution, and the section simply provides that any constitution adopted by such convention shall have no validity, {675} etc. I want to make the inquiry whether that should not also apply to amendments which might be submitted to the people?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, to bring that matter up, I move that the word “constitution” be stricken out and the word “amendments” be inserted.

No second.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I move that the words “or amendment” be inserted after the word “constitution.”

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think that matter is covered by section 1. The first section refers to the amendments proposed by the Legislature and then passed by a majority of the electors voting to sustain them. This last section, section 3, refers entirely to the ratification of a constitution that has been framed by a constitutional convention. I therefore am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to state this: Suppose a constitutional convention we recalled in pursuance of section 2 to revise the Constitution, but after deliberation came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to revise the entire Constitution and was to submit an amendment. Then what would become of that amendment? I think the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Weber should prevail.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I would like to inquire what is meant by the last line of section 3, “voting at said election.”

Mr. GIBBS. I understood that the word “said” was stricken out and “at the next general election” inserted.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word “said,” in the last line of section 3, and add the words “the general election.”

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The motion cannot be entertained now. It is not germane to the amendment already pending. The question is upon the insertion of “or amendment” after the word “constitution,” in line 3.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I move as an amendment to that amendment to insert the words “or revision thereof,” so that the section would read “any constitution, amendment, or revision thereof.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I cannot see that it is necessary to insert the words contemplated by the amendment. Even if there are not more than two or three amendments to the original Constitution, that would be the revised constitution adopted by the convention as they adopted the constitution as revised. They are not forming a constitution, but they are revising an old one, and after revision it seems to me that constitution is the one to be submitted to the people for their adopttion or rejection. I cannot see the necessity of inserting the words proposed.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Will the gentleman from Cache permit me a question?

Mr. KERR. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I desire to withdraw, with the consent of my second, the amendment I first offered. I think on reflection the first section covers it all.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Does Mr. Maloney insist upon the amendment offered by him?

Mr. MALONEY. I do.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I understood that the gentleman from Weber, Mr. Maloney, accepted this amendment offered by Mr. Evans. That makes it a part of his original motion.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Mr. Evans was allowed by the house to withdraw his amendment and now Mr. Maloney insists upon the original proposition. The question is now upon inserting the words, “or amendment.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I now {676} move that we strike out the word “said” in the last line, and insert “the next general.”

Mr. SQUIRES. Do I understand that the words in section 2 refer to the question of whether a general election shall be held or not? That cannot possibly be referred to in section 3, which would come a year later.

Mr. CREER. I will concede that.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move that we strike out of section 3, after the words “of the state,” the words, “voting at said election.”

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to offer a substitute if it is in order. I offer as a substitute to strike out all after the word “until” and insert in place thereof the words “notice by publication has been given and the change proposed has been appoved as provided in section 1 of this article.” The section will then read, “and constitution or amendments adopted by such convention shall have no validity until notice by publication has been given and the change proposed has been approved as provided in section 1 of this article.”

No second.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question comes now upon the motion of Mr. Squires.

Mr. MALONEY. May I ask the gentleman from Salt Lake, is that intended to prevent it being submitted at an election other than a general election?

Mr. SQUIRES. That was my idea, to save the expense of a special election on this subject. The matter contained in the substitute offered by Mr. Cannon is already provided for_the method by which the amendment shall be submitted to the people and voted upon in section 1.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Squires just now. I believe that section 1 covers all arrangements for amendments. Section 2 provides for revision. Now, we are trying to provide in section 3 to cover amendments and revision. That is the view I have on it. I would like to have gentlemen of the committee explain their idea on the subject.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it seems there are two methods of amendment provided here. One is by propositions in houses of the Legislature, submitting an amendment to the electors of the State, and it provides the manner in which it shall be submitted and how the amendment shall be published and for how long.

The other is a distinctly separate branch of amendment. It provides for the Legislature by a two- thirds vote calling for a constitutional convention to amend or revise the Constitution, and in that way, there it delegates to the constitutional convention the drafting of the proposed amendments. In the other case they were drafted directly by the Legislature and submitted to the people. The other constitutional convention itself must propose those amendments, and then the last section

becomes applicable to that method of amendment and not the first, and should contain in itself all that is necessary to make the validity of the amendment proposed or revision proposed or constitution adopted by the constitutional convention.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to inquire why it is not proper to give notice of a revision proposed by a convention as well as that proposed by a legislature? I cannot see myself clearly the distinction between the two unless it might possibly be that no notice is needed of a convention specially called. I do not understand from the language of the section as it is proposed to be amended by the gentleman from Salt Lake County, that any {677} notice would be given of the proposed change as proposed by a convention, and I think such notice should be given.

The amendment of Mr. Squires was agreed to.

The amendment of Mr. Van Horne was withdrawn.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word “it” in line 2, and insert in lieu thereof “the same.”

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words “it has been,” leaving it to read, “any constitution or amendment adopted by such convention shall have no validity until submitted to and adopted by a majority of the electors voting at the next general election.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am opposed to that, and I am going to move a reconsideration of the vote wherein I voted to insert the word “amendment.”

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The gentleman cannot make that motion now.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I regret to say that I had not familiarized myself with this first section, and this whole article, because I did not have it upon my desk in time.

Section 3 has reference especially to a convention which is called for the purpose of revising or framing a constitution. That convention would have no right to make any amendment at all. That section ought to stand just as it was with the words added by the amendment as made by Mr. Squires; then it will be consistent with the whole article, and I shall vote against this amendment.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Suppose it was left just as it is with the amendment of Mr. Squires, and the words “it has been” were still stricken out, would it change the sense of the thing at all? Are not they superfluous even under that view of the case?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That would not do any harm so far as that is concerned.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word “any,” at the beginning of section 3, and substitute the word “no;” and then strike out the word “no” just before the word “validity”

in the second line, so that it will read, “no constitution or amendment adopted by such convention shall have validity until submitted,” etc.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the words “or amendment” were added after the word “constitution.”

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I am not ready to vote for this motion to reconsider, without knowing why I should vote in that way. The article provides for voting upon the question of amendments of this Constitution from time to time. It may be that the only thing submitted to the people or to a convention will be the question of whether a certain amendment shall be adopted or not?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). The only purpose I have on that is, that section 1 makes explicit mention of amendments to the Constitution to be submitted to the people by a certain vote of the Legislature; this section provides the method by which a new constitution might be made by a constitutional convention or by which the Constitution might be revised.

Mr. THURMAN. “Or amended.” That is the trouble. It provides for both phases, for a thorough revision of the Constitution, or possibly for a single amendment. Now, the amendment which we have adopted here says, “No constitution or amendment adopted by such convention shall have validity,” etc. I think it is right as it is. There is no reason for reconsidering, that is my understanding of it.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Weber, if, with the {678} words “or amendment” stricken out, it would be necessary to publish to the people the entire Constitution before submission to the people, whereas, if there was a simple amendment to offer, great expense would be saved in notifying the people by just publishing the amendment?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will answer that by saying that the Legislature never would call a convention together for the purpose of making a simple amendment to the Constitution. That would be done by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Legislature, and that would be done without a convention.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I agree with my friend from Weber, that the Legislature would never call a convention for the purpose of making a single amendment, but suppose a convention were called for the purpose of revising or amending the Constitution, with the expectation that a general revision would take place, and after proper deliberation that convention should come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to prepare a new constitution, but that one or two, or any number of amendments could be prepared, that would answer the purpose, and would be better than submitting a new constitution_in other words, that they would report their work in the form of amendments instead of in the form of a revised constitution, now I say that under that Constitution they would have the right to do that thing, and if they did it, then this section 3 would not provide for the submission of those amendments, and I think that the section is right

just as it is, and I hope the motion will not prevail.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words, “have had validity,” in line 2, and insert “be valid.”

The motion to reconsider was withdrawn.

The amendment of Mr. Snow was rejected.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, it being in order to cut down and make things very concise, I move that the words “of the state” be stricken out, as being entirely useless and of no account.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I would move to strike out from section 3 all after the word “state,” in line 4, that is striking out the words “voting at the next general election.” And leave it to the Legislature to provide at what election they should vote.

No second.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. If there are no further amendments to this section, the question is upon the passage of the entire article.

The roll was called and the vote was as follows:

AYES_91.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane Creer
Cushing
Eichnor

NOES_0.
ABSENT_16.
Cunningham    
Driver    
Evans, Utah    
Heybourne    
Kiesel    
Keith    
Kearns    
Kimball, Weber    
Lambert
Mackintosh
Moritz
Nebeker
Thatcher
Thorne

The article was then declared adopted and referred to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Mr. EMERY. I move to take a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I do not think we ought to take a recess at a quarter to twelve o'clock. What is the object of it? What is the purpose of it? We have plenty of work to do. Now, if there can be any good reasons why we should take a recess at this hour of the day and this stage of the business, I am perfectly willing to vote for it, but to pass a thing through like this without any reason being assigned why we should stop this work, after the slow progress that we have made, I am opposed to it. It seems to me there must be some reason at the back of it that gentlemen do not disclose. We generally run until half-past twelve o'clock, which is a very suitable hour for lunch, and here we are throwing away three-quarters of an hour of our usual time. I am in favor of going on with our work.

Mr. EMERY. It is only ten minutes.

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided and by a vote of 53 ayes to 36 noes, the motion was agreed to, and the Convention then took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

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

The PRESIDENT. The question has been asked of me whether the Convention could possibly adjourn over Saturday, as it is Arbor day. The gentlemen may just consider it and we will act upon it later.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, it is a legal holiday, and the rules provide for no session on a legal holiday. That is already provided for unless we suspend the rules.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, what is the order of business?

The PRESIDENT. The order of business, as the chair understands it, is the third reading of the article on elections and rights of suffrage.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that action on this article be postponed until the 15th of April. There are several reasons why I favor this. One is that_

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask a question. Is your motion to suspend the rules?

Mr. SQUIRES. No, sir; to postpone to a day certain of the rules.

Mr. SQUIRES. To postpone to a day certain is out of the rules. There are a number of delegates to this Convention who are not present; who are excused from being present by the action of the Convention itself. There are a number of others who are absent without the consent of the Convention, but who, {680} undoubtedly, would like to be heard and recorded upon this article when it reaches final consideration. But aside from that, in view of the long and ardent debate upon the subject in the Convention during the days that have passed, I have noticed an aroused public sentiment in this immediate vicinity which I have no doubt extends over the Territory, and I know, not from newspaper report, but from consultation with gentlemen of the committee, that petitions have been sent or are being sent throughout every postoffice in the Territory to leading citizens all over the Territory, with a view of getting an expression of them as to the wisdom of submitting this first section of this article as a separate article. I hold in my hand one of those petitions, which reads as follows:

The undersigned men and women of Utah respectfully petition the Constitutional Convention to submit to the people in a separate article the question of suffrage for women.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I want to rise to a point of order. It seems to me that the motion is out of order. The Convention is now engaged in the business of third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution. If the gentleman desires to make this motion so that it would suspend the rules, I would have no objections and would not raise the point of order. I raise it now before any further speeches are made. I refer to rule 3, the 7th subdivision, as to the order in which business is to be transacted in the Convention.

Mr. VARIAN. I would ask the gentleman a question before he sits down. Is it not true that when the order of the day is reached and the business under that order is within the jurisdiction of the Convention, it can dispose of it in whole or in part; that it can postpone it indefinitely, that it can lay it upon the table, that it can vote it down or up? That is a point I make_having jurisdiction, the Convention can act upon it by postponing it to a day certain?

Mr. VARIAN. Is it not true that this is not an equivalent motion to make {681} this a special order, because making a special order for a day certain, and it fixes or disturbs and suspends operation of the general rules on that day, and therefore requires a two-thirds vote, as laid down by Mr. Roberts. A motion to postpone to a day certain, is it not true only postpones the consideration for that day and lets it come up under the regular order for that day, without disturbing any order of business?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is true. I grant it, but we are disturbing the regular order of business when we postpone this regular order of business. It seems to me just the same as though we were asking to take it out of its regular order and set it at a regular day.

Mr. SQUIRES. May I ask the gentleman a question? Would he consider that a motion to lay this upon the table would be in order now?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Certainly it would.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would not that disturb the order of proceeding? Would a two-thirds vote be necessary for that proposition?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). We would simply lay it on the table. That would be equivalent to disposing of it without further action. Of course it would have to be taken up again, but an order to lay upon the table is usually made to kill the particular proposition which is before the convention. I am not expressing my opinion as to whether I would vote with the gentleman for the postponing of it or not, I am simply raising the point of order.

The PRESIDENT. The chair is of the opinion that this matter could be brought up by a motion in the form in which the gentleman proposes to bring it, and is debatable here. The point of order is not well taken, would be the opinion of the chair.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, the rule reads like this: “Every proposition or other matter reported from committee of the whole for third reading by the Convention shall be placed upon the Convention calendar, and be considered and acted upon a subsequent day.”

Mr. VARIAN. Is there anything before the house except the motion to postpone?

The PRESIDENT. The motion is brought before the house as I understand it.

Mr. VARIAN. The point of order has been ruled upon, as I understand it?

Mr. CHIDESTER. As to the first proposition raised by my friend Mr. Squires that a number of delegates are away from the Convention, I desire to say this, that it is presumed that they have no right to be away. It is their duty to be here, and it is no good ground for the postponing of a question to say that there is a number of delegates away. Now, then, we have not crowded this proposition here for this particular time, but we have waited until it has come along in its regular order, and I say now to postpone this_that any member that votes to postpone this votes against woman suffrage. That is my opinion of it, and I do not consider that it is right and proper to delay the matter in any such a way as that. I believe it has been reached in a right and proper way, and then it should be considered now, and not be postponed a great length of time that Mr. Squires desired. And the other proposition that he makes that we wish to hear from our constituents, is, in my opinion, badly taken. I heard from mine before I came here, and I believe that every man heard from his constituents in that regard, and that when they came here they prepared then to go to work upon the proposition, and especially one that was so well understood as this one, and for {682} my part, that does not sound very well to me, and I do not favor this postponement, but I will insist upon the regular order of business.

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

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I trust the gentleman will not insist upon the previous question just now. I admit that it is in order, but I hope the gentleman will withhold it and not insist upon it.

The PRESIDENT. There was no second to it.

Mr. THURMAN. While I am on my feet, I will make a few remarks in opposition to the motion. I know that there has been some feeling in relation to this question since the day that it first came before the Convention. It has been a matter upon which we have divided in a particular way. Not as parties but as individuals. There has been great latitude. I believe the mover of this motion will admit that the majority so far on this question (I do not say the majority to-day, for I do not know how we stand,) but I think that the gentleman will admit that the majority have not been unfair in the courtesies they have extended to the minority. In the first place, we had a debate of five days in the committee of the whole and remarkable courtesy was shown to my esteemed and able friend from Davis County of allowing him to close the debate, a thing I presume that was never done in the world before in a legislative body where there was the same amount of feeling, and positive feeling, as existed in this case. That was given to him as a courtesy, not as a right, and he closed the debate in the committee of the whole with a half-day's speech. We were all edified. Now, I say that it would be undignified, it would be unprecedented, I lay that down. Gentlemen may search the record_it would be unprecedented for a dignified body like this to defer action when the time comes in the regular way to hear what somebody may possibly have to say on the outside. Let me suggest, gentlemen, what we ought to do, and I say this in earnestness as I say it in candor, if it be true that it turns out that the democratic party and the republican party on this floor err as to the true sentiment of the people, and that becomes manifest to us, before this Convention adjourns that in whatever respect we have been deceived and misled by a mistaken

idea of what their sentiment is, let us say that as brave men, as honest men, we will stand up, no matter what position we have taken here, and move to reconsider anything that has been done improperly or hastily. I do not know what the vote may be on the first section of this article. I stand here this afternoon ready to take up the question and let the result be what it may, and then, gentlemen, I say to you now_and you will find that I mean what I say_that if it be true that the honest sentiment of the people of the Territory as it may be made manifest to us hereafter before we close our work, is opposed to what we have done, I will join with you in a motion to reconsider. But there have already been enough things done in this body that tinge of what I believe to be undignified and improper. Motions have been made here to adjourn, to take this Convention off to the theater or to some other building, making of ourselves a spectacular concern. We have done these things under the heat of the moment, without thought. Why, gentlemen, we are in as dignified a capacity to-day as men can possibly hope to act in. I agree with my friend from Garfield, and I want my friends on this question to understand that a vote to postpone this question means, whether intentional or not, in effect a vote against woman suffrage. Now, I am in favor of disposing of this matter. It has agitated the minds of the members of this Convention long enough, and if, I repeat again, we find we have {683} done wrong, or we have not understood the sentiments of the people, we can undo what we have done, but at the present time let us dispose of this whole business by going ahead with the regular order.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to postpone, for the reasons are these: There is distrust on this floor in regard to the matter. I want that matter settled with them. There is perhaps a distrust throughout the country, and they will have a chance to know the situation if we go to work and consummate the matter right in the time when it should be done. I come from a county that I suppose that I represent and I knew the feelings of the people when I left and I have heard nothing to the contrary from that county, and I presume every other member here knew the sense of the community with which they are associated, and knew their feelings, and I presume that they have not heard anything to contradict the fact that they are here as representatives of the people, putting all these matters in their hands to do such work and perform such labors as will be suited for the coming State Constitution, and this is one of the principles, and why should we stop and hesitate and wait for something to come from the outside to change our ideas? I know there is a distrust and I know where it emanated from; it emanated from this floor and it has gone broadcast throughout the country, through the papers, for and against, perhaps, and I am ready to vote on the subject when it comes up.

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

Seconded.

Mr. HALLIDAY. Mr. President, I have not asked the privilege of speaking on this floor since I have been in this Convention. If I can be recognized I would like to make a few remarks.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will proceed.

Mr. HALLIDAY. I do not know what other delegates in this Convention may have learned from their constituents before they came here, but I know what I learned from mine before I was

elected, and from the day that I was elected the announcement was made; my constituents have not changed their minds. If they have they have not let me know. I am opposed to the motion and I hope it will not carry, from the fact_it looks to me like it savors a good deal of delay, in order to change the phase of tactics in a certain direction to defeat the move of woman suffrage. I am opposed to the motion? I was elected upon a platform that plainly_the plank was inserted “we say the women shall have equal rights with men_common suffrage.” And my mind has not changed since and I want to go on record that I am opposed to this delay. I am opposed to such_I call it wire-working; I call it a political trap, in order to gain time to change the ideas of men. Now, you might stay here until the 4th of July, and I might listen to the best orators there is in the United States, I do not believe there is one that would change my opinion in regard to this matter, but it seems that there is an opinion that men's minds can be changed and they will forego their promises to pander to the wishes of the outside. I know what the outside felt and said in regard to me from the county they came from, and they have not said “do not stop, do not falter,” but they have said simply, “go ahead and do your duty like a man,” and I hope the motion won't carry, gentlemen. I am ready to vote on the question.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President_

The PRESIDENT. The previous question, gentlemen, has been moved.

Mr. SQUIRES. As the mover of that motion I would like to be heard for a moment.
{684}
The PRESIDENT. I think it is but just to the gentleman.

Mr. SQUIRES. My friend from Garfield made the assertion that a vote_

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, the previous question has been called for.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman was not recognized.

Mr. SQUIRES. I challenge any gentleman on this floor to make that statement in regard to myself personally, that I am opposed to woman suffrage. It was not with any such object that I made the motion to postpone. I believe that I have given good reasons why this Convention should pause at this point.

Mr. THURMAN. May I interrupt you a moment? You misunderstood me, if you understood me to say that anyone was opposed. I said the vote in effect would be a vote against woman's suffrage.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chidester made it upon broader grounds, and it was his remark that I challenged and not yours. I am in favor of woman suffrage, if it shall come before them so that they will have a chance to say whether they want it or not. I had believed that the people from the outside wanted woman suffrage. I believe so still. Are the gentlemen upon this floor, who are the advocates of that movement, afraid to trust this matter to the people? Are they afraid to submit it as a separate article in this Constitution? The gentleman who has just taken his seat seems to be

afraid that the people will vote it down if they get an opportunity to do so.

Mr. HALLIDAY. I am not afraid of my constituents.

Mr. SQUIRES. If there is such a feeling in this community, it is not fair, or wise or just for this Convention to attempt to force it upon the people. The gentleman from Beaver (Mr. Murdock), tells us that he comes from a county where he is acquainted with the sentiment of the people. I would like to ask him if under the aroused sentiment which has come to the people of this county, the people of Beaver County should take action similar to the action taken in Salt Lake County, if he would not be willing to wait to hear from the people who may possibly have changed their minds upon this subject?

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Yes, but I must first hear that they want it.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is it. exactly. We want to hear and we want time to hear, and we want that to be accorded to us.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). But until then I am ready to vote.

Mr. SQUIRES. How can you hear if you decide the matter this afternoon, without giving them an opportunity? I told you in my first remarks that the committee that had this matter in charge was sending this petition to every postoffice in this Territory so that the people of all the Territory might be heard upon the proposition, and I believe this is only fair. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Thurman), has told us that we are in a dignified position to-day, qualified to act upon this matter intelligently, and that if we shall find later on that we have made a mistake, we can move to reconsider, and he will join us in that movement. I ask you, gentlemen, which is the more dignified, to pause at this point and defer our action, and not make any mistake, or to take some action which we shall afterwards find is a mistake and have to reconsider it? I am in favor of this motion, and I hope sincerely it will prevail in the interest of fairness and justice to all the people of Utah.

Mr. CREER. May I ask a question? Is this committee constituted of delegates from this Convention?

Mr. SQUIRES. No, sir.

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask the gentleman has he any objection to naming that committee?

Mr. SQUIRES. I do not know all of {685} them. I will name one of them that I think of. I will name Grant H. Smith, of Salt Lake City, one of our judges here in the police court, and he represents a large constituency in this county. Gentlemen, do not rush headlong into this thing. Give these people who think they have a right to be heard upon this question the right to be heard.

Mr. CORAY. I insist upon the previous question.

Mr. CORAY. I insist on the previous question. If the chair rules I am out of order, I appeal to the house.

The PRESIDENT. The previous question is in order if there is a second.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. My point of order is this: in rule 8 on page 19 of the standing rules of this Convention there is a statement that no member rising to debate, to give a notice, make a motion, or present a paper of any kind shall proceed until he shall have addressed the President and be recognized by him as entitled to the floor. I had addressed the president and desired to speak upon this question, and the gentleman who moved the previous question did not even address the president, neither was he recognized by the president, therefore the motion is out of order.

The PRESIDENT. The president has just recognized him.

Mr. CORAY. The president recognized me twice.

Mr. KERR. Other gentlemen were on the floor.

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

The PRESIDENT. Shall the main question be now put, gentlemen?

Mr. JAMES. I arise to a point of order. I wish to say to Mr. Kerr, at the time the gentleman from Juab County arose I was on the floor, Mr. Van Horne was on the floor and demanded the attention of the chair, and the motion was put, and Mr. Roberts, of Davis County, was on the floor demanding the attention of the chair.

Mr. CORAY. I call for a ruling of the chair.

The PRESIDENT. The ruling of the chair is that Mr. Coray was the recognized man, and had the right to move the previous question.

Shall the previous question be put?

Mr. VARIAN. I call for the ayes and nays.

Mr. HALLIDAY. Mr. President, I do not know that I have got this thing clear. I want to know how I vote at this time?

The PRESIDENT. The ayes and nays are called on the previous question.

Mr. RICHARDS. I understand that the vote we are now taking is this: That if we vote aye, it

means that we are ready to vote on the question of postponement. If we vote no, it means we want to hear further debate on that question.

The roll was called and the vote was as follows:

AYES_52.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Brandley
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Coray
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Driver
Engberg
Farr
Francis
Hammond
Hart
Halliday
Howard
Hughes
Ivins
Johnson
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lemmon
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Low, Cache
Maeser
Miller
Morris
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Wasatch
Partridge
Peters
Preston
Raleigh

NOES_43.
Adams
Bowdle
Button
Clark
Crane
Cushing
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Evans, Weber
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Haynes
Hill
Hyde
James
Keith
Kerr
Kimball, Weber
Lewis
Lund
Mackintosh
Maloney
McFarland
Murdock, Summit
Page
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete

ABSENT_11.
Christianson    
Evans, Utah    
Heybourne    
Kiesel    
Kearns
Lambert
Maughan
Moritz
Nebeker
Thatcher
Whitney.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I desire to explain my vote if I have permission.

The PRESIDENT. You may have the privilege of explaining your vote.

Mr. KERR. My reason for voting no_

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, the gentleman has no privilege of explaining his vote under the rules, unless he desires not to vote at all. He may explain the reason why.

Mr. KERR. I want to explain why I vote no.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Under the rule that cannot be done.

The PRESIDENT. That cannot be done under the rule.

Mr. KERR. It seems to me this is not a very dignified body, when gentlemen are deprived of expressing their views upon a question simply to force it to an issue.

The PRESIDENT. We are voting on the question as to whether debate shall be stopped upon this motion to postpone.

The motion for the previous question was declared lost.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that debate has not been cut off on that proposition to postpone the third reading of this article on elections and suffrage until the 15th. I am of the opinion that the Convention ought to be perfectly willing to postpone the consideration of that subject. During the debate in the committee of the whole on this question a good deal was made out of the circumstance that there was no protest against the Convention inserting in the Constitution a clause granting woman suffrage. Now, that a sentiment has been aroused, and the people not alone in this city and in Ogden, but in all parts of this Territory, are making preparations to make themselves heard, I think the most undignified thing for this Convention to do would have been to close their eyes to this fact and refuse to hear what that aroused sentiment had to say. This is all very well, gentlemen, to make the proposition that if we discover that there is a change in public sentiment we will reconsider the action. The gentleman when he makes that proposition knows that it would be very difficult to take that consideration since it would require a two-thirds vote in order to do that. I want to ask the gentleman what harm can come from a postponement of this question until the 15th? What party pledges will be broken? What is there that would be undignified in it? What harm can it do to the main issue? The very least that can be expected from the demands that will yet {687} be made of this Convention would be that the proposition to grant woman's suffrage should be put into a separate article to be voted upon by the people separate and apart from the Constitution itself. If a majority of members of this Convention here determine to put that proposition through this afternoon and make it a part to- day of the Constitution we are forming, I ask them to pause once more and to remember this, that your action this afternoon means thousands of votes against this Constitution, if you do this act that you now propose. The gentlemen will do well to consider that proposition. I concede that this Convention in committee of the whole has accorded to me very great courtesies indeed, no greater, however, than the exigencies which confronted us demanded, and I think the committee and the Convention have done themselves as much honor in extending to me the courtesies as I have been gratified. I call attention of this Convention to the fact that a public sentiment is fast awakening against the insertion of this article into the Constitution itself. The chamber of commerce in this city passed a unanimous resolution, asking that this question be submitted separately. The trade unions of this city did the same thing. A mass meeting of ladies is to assemble only to-morrow afternoon. A monster general mass meeting is to be held to-morrow night. A movement is on foot for it. Mr. Squires has already called attention to the fact that a widespread agitation is taking place throughout this Territory, and I think that the Convention will be guilty of no unseeming conduct if they postpone this matter to the time that is proposed. I do not want to detain you longer upon this subject. You already know my feelings upon it. But when there is such a general demand that this proposition should be put into a separate clause I insist that this Convention should give ear to that sentiment that is being expressed. The Convention listened to my protest against inserting this in the Constitution. I now ask it to listen to the aroused public sentiment upon this question. I take it, sir, that I am dealing with men in

opposition, who are men of character, and men who are earnest in their convictions as I am in mine. Surely, gentlemen, you do not wish this to prevail if the people do not want it. Surely, you do not intend to crowd it into the Constitution, if a majority or even a large minority should ask that you make it a clause separate to be voted upon by the people, apart from the Constitution itself. You are stronger in your convictions, you are conscious of ability to go before the public with this question. There is nothing undignified in the proposition that is made to postpone this matter. Certainly it ought to be done out of respect for the aroused public sentiment on this question, and I hope sincerely that it will be done.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I am in favor of postponing the consideration of the article on elections and right of suffrage, and I do not believe in the first place that as stated by one of the gentlemen that have spoken, that to vote to postpone the consideration of this question means a vote against woman suffrage. If it does, it means then that between now and the time when this subject is considered by this Convention there will be a change in the minds of the delegates as to whether the rights of suffrage should be granted or whether the question should be submitted to the people as a separate proposition. It is stated by two of the speakers that their constituents have been heard from, but the people of Garfield and Beaver are not the people of Utah. In the campaign I had the pleasure of attending a large number of meetings, and at no meeting did I hear the question of woman suffrage even mentioned. And I say, Mr. President, that the question as to {688} whether the women of Utah will be given the right of suffrage has not been carefully and thoroughly considered by the people of Utah. Now, without considering at all the question of suffrage, it does seem to me the proper thing that we should defer consideration of this for some time, while mass meetings are being held and protests being sent in against the rights of suffrage. Friends of suffrage have equal opportunities of expressing their views and sending in their petitions and memorials to this Convention. This I believe is said to be a free country. We believe in free speech, we believe in the freedom of the press, and I say, Mr. President, that if within the next 10 or 12 days the people of Utah are prepared to vote against woman's suffrage, then it would be an outrage upon the people of Utah to force it upon them at this time.

Listen to those who have something to say upon this question. Defer the final consideration of this question until the people of Utah can be heard from, and I say that although I shall vote to postpone the consideration of this, I disclaim that I thereby vote against woman's suffrage, and I repeat that if the mere postponement of this consideration of this question for 10 days means its defeat, and the question of submitting it to the people as a separate proposition is one that can be carefully considered_I submit, Mr. President, that this question is of the greatest importance to the people of Utah, and they should be heard from upon it, but none of the gentlemen has said that the postponement of the consideration of this question will be for the purpose of perfecting some scheme, by which to defeat it, and the setting of some political trap. Does the gentleman admit or mean that the delegates in this Convention are to be drawn into some trap? That they have not minds of their own, that they are not prepared to consider this question upon its merits? And say, Mr. President, that it is but fair, it is but just, that we should postpone the consideration of this question until the people of Utah can be heard from, and if the majority of the people are so overwhelmingly, then they too can be heard from. Let us show that we believe in liberty, in the voice of the people, in the rights of freedom_freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and let us get all the information we can upon this subject before we finally decide as to whether

we shall place it in the body of the Constitution, or submit it as a separate proposition, as to whether we shall decide against woman's suffrage. I trust, Mr. President, that this Convention will vote to postpone consideration of this question, that the people of the Territory may be heard upon it.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it seems to me that it has been developed that there is in the minds of members of this Convention a misapprehension of the duties of the delegates, an idea perhaps that they were to be autocrats over the people, that we were to establish a Constitution and leave the people no say about it, except to adopt or reject. My own idea of the duty of a delegate is, that however high may be the office entrusted to him, it is not as controlling to the people in any way that he should act, but he is their servant for the purpose of suggesting to them a Constitution, which shall only get effect by their suffrage. If that be the true way of looking at our office and our duties, it seems to me that there can be no possible objection to such postponement of an important question upon which men in the Constitutional Convention itself widely differ, and as will give the people, who are the true sovereigns, and who will have to pass upon the question of adopting or rejecting such things as may be drafted by this Convention, an opportunity to suggest to us, their servants, what we shall draft, and how it {689} shall be submitted. If it be true that sentiment is changing on this matter there_if it be true that people who thought that woman's suffrage in Utah is a thing that must assuredly come, are changing their minds now, and saying, “We are doubtful as to whether it shall be the fate of women to vote in the new State or not,” if they are changing their minds as to whether it is proper and best that women should have suffrage in this new State; if they send us here to draft a Constitution to present to them, without pledging us to the particular manner in which different things should be presented, and we have a choice of manners, it seems to me that we might well await the decision_the suggestion even of our constituents as to the form in which questions may be presented to them.

I have heard of its coming from citizen after citizen, who has expressed himself as in favor of woman's suffrage, to say of it, “if they put that this way that we must vote woman's suffrage or not have statehood_give us no chance to say whether we want a State and want to have it with woman's suffrage or without woman's suffrage, that we will not submit to be dictated to in that way,” and will vote against the Constitution. It seems to me if that feeling is becoming prevalent among our constituents, that we might well pause and say to them, “Gentlemen, you have sent us here to propose certain things for adoption by you; if you can show us that if we propose some things about which men can honestly differ in the Constitution itself, you will reject the Constitution, but if we propose them to you in a separate article and the Constitution in other respects agrees with your ideas, we will adopt the Constitution and reject the separate article,” that we, the servants of the people, should surely listen. It does not seem to me it goes to the merits of the question or to the final result. It simply goes to the question of whether it is dignified here to listen to the voice of the sovereign who sent us.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I am in favor of deferring this question for the present. Statements have been made by the minority upon this floor that a portion of the people of this Territory desire to be heard upon the proposition. We must take notice of the fact that meetings have been called and petitions are in circulation asking that some different action be taken than that

expressed the other day as the will of this Convention. To take action now would be to deny citizens a right which we guaranteed them yesterday by the adoption of our bill of rights, wherein we say the right of petition shall not be denied, and when the storm of petitions come and the rains of remonstrance descend, if our house is built upon a rock it will stand, and if it is built upon the sand it will be swept away. Do not let us be accused hereafter, gentlemen, of railroading this measure through. Let us give all sides an opportunity to have their say. We can always afford to be fair with an opponent. The right of petition shall not be denied. I do not believe a vote to delay is a vote against woman suffrage. We are making a Constitution to endure for perhaps fifty or a hundred years. Surely we can afford to wait ten days to let the people be heard in regard to one section of it. I shall vote to postpone.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to postpone, and I am opposed to it for the reason that the minority, in my opinion, have had the indulgence of this Convention be yond what they could reasonably ask. They have recently closed a debate of five days, during which one gentleman occupied the floor over five hours discussing this question. They come here to-day, when we had met them, and have it now as the regular order, and ask to suspend the regular order, {690} and to defer it until some future time, and then they talk about unseemly haste, and they talk about railroading things through after we have been in session here for thirty days, and crave a want of time for the people to be heard from. The people of the Territory of Utah were heard from in the middle of last September, when they made their platforms in both political parties. If there was any doubt_if they spoke with any uncertain sound at that time, they were heard from on election day, when they elected me and you to come here and frame a Constitution. We have been in session thirty days; where is the remonstrance that has come up against this thing? Where is the voice that has been raised from our constituency telling us to pause and not do that which they sent us here to do? That is what I want somebody to answer to me, and tell me that this is in unseemly haste. Tell me that men who have been elected upon this platform, and have come here and sat for thirty days, and had a week's debate_a week this morning since the distinguished gentleman from Davis commenced upon the floor of this Convention to manufacture sentiment against equal suffrage, and yet not a word or a voice has been sounded here in remonstrance from one of our constituents. Tell me it is unseemly haste to proceed with the regular order! I deny it, and I say further that we have, in my opinion, proceeded as far as we can and maintain the respect of our constituents, to say nothing of our own self- respect, in the way of dilly-dallying and trifling with this matter. That is how it looks to me. That is where I stand. No man can say that I am not in favor of the people having an opportunity to speak. No man can justly say that I will stifle any man's voice upon the floor of this Convention. It does not lie in the mouth of the minority to say that. I say, with
the gentleman from Utah, that they were extended a courtesy that is unusual and unheard of, and I cannot unite with the gentleman from Davis when he says that we did ourselves honor in listening to all this debate and in according to him all the time that he desired, and that he occupied.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President_

Mr. RICHARDS. We did honor to him, but I doubt the assertion that the Convention did so much honor to itself as the gentleman suggested. Of course we were edified. Of course we were

instructed; of course we were amused by the gentleman's eloquence, but I do not understand that this Convention was overwhelmingly honored to the extent that the delegate from Davis would seem to indicate. Now, I say in answer to what the gentlemen have said about hurrying this matter up, that there has been no hurry. If the proposition was to advance this matter upon the calendar, if it was a proposition to put it out of order and to consider it before it was reached in the regular order, I think I should be with those who are now voting to have this matter postponed. But it has taken its regular order. They opposed it being made a special order, and it went on until it was reached in its regular order before the committee of the whole, and then, as I say, debate was not checked, it was not limited. As far as I understand it, every gentleman on the opposite side and every gentleman either in favor of or opposing this proposition had an opportunity to say all that he wanted to say on the subject. The subject was thoroughly exhausted in that discussion. It went on the calendar. We have reached it in the regular order; now, I say it is unfair, it is unjust_I say it is untrue to say that we are pushing this with undue haste_I say it is untrue to say that we are attemping to railroad it through when we take it up in its regular order. That is my position. And so I say, Mr. President, I am opposed to this motion. I believe that we should go on now with {691} the regular order and attend to our regular business, and if these remonstrances that have been promised ever materialize, so long as this Convention is in session, so long will we be ready to listen to the voice of the people, and if it should appear that the people have changed their sentiments since they elected the delegates who compose this Convention and want us here to do this work, I, with the other gentlemen who have spoken, will be among the first to recognize the right of the people to speak. But I say we are not justified in remaining silent and assuming that they have changed their minds in the absence of any proof to that effect, and so I say we ought to go on with the regular order. That is my position.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I arise to a question of personal privilege, that of making an explanation. The gentleman from Salt Lake, (Mr. Richards) has had an entire misapprehension of one remark I made. I remarked that this Convention did itself honor when it refused to cut off debate on the propriety of postponing the consideration of this question, and not that the Convention did itself honor in listening to my remarks. That, sir, is egotism, and I trust that I shall forever be free from the presumption, and I shall never be guilty of, and the gentleman's heat and passion upon that particular point were uncalled for.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think if the stenographer's notes are referred to, it will appear as I have stated that the gentleman said that the Convention did itself honor in hearing him as it gave him satisfaction to speak. That I think was what was said.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to hand a note from some ladies that are now present in our room, to the secretary of this Convention to have it read.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection, gentlemen_

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, it seems to me that we ought to consider this motion that is before the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. It is certainly out of order to do this.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I do not like to be discourteous to the ladies and cannot be_     

The PRESIDENT. It cannot be considered if there is objection.

Mr. JAMES. I will then take the floor if I have the privilege.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has the floor.

Mr. FARR. What is the question before the house?

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house is to postpone the consideration of this question of woman suffrage until the 15th of this month.

Mr. JAMES. I arise to speak to the motion to postpone this matter until the 15th day of this month. I suppose the mover of that motion did not include to postpone it beyond the time that would interfere with our work. I want to say this in answer to Mr. Richards, of Salt Lake County; he says that there is unfairness, that we are acting unjustly in asking for postponement. Now, I would grant Mr. Richards is correct in his position provided that this Convention had nothing else to do but to deal with the woman suffrage question. Now, my friends, we have on the calendar plenty of work. We need not have lost one moment this afternoon. We could have taken up the work and gone right along with it, that we will have to complete before we complete our Constitution, or we will never have any Constitution. As Mr. Squires has well said, and as every gentleman that has been on this floor knows, there has been a reason brought about for asking for more time. That reason has been that we have had communications {692} coming to us. They have come, Mr. President, from the thousands, and I say, Mr. President, when I stand up here and ask you to postpone this matter for a few days, I say that I voice the sentiment of ten thousand honest men and women in this county, and I say, let that man deny it that will; I say it is correct. I know I am right, because I know the people and I know their feelings. I am no stranger here among them. I meet them in my daily walks in life, and I meet them of all classes. They are not confined to the church that I happen to belong to, nor to the church that my neighbor or any other denomination may belong to. They include all classes. They include as loyal and as honest a people as are to be found in this community. They include as loyal woman suffragists as ever walked upon the streets of Salt Lake. They have a higher motive, my friends, than simply to ask of this Convention that they engraft into the Constitution something that jeopardizes the very life of that article. That is the reason that I arise here before you, my friends, to raise my feeble pleading in behalf of this little favor to be granted of postponing until we can hear from this people and determine whether the majority want it in the Constitution, or whether they want it submitted in a separate article; now, I want to say in answer and in due respect to the gentlemen that have accused me and have accused others that are in favor of this postponement, that it is unjust, it is unfair and it is not true, my friends, that any gentleman that votes upon this floor for a postponement is voting against woman suffrage, and I am sorry such honorable gentlemen, such fair-minded men that I have got acquainted with, and live to learn and respect and honor in all things_I do not know why they should get up here and so unjustly accuse us of this unfairness,

and I plead to my friends, and plead to you, Mr. Chairman, who brought the majority report in here, in an honorable way, but in a manner at the present time of attempting to unduly force this thing down the throats of the people_do not do it, you are going to make a mistake.

Mr. CHIDESTER. May I ask you a question? When the proposition comes up regularly on its third reading, is that crowding it unduly down the throats of the people?

Mr. JAMES. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chidester, it is. I would say if it is true that this woman suffrage question had come before the people, had been discussed upon its merits, and the people had passed upon it, I would say then, the gentleman from Garfield County may be right, but I say, while it may be true in his locality that it was thoroughly understood, and his position is correct, so far as the people are concerned in this Territory it is not correct, for I assert, as I asserted before, that this question never was brought before the people.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I would like to ask Mr. James a question. You said that if Mr. Chidester's position is correct, so far as his county is concerned_who would they have voted for if they were not in favor of woman suffrage? They would not have voted at all, would they?

Mr. JAMES. I do not understand the gentleman's question. I said his position is correct on this proposition, that the question had been brought before his people and it had been discussed and he came here pledged to that proposition.

Mr. BUTTON. You don't understand my question. He claims it has been discussed in his county, throughout the county, and they voted upon it. Now, was there a candidate on any ticket in his county that was against woman suffrage so that the other side could vote on it?

Mr. JAMES. I understand the gentleman now. I could not answer that {693} question, Mr. Button. I do not know. Mr. Chidester, probably, can answer that question. I doubt very much whether it is true, because I heard of no gentleman disputing the proposition in any part of the Territory. Consequently, I take it for granted that it was not so, that there were no anti-suffragists or suffragists. They were probably in his county all in favor of it. Now, I want to read you, Mr. President, a note that I hold in my hand in support of the proposition that I have taken:

Salt Lake City, Utah,

April 4, 1895.

Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention:

You are hereby invited to attend in a body the woman's mass meeting at the Grand opera house to- morrow, Friday afternoon, which will be held for the purpose of protesting against equal suffrage being incorporated in the State Constitution, and taking action to submit the question to the popular vote.

Very respectfully,

MRS. J. A. FROISETH,

MRS. M. E. EASTON, Committee.

Mr. JAMES. Now, Mr. President, is there any plea there to this question for postponing action on this matter? Is not there going to be a convention held in this city to-morrow that will express the views of the ladies of this city?

Mr. CANNON. May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. JAMES. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. Is it a meeting to express the vlews of the ladies of this city?

Mr. JAMES. Why, certainly, and it is not an expression of Sanpete valley, or any other part of the Territory that I know of.

Mr. CANNON. Is it of all the ladies of this city?

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir; I suppose so. I am not in charge of the affair. I do not know anything about the management of it, but I do not suppose that the ladies have got any corner upon any convention that is to be held in this city. I do not believe they are that kind of ladies.

Mr. CANNON. As I understand the invitation it is to attend the meeting which is to protest against the woman's suffrage. Not to express the sentiment of the people, but to protest against woman's suffrage; am I correct?

Mr. JAMES. Oh, no, I think that is your own construction.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, will Mr. James allow me to read a notice that calls this meeting for to- morrow as it is published in the daily papers?

Mr. JAMES. I have no objection.

Mr. IVINS. Just at this point, because it will clear up this matter. The call is as follows:

The women of Salt Lake City and County, who are opposed to equal suffrage being incorporated in the State Constitution, are hereby cordially invited to assemble in mass meeting to enter their protest against the proposed measure and take action for submitting the question to popular vote. The meeting will be at the Grand opera house on Friday afternoon at 2 o'clock.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order_that Mr. James should have addressed the chair. He has no right to talk to Mr. Ivins.

Mr. JAMES. Probably the man from Juab would like to make my speech for me. But I object.

Mr. JAMES. I want to say, gentlemen, but a little more upon this question. Our distinguished friend from Utah County says that it would be the fair thing to go ahead and decide this matter from a dignified standpoint_     
{694}
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT. State your point of order.

Mr. ANDERSON. My point of order is that according to amendment of our rules we are limited to five minutes in this discussion.

The PRESIDENT. That is in the committee of the whole. It is without limit in the house.

Mr. JAMES. Anything more the gentleman would like to bring up [laughter] from Beaver County? Now, gentlemen, do you see the gentleman's position? He is a lawyer and a very clever gentleman, too, in his profession. Do you see the gentleman's position? He says to you very nicely, “Now in a dignified manner let us meet and settle this question. And if afterwards, after the matter has been discussed and brought before the people of this Territory, we find we have made a mistake, then, we will reconsider this matter and set it all right.” Very nice, but the gentleman knows very well that he has got an advantage when he has accomplished that point and he will turn around and say to you, “Oh, to reconsider it takes a two-thirds vote, and it don't make much difference whether_

Mr. THURMAN. May I ask you a question?

Mr. JAMES, Yes, certainly.

Mr. RICHARDS. Before the gentleman from Utah asks a question, I would ask Mr. James if he would speak a little louder. We are losing your remarks, Mr. James; we would very much like to hear them.

Mr. THURMAN. Don't you suppose that if it does turn out that the sentiment of the people_the honest sentiment_is opposed to woman suffrage that delegates on this floor would be willing to reconsider?

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I protest against the proposition. I have never taken this floor, nor has the majority of my friends that have stood with me on the proposition of opposition to woman suffrage_we simply ask you, gentlemen, to consider the course that is most advisable to pursue in this Convention. We want to have the matter done in a way so that it will be satisfactory. We do not want to jeopardize the Constitution of this State. We want statehood, and if the people say so, I say they are entitled to woman suffrage, and I defy the man to contradict my position.

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. THURMAN. Do you want a Constitution and State government, if the majority of the people of Utah want a certain provision in it, which is republican, but who kept it out and who are forced to keep it out through fear_do you want that kind of a Constitution?

Mr. JAMES. That is a_

Mr. THURMAN. Do you want that kind of statehood?

Mr. JAMES. That is a kind of a hypothetical question that is not entitled to an answer, in my opinion. The proposition is this, I say to the gentleman from Utah County, that if there is one doubt, or ten thousand honest people in this Territory who are honestly opposed to woman's suffrage, that in all fairness and justice to those people, you have no right to refuse them to vote for the Constitution of this State, or to vote for woman's suffrage, which they may be opposed to. Why do you do it? Why don't you put it in a separate article? Is it going to deny the ladies of this Territory the right of voting if the people want it? No, sir.

The PRESIDENT. That is not the question. The question is on the postponement.

Mr. JAMES. The postponement of what?

The PRESIDENT. On the postponement of the consideration of this question until the 15th.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I was {695} trying to answer my friend from Utah County. Now, I say that I do hope that our friends will act so as to bury this feeling, this distrust that is growing here in our community. This majority here that are trying to deal unjustly with the minority. Now, I beg of the gentlemen to simply postpone this matter and let it be debated by the people. There is nothing wrong in it. It will do no one any harm on earth. It will certainly give a chance for us to act intelligently in this Convention and prevent that widespread evil, and my friends, it is an evil, and no man appreciates the danger of our condition more than I do. I have lived among you from the time that I was a beardless boy. It has been my home, and no man has ever regretted the friction that existed in this Territory more than I have, and we have just stepped out of that condition, and I say, Mr. President, nothing is more gratifying to me than to find myself working side by side with all classes for one common purpose. Now, these conditions existed before, and we have hardly sponged them off the slate yet. The marks are there yet plain. Now, let us act in a way so that we may continue this good work and go on and do what is just and what is right, and that is all I ask for.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, during all the discussions upon this question I have remained in my seat and have not given utterance to any expression of my feelings in regard to the matter. I have sat quietly and patiently and listened to the entire discussion throughout the five or six days in which it has been engaged. To-day it seems to me that I cannot consistently retain my seat any

longer, but that I must arise before this Convention, and in the interest of my constituents and in the interest of the people of this Territory proclaim in favor of the motion offered by Mr. Squires. The gentleman from Salt Lake City said there had been no remonstrance. Cannot the gentlemen hear the murmur that has already commenced? And if you will but wait the allotted time, ten days, the sentiment or remonstrance, to my belief, will roll upon this Convention, and every man will see the wisdom of this Convention incorporating this article in a separate proposition. [Applause.] The gentleman said that every man who voted in favor of this proposition was against suffrage. I can, with the same propriety, say that every man that votes against it is against statehood. My constituents sent me here, gentlemen and Mr. President, for the purpose of trying to establish or to adopt this Constitution that will bring Utah into this great American Union as one of the sovereign states of this Republic. I stand here, my friends, upon that platform, and if the cry has gone out among my constituents that if you incorporate female suffrage in that Constitution, we will have no statehood, I say, hold, and let us hear further from this people, and hear what they have to say, for I will not cast my vote in this Convention for any proposition that will endanger statehood for this Territory, therefore, I say it behooves you as men of intelligence, as honorable men, and as high-minded men, as statesmen, it behooves you to wait and hear from the people. I have heard from my constituents. They are the representatives of my city and of my county, men whose opinions I cannot afford to sacrifice. I am not afraid of the people. I am a man and I stand here to-day as their representative awaiting their opinion. Therefore, I give this utterance to my sentiments and I shall vote for this proposition of deferring this matter for fifteen days or ten days until we may hear from the people and I am not afraid of the consequences. And I challenge any man to say that by so doing I am not in favor of female suffrage. I will not detain {696} you. I just wanted to give expression to my feelings and the expression of my heart, for they are honest and sincere.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, there is one advantage to this proposition for postponement which I have not heard any expression given to, that is, if we could postpone for ten days, we could probably have the rest of the Constitution about fixed. As it is, I think we will be discussing it right along ten days hence, and some of these speeches are getting very thin. The gentleman from Salt Lake said he had five days of this, and he carried the idea that nearly all of it was on one side. If my memory is correct, we heard a very magnificent speech for an hour or two from the gentleman himself, and there were but two long speeches delivered. Now, it is only this way, a call for a meeting to protest against this thing has been issued for to-morrow, and the idea has been carried that that would be a put-up affair. Suppose there should not anyone attend that meeting. That would be an endorsement of those in favor of suffrage. If there would be a great rush of people, it would be an intimation that we ought to wait. I am talking this way because I have stated how I am going to vote on this question. I stated it after due deliberation, and I don't propose to change my mind. But on this floor there are two sets of men. One set believes that the majority in this country should rule. I belong to that crowd. There is another class who says that if there is one woman in this Territory that wants the right to vote, she ought to have it, and ought to have it put in the Constitution. What will my friend from Utah County do with the people that believe that way if this thing is passed and comes up for reconsideration? Some men do not change their minds. The good Lord only knows how they are made up, but we all know that after they are once made up, that fixes it. When I was a boy I learned that the majority of the people in this country ruled. That if they didn't rule, the thing must be agitated until they did, and if there

was an unjust law there was a way to get at it_to have that repealed, that is, through agitation, until the voice of the majority should be heard. Now, my belief is that these gentlemen who are anxious to force this thing to an issue to-day are making a mistake. I believe they have a perfectly certain thing. I believe that it will not change for one moment the time when the women of this Territory will have suffrage, whether it is put into the Constitution or whether it is put into a separate clause, but the difference between the two will be this: a great many thousand people in this Territory will vote for the Constitution in one of them and against it in the other. In all communities there are active forces at work, and latent forces which are not moved until emergencies arise.

The latent force is at work now. Let us see how strong it is. We do not want to make a mistake. Some of us here are getting a little tired of this debate. We would rather gentlemen would re- write their speeches, and if they take a delay of ten days, they can bring us in something fresh. Let us wait. Who is going to be harmed by it? About the dignity of the matter, there is nothing in it. It would be dignified for us to go on. It would be dignified for us to wait. That is, our opinion here is bound to be dignified if we say so. We have got the say on the subject. I do not see who is going to be harmed by this little delay; and, in the meantime, we can transact a great deal of business. There is only one other question that I can think of that is going to cause a great deal of debate on this floor, and I am in hopes that that will be disposed of in a single sitting. Why not go on with the regular business and let those people for or against woman suffrage be heard?
{697}
Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I would like to ask Judge Goodwin a question. I would like to ask if you think we can pass the question as it stands? The question as I understand it is whether it shall be postponed or not. I am anxious to bring it to a vote and find out what we are going to do, but they all seem inclined to talk on woman suffrage for a week or ten days.

Mr. GOODWIN. My speech would have been ended, Mr. President, if I had not been interrupted. These gentlemen that get up and ask conundrums delay the Convention. I merely want to say that we, as a deliberative body, are in the hands of the people as their agents to do their will, if we find it out, and we ought not to do anything by which the enemies of the measure would say to- morrow morning, “They rushed it through, because they are afraid.” I do not believe any gentlemen here is afraid. I do not believe any harm could be done to any gentleman, or for that matter any lady (although I believe the proposition is to make every lady in the Territory a perfect gentleman at once), to let this matter rest for a week or ten days. I was not here when the motion was put, but I speak for the postponement in the interest of peace, the interests of justice, in the interests of good fellowship, and for the sake of the ladies themselves, because they do not want to be debated every day in this house, and principally because when we come here then we can get through with the matter in twenty minutes, and there will be no occasion for debate.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, as I come from a locality where something has been said about this matter recently, I thought it necessary and proper that I should make a few remarks respecting the motion which is now before the Convention. Other gentlemen who have spoken here upon this floor say they want it for the purpose of hearing from their constituents. So far as I am concerned, I have heard from mine, and I do not desire any particular time on that account. And I heard from them in a somewhat emphatic way.

The undersigned men and women of Utah respectfully petition the Constitutional Convention to submit to the people in a separate article the question of suffrage for women.

I have thought many times, and I think yet, that notwithstanding the fact that I am in favor of

woman's suffrage, that if the majority of the people of Utah were opposed to it, I should willingly bow in humble reverence and obedience to that opinion, because, in this country, the majorities must rule. I have upon two occasions prepared a resolution, but after looking them over, I thought it would be unprofitable to introduce them, and I have not introduced them_resolutions looking to the submitting of this by the special election for the purpose of securing their sentiments upon this question, and postponing action until that could be done, but I know of no power which this Convention could exercise which would effectuate that matter, so I have abandoned that. Now, I am here in this position, like Brother Roberts said, so far as my constituents are concerned, standing alone, digging my cold, silent grave. It makes no difference to me, gentlemen. I say now, as he said then, that I would rather have my free thought than a crown, and I do not believe that to postpone action ten days will qualify any member in this Convention to cast a more intelligent vote than he could cast to-day. I do not desire to make any particular reference to a personal matter, but it is true, the gentleman from Weber has not made any expression of opinion upon this floor respecting this question until he has done it to-day. It may be as admirable to sit quiet and make no expression of opinion at all until you see how your constituents go, and how public sentiment is forming, but for my part, gentlemen, I do not care. In the face of my constituents and in the face of the people of Utah, if I am sent here to perform a duty I shall perform that duty and do it honestly, and if it be my last political act, I am satisfied, and I now say that {699} while I am willing to have a reasonable postponement of this matter, I will not vote for a postponement for ten days.

The PRESIDENT. I trust the gentlemen will confine themselves to the proposition to postpone, and not go over too much ground. We have been threshing too much old straw.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. President, I cannot see what more we can learn by the postponement of ten days in regard to the fact and conditions of the feeling of the people of Utah Territory. It may be true that a few agitators in Salt Lake City and Ogden may come together to give expression to their feelings, but as for the mass of the people, from one end of the Territory to the other we will know no more of them than we know to-day. You cannot get in a few days like this all the masses of the people to come together. Few, and very few, can come together to agitate this kind of a question_while the mother with her children would rather stay at home. And we may postpone this for a month, we will never find the facts in regard to the feelings of the women of Utah. I claim we have lost too much time on this question. We were ready on the first day to settle this question, just as much as we were to-day, and I, for one, oppose postponement. Let us bring the thing to an issue. Let us go on with our business or else we will not get through in time for the election in November next.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I would like very much if the question had been called an hour or two ago, but inasmuch as it has become a kind of field day again, I just want to say that when the proposition to postpone this matter was first made, I was favorably disposed towards it, because it was represented by the gentlemen making it that petitions had been sent out in every postoffice in the Territory, and that it would be well to wait until we got the voice of the people as the result of these petitions. Now, when I come to look in the papers here I find that these petitions are to the women who are opposed to equal suffrage being incorporated in the Constitution.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. SQUIRES_there is the petition.

Mr. IVINS. “The undersigned men and women of Utah respectfully petition the Constitutional Convention to submit to the people as a separate article the question of suffrage for women.” Now, I submit that after ten days have elapsed, and these petitions that have all come back from the people are laid before us, we may only have one side of this question properly and fairly before us for consideration. What will the result be? Why, I should want ten days more to send down to my constituents and get a counter petition, which I certainly could be able to obtain, because we came here very distinctly instructed in regard to this question. First, to use our best efforts in the direction of equal suffrage, and second, to see that that article was incorporated, not that it was submitted to the people in a separate article. And therefore, in order that there may be no delay, and because I feel satisfied that no justifiable good will result from it, I have concluded that I am ready to assume my part of the responsibility of going on with this matter right here now. It has not been heard? This cry of unseemly haste has been raised from very first day that this question came into the Convention. The committee was accused of unseemly haste who made the report. The men who attempted to shut off this debate a week ago and save thousands of dollars and engaged valuable time, were accused of unseemly haste, and now when it comes along in its regular form just as it should, not hurried at all, men ask why this unseemly haste to attend to the matter, when it should be attended to {700} in its proper order. I am opposed since listening to this debate_I have become opposed to any further postponement of this question. I do not partake of the fear that it is going to endanger statehood. I know the people of Utah too well. Every delegate on this floor came here instructed by the people of Utah to work to this end, whether he acknowledges it or not; whether he is a republican or whether he is a democrat, he came here pledged to equal suffrage, and I am getting tired of seeing men crawfish and adopt this policy and the other policy, with no purpose under heaven it seems to me, but to obstruct this measure in the hope that eventually they will be able to defeat it. I am ready to vote to-day.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to announce that I am very well acquainted in Millard County, the county that I partly represent here, and I do not know of a man or woman in Millard County that is opposed to woman suffrage. I have been acquainted in that county for a number of years, and cannot call to mind one instance of a woman or man that has expressed an opinion opposed to woman suffrage. It has been argued on this floor that it would bring politics into our families. It is too late in the day to bring that up as a proposition against woman suffrage. Why, it came into my family three years ago and the republicans got away with half of the family and the democrats with the other half, and it is a foregone conclusion that politics has made its way in our family, and with both classes, the men and the women, and I shall oppose postponing for the reason that we would not know, as some have said before here, any better in ten days from to-day the sentiments of the people of Utah Territory than we know now.

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

Mr. RICKS. There has been debate since.

Mr. FARR. I find it very difficult, Mr. President, to get this floor just at this time. I wish to say a few words on this subject. This is a very important one. We have been here some little time on this subject, and we have been very patient, I think. The question has been asked, what harm is it to postpone? That is an item that I wish to speak upon. I can tell you what harm it will be to postpone this for ten days. It will cost this Territory a great many thousand dollars. That is one harm. It will cost a great many meetings and all sort of feeling and acrimony, and harsh sentiments to be brought up and agitated to get people to state their feelings, and to get an influence used against woman's suffrage. I am aware of this. For that reason I am opposed to postponing it. There is not a gentleman that has come here to the Convention, but what came here with an understanding when they came, that woman's suffrage was to be embodied in the Constitution. They understood it. It was so understood in public in every quarter, and they have had for the last six or eight or ten months to think over this matter. It is not a new thing. I have been conversant with these matters and I know something about what the feelings of the people are, and I am sorry to see this thing postponed. We came here to do business. We came here to transact business for the people and get up a Constitution, and here we are put off day after day, day after day, and now when it comes to an issue to vote, we are asked to put it off a little longer. It is not right to impose upon the people and fool away_spend their money in this way. I say let us get our Constitution and put it forth, and if the people do not like it, why they have the {701} right to vote it down. I am opposed to this delay.

It is well known that the element that is opposed to woman suffrage, although there are a great many honorable gentlemen and ladies_nice gentlemen and ladies that are opposed to woman's suffrage, but I want to say to you and you all very well know it_if you do not I do, that the saloon element, the gambling element, and the prostitute element are opposed to it; every one that I have conversed with [laughter] I have conversed with that element and I know what I am talking about [laughter]. I want you to understand that I have conversed with the prostitute and the saloon element. I have been acquainted and conversant with them for many years, and I know they are opposed to this, although, as I said before, there are many honorable gentlemen and ladies that are opposed to it, but I tell you the time is coming when the women of Utah are going to have the privilege of voting and say who should rule over them and who should handle their funds and their means. I am a particular friend of the females, and my sisters are females, and I will tell you I have walked side by side with them, and my wife, I have walked side by side with her, and I want to continue to walk with her and to have her come with me and have her rights as she has her rights. I don't care, gentlemen, if there is not more than ten women in this Territory that wants suffrage they have that inalienable right God has given to them. The United States has given it to them. Although it says male, yet it means female. [Laughter.] They have the right to vote and to express their judgments as well as the men have, and I do not care if nine-tenths of the women in this Territory are opposed to female suffrage, the other tenth have a right, and should have that right, and if the nine-tenths do not want to vote and do not want office, and do not want anything to do with it they can let it alone, but the others should not be deprived of that, and we are not going to be the men here to deprive them of it. We are going to give them that

right and we came here for that purpose, and to establish laws that will protect every man and woman in their inalienable rights.

I do not wish to occupy your time, but I felt as though I wanted to give vent to some of my feelings that they may be known that I am in for the of honorable and upright women of this Territory; if they want to vote they shall say who shall handle their means. And I can tell you another thing, when they get the right to vote you will find the saloons and this gambling element and this other element that you laughed so much about, they will all be scattered and you will, and you may, laugh just as much as you want to. It is going to come.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, it seems as though there is no end to the question before us, but I have felt like inquiring in my mind, while sitting here listening, how it was that those on both sides of our political parties were so ignorant that they did not know that the people did not want suffrage when they put it in their platform?

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. The gentleman is not speaking to the question.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the postponement.

Mr. JOLLEY. That is the question that I am upon.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Suffrage has been spoken of this afternoon for an hour and a half instead of the question of postponement.

Mr. JOLLEY. I am opposed to the postponement, and I will state my reasons why I am opposed to it. As I stated, they do not seem to know the minds of the people at that time, or at least they thought they did, and those that were elected were elected on the {702} same platform, and they did not find out any different but what the people were for suffrage. There was no remonstrance sent in here since this question has been sprung on the floor. We had a five days' debate as has been stated, and it went from here out and returned. We hear of some remonstrance, but not of ladies_but few of ladies. Now, for to wait another ten days and to send out an inquiry all over Utah who is against this proposition, it is simply appealing to the people that we here, assembled in this Convention, do not know what to do, that we have not the stamina to put that in the Constitution and we want an excuse to crawl out of it; and the agents of these petitions will say to them, “You sign this and that will relieve those men that you sent down there, and it will be put as a side issue;” but those that are yet in for it and expect that we will be men of our word_have they got to ask the second time that they wish us to be men of our word, and send petitions down to rebut those? I would not think that would be reasonable, and as the speaker of Davis County said a while ago, if there was a fair minority then we ought to switch it and and let it go in on its own issue_

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the postponement; you are talking on the suffrage question.

Mr. JOLLEY. The postponement is what I am on.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has the floor. I have allowed wonderful latitude here and I want to check it up a little.

Mr. JOLLEY. By sending out and getting those remonstrances in there is bound to be a minority report without the majority would send in a full report that they yet meant what they elected us for, and I think that we ought to remember what we come here for without being told the second time, and even though there would be a minority report come in, I think that we ought to go ahead for the majority of the people. Therefore, I am against the proposition.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President and gentlemen of the committee, I do not desire to take up much time, but I desire to call attention to this fact: We have other business that we could attend to by going into committee of the whole. We have other propositions that we can take up, but so far as I am concerned I am opposed to the proposition as presented by Mr. Squires. I shall certainly vote against changing the order of this bill on elections and rights of suffrage. If the Convention desire to go into the committee of the whole, I would vote for that, because we could spend several days in that way profitably, but to change this, put it out of its order and delay it by putting it on for eleven days, after the committee has reported, after we have been in session 32 days, I certainly am opposed to it.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. President, I am opposed to the postponement of the consideration of the article now before the Convention on elections and rights of suffrage, for the following reasons: I came here this afternoon, gentlemen, prepared to listen to anything that would pour oil upon the troubled waters. Now, it has been asserted here that a great deal of feeling has been engendered throughout the Territory in consequence of our proceedings in this hall.

If such is the case, I claim that the origin of it is right in this Convention and that we are responsible for it. I have heard nothing this afternoon that induces me in any degree to give to a postponement of the consideration of the measure before us, but for the very reasons adduced in order that these feelings which I believe are growing_ask ourselves gentlemen if the feeling upon this floor is not more intense to-day than it was two weeks ago, when {703} this measure was first brought up. I believe it is and I believe that this feeling is growing and I believe that it is our duty to take immediate action in order that it may be definitely known where we stand and what we propose to do, and when we assert ourselves like true men, say what we intend to do; the people of the Territory will fall in line and they will follow our lead.

The roll being called on the question of postponement, the result was as follows:

AYES_42.
Adams
Bowdle
Button
Clark
Crane

NOES_51.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes Boyer
Brandley Buys
Call
Cannon

ABSENT_13.

The president declared Mr. Squires' motion lost.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move that we now go into committee of the whole for the consideration of the next proposition.

Mr. THURMAN. Don't do that. Let us go on with the third reading. Regular order.

Mr. JAMES. I second the motion to go into the committee of the whole and consider the second article.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I submit that we cannot go into committee of the whole without suspending the rules.

Mr. ELDREGE. Mr. President, I will move that we postpone until the tenth the article on elections and rights of suffrage. I do this on consideration of the matter that was set forth by Mr. Squires. I think it is a sufficient justification to entitle a continuance of this until that day. I do not see why there will be anything lost in fixing it on a certain day, and realizing that there is any amount of work by which this Convention can be engaged in while that may be left until further consideration_     

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order.
{704}
Mr. SQUIRES. I second the motion of the gentleman from Summit.

The PRESIDENT. State your point of order.

Mr. CANNON. My point of order is that this motion is out of order at this time. The other motion is before the Convention. It necessarily involves a suspension of the rules, when we go into committee of the whole. It is understood that that would be a part of the motion.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I will say that it is a different day, and hence, I think it is not

out of order.

The PRESIDENT. The point of the gentleman is that his motion had precedence; that is the point of order, which is correct.

Mr. Murdock of Beaver by his request was excused.

Mr. CANNON. I favor going into committee of the whole for the reason that we have a great many articles that we can consider in the committee of the whole, and that by so doing we do not displace this article. I would vote against any motion to postpone for a single day, but I would not like to take it up at this time. I favor going on with our regular business in committee of the whole, and by that means, without displacing this, we can be occupied several days if we choose so to do.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of Mr. Cannon.

Mr. SQUIRES. Roll call_yeas and nays.

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, take up all the time you can. We will stay with you.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I call your attention to rule 24, which provides, “That when a question is under debate no motion shall be received but to adjourn, but to lie on the table, for the previous question, to postpone to a day certain, to commit or amend, to postpone indefinitely, which several motions shall have precedence in the order in which they are arranged.”

The question before the house was the third reading of the article. Now, a motion to go into committee of the whole should give way to a motion to postpone to a day certain.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order on the motion of Mr. Eldredge to postpone to a day certain. That is exactly the motion we have been discussing.

The PRESIDENT. It is another date.

Mr. HART. Well, that I say, Mr. President, makes no difference, it is virtually a motion to postpone to a day certain. Having just decided that we cannot consider it again. If any other rule should prevail than this, this Convention could be kept here until the 15th in voting on just such motions as that, because you could take a motion for just as many days or parts of days as there are in the whole year, and we would never come to any limit on this question. Deciding a question against postponing to a day certain, if that does not settle the question for the time being, then we have no protection whatever.

Mr. RICHARDS. Before the chair announces its decision, I want to say one word in support of the point of order, and that is this, that if the gentleman from Summit desired to have his motion prevail he should have made it as an amendment to the other, but now coming in and saying that the proposition is for another day will not answer. That does not obviate the rule.

What is the further pleasure?

The Convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article on elections and rights of suffrage.

Section 1 was read by the secretary as follows:

Section 1. The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold {705} 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.

The following section shall be submitted as a separate article to the qualified electors for adoption or rejection at the election for the adoption of this Constitution. Separate article, No. 1:

Section 1. 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.

Mr. ROBERTS. I second it.

Mr. THURMAN. I arise to a point of order on that, that kind of an amendment is not in order. This is a proposition to go into the Constitution. You cannot amend this article which is for insertion in the Constitution by the proposal here of something which is not to go into the Constitution, but is to be submitted as a separate proposition. There certainly can be no question about that. You can readily see we have got to present here a complete article. Whatever may be the result of our vote upon this question of woman's suffrage, we have got to present an article which defines the qualifications of electors.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. When a gentleman on this floor states to a point of order it is his duty to state it and sit down. If he desires to debate it, he can do that after the chair decides it by taking, an appeal.

Mr. THURMAN. That point of order is well taken, whatever may be said of mine.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I arise to a_

Mr. VARIAN. I arise to the same point of order with Mr. Eichnor.

Mr. THURMAN. My point of order, Mr. President, is this, that the amendment proposed to section 1 of the article is not in order because it is not germane to the proposition. It is a proposition to amend a section of an article presented here to go into the Constitution by a proposition which is not to go into the Constitution, but to go somewhere else. It has no bearing whatever upon this article; if it is relevant anywhere it will be in some article_

Mr. VARIAN. Now, Mr. President_

Mr. THURMAN. Well, I wanted to make myself plain.

The PRESIDENT. The opinion of the chair is that the point of order is well taken.

Mr. VARIAN. I take an appeal if the chair so decides.

Mr. EICHNOR. I second the appeal.

The PRESIDENT. Shall the decision of the chair stand? An appeal is taken from the decision of the chair. Shall the decision of the chair stand? All in favor will say_

Mr. VARIAN. One moment, Mr. President. It must be obvious to the Convention, as well as to the gentleman from Utah County, that if this is the law under our rules this question cannot be presented at all, and the question confronting us now is whether upon the third reading, when we are in the Convention, where the ayes and nays are to be called, any member or number of members on this floor are entitled to submit for the consideration of this Convention a proposition of this kind. If it shall be determined by the Convention that the decision of the chair shall stand as the decision of the house, the result will be that if there be a majority of the members on this floor in favor of passing this article as it is written, it will go under our laws to the committee on arrangement and compilation {706} to be revised for the purpose of putting it into the Constitution, and nowhere in our proceedings will be permitted to vote upon this question as to whether or not this article ought to be submitted separately. Now, in the first place, that is not fair. I think every gentleman will admit that any such construction, unless imperatively necessary by the absolute letter and spirit of the rule, ought not to prevail. The intention of these rules is, when the propositions come from the committee of the whole, that the recommendation from that committee that a third reading shall be had, when all these propositions for amendment may be presented and discussed, and determined by the body of the Convention, I venture to say that this is in the nature of an amendment germane to this very section. What is the proposition before the Convention? That this section shall not be put into the body of the Constitution, but shall be substituted as a separate article with the Constitution. Why is that not germane? It is just a question as to how it shall be submitted. It is germane to that question and it does not follow at all that because it would be incongruous, the method of submission to the people being decided in one way would be incongruous because of the context of the other sections, which are submitted in the body of the Constitution, because that matter would be governed and controlled by the committee on compilation and arrangement, just as we are doing every day in the

committee of the whole, passing and voting upon questions which members believe properly belong in other articles of the Constitution, and it has been stated here time and again, and we so understand it, when we get through as to the substance we will arrange as to the garb and the form in which the substance shall be dressed. Now, I submit to the Convention that the proposition presented by Mr. Eichnor is simply this: Shall this particular subject matter, just as it stands here, be submitted as a separate article? As presented by the committee of the whole it stands. Shall it be submitted in the body of the Constitution, and we ought to be permitted under the rule to decide that question, and then if it shall appear that it is necessary to transpose this article and put it in another place, it can be done, and that is in contemplation of the rule. To that extent it is germane, and it cannot be done, so far as I know, at any other time. That is at least after you have called the ayes and nays and had your roll called upon this entire article, when it passes into the hands of the committee on compilation. If you do it now, peradventure, if there should be a majority in favor of that, the committee on compilation would take it as it came and arrange it in form, or the committee on schedule would consult with them, therefore, it can be done that way. Therefore, I hope that this decision shall not stand.

Mr. CANNON. May I ask the gentleman a question? I would like to know, Mr. Varian, what would be the effect should the proposed amendment offered by Mr. Eichnor_that is, should this proposed section be voted down by the people who vote on the Constitution_how would the article then stand?

Mr. VARIAN. Do you mean the entire article?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; the article on this particular subject_section 1_if they should vote it down?

Mr. VARIAN. I will answer that in this way. If it should be the sense of the Convention that this article should be submitted separately they would have to remodel, in some degree at least, some provisions of the article on elections and rights of suffrage in order to meet such a possible contingency.

Mr. CANNON. That is what I wish to know.

Mr. VARIAN. But I submit that that would furnish no argument against permitting a vote to be taken upon this {707} question at this time, under the head of third reading, so that everybody may have an opportunity of presenting their views with their vote upon that particular question, which is the important one and the only one that is dividing this body to-day.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask Mr. Varian a question on this. Suppose section 1 was displaced by Mr. Eichnor's amendment, and it should pass in that way, would we have anything then in the article on election and rights of suffrage defining who were entitled to vote in the new State, and say further that the article proposed by Mr. Eichnor would be defeated at the polls?

Mr. VARIAN. That is the same question asked by Mr. Cannon. I answered that in the same way. If it shall be the sense of this Convention fairly and candidly that this question should be

submitted by way of a separate article, it would possibly be necessary to make some change in the language of this section or article.

Mr. IVINS. If the amendment proposed by Mr. Eichnor should prevail, would it take the place in that article on elections and right of suffrage, that section 1 now has?

Mr. VARIAN. No, I think not.

Mr. IVINS. Could it take that place?

Mr. VARIAN. I think it would simply sense in the view of the Convention that that particular question was to be submitted separately.

Mr. IVINS. If it cannot take the place of that section how can it be a proper amendment to that section_if it cannot possibly take the place of it?

Mr. VARIAN. In this way, it is a question that may come up at any time, and I will illustrate in this way. When you come to consider any article that has been presented from a committee, you may stumble on to a proposition that will divide the people here in this Convention. Some may be in favor of submitting it separately, some may be in favor of keeping it where it is. When you are considering it, the question as to how it shall be submitted is germane. That is one of the great questions that is before the body all the time. Under the Enabling Act you may submit any question in the body of the Constitution; or you may submit such a question by a separate article. Of course, it is germane. It is one of the very questions that this Convention has got to decide, and it is idle to say by any argument of that kind that you can do away with the power of this Convention to pass upon that question, and I ask the gentlemen where, in the course of the proceedings, will we be permitted to take a vote upon that question in open Convention? If this shall be sustained we go through this section. The majority here force a vote to-night, and it passes the third reading and gets beyond our power under the rules of this Convention. Now, I submit that that never was intended. Congress never intended that. We have a right to pass upon that question, and whether it takes the places of that section or not does not determine this question. The question is to be determined whether it is germane to the matter before the house. It is germane that, before the house, you determine whether a question shall be submitted in the body of the Constitution or separately. That is one of the principal germane questions, and that is all this motion reaches. It does not attempt to change the language. It does not attempt to do anything except to present the question as to how it shall be submitted, in the body of the Constitution or separately. That is one of the principal germane questions, and that is all this motion reaches. It does not attempt to do anything except to present the question as to how it shall be submitted, and this rule would deprive the members of this Convention from voting.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I desire to advocate sustaining the chair upon this proposition. I think the {708} chair is undoubtedly right. I do not pretend to be a parliamentarian. I yield that palm to Mr. Varian, who is the chairman of the committee on rules, in the absence of the president, but it does seem to me that to offer as amendment to section 1 an article which is to be separate and apart from the Constitution is ridiculous itself. We are here in Convention

making a Constitution. The committee on elections has proposed an article. We are now considering section 1.

The proposition is presented here to amend that section by offering a substitute which is to be submitted apart from the Constitution, to the people. It seems to be wholly foreign to it. While the subject matter itself is germane, the place is altogether foreign to that which we are considering. Is it not ridiculous, gentlemen of the Convention, to say that we will put in an article to be inserted in the Constitution, which is to be inserted separately and apart from it? The gentleman says where will we go? What will we do here in the future if the chair's decision be sustained? I say it will be all right, and when any gentleman undertakes to move as an amendment to something which we are considering in a Convention, a proposition to be submitted to the people separately from the Constitution, that the chair ought to hold it is out of order. If the gentlemen do not like section 1, let them move to strike it out; that will be germane, and if it be stricken out, if it be the sense of the Convention that it go out, let a proposition be proposed at the proper time to submit this question to the people.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. When is the proper time to propose it? When can we do it and where can we have a vote on it?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You do it when the question is to be considered which comes up from the committee on schedule. There is a committee which proposes an article here. I believe it is already reported, and when that committee's report is being considered anything which is proper to be submitted to the people separate and apart from the Constitution, it would be proper then to offer, and gentlemen would not be precluded in this matter.

Mr. EICHNOR. May I ask you a question? If section 1 is passed, and if this article is adopted by the Convention, you place the substitute which I offered in the schedule, and suppose it is voted down by the people, where are you then? You would not have any section at all.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is just why I say it is not germane. If brother Eichnor's amendment should prevail, then section 1 is not to be submitted at all, but the substitute shall be submitted to the people and apart from the Constitution itself, and if the people shall vote that down, the rights of citizens would not be defined at all in the Constitution. Then anybody could vote, idiots, insane persons, or anybody else_Chinamen for that matter.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, the vice of this proposition, from a parliamentary standpoint, is this, if this substitute carries it is immediately placed somewhere else_in some other article_and a new proposition will have to be proposed, which would be an amendment. Now, I take it, that brother Eichnor has some proposition or something to suggest here as to who shall be qualified electors; have you not?

Mr. EICHNOR. If my substitute carries?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes.

Mr. THURMAN. You, then, have a proposition fixing_

Mr. EICHNOR. Can I answer you?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, of course.

Mr. EICHNOR. If my substitute is adopted to remodel section 2, or make a new section, and the committee on {709} compilation and arrangement will take my substitute, which becomes section 1 and place it into the schedule and change the number of the article.

Mr. THURMAN. Then you admit that the proposition that you now offer does belong to the schedule, don't you?

Mr. EICHNOR. If it is accepted here.

Mr. THURMAN. Can you place it anywhere else but in the schedule? Mr. EICHNOR. No, sir.

Mr. THURMAN. That bears out the argument of my friend from Weber County. The proposition is to send an article on election and rights of suffrage which must come into the article on schedule and there is no escaping from it.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question now? Mr. THURMAN. Of course.

Mr. VARIAN. If it should be determined by the Convention that this should be submitted as a
separate article, of course, is it not true that sections 1 and 2 would have to be changed so as to confine the right to male citizens?

Mr. THURMAN. Of course that is true.

Mr. VARIAN. That is all that would have to be done?

Mr. THURMAN. That is true, but the gentlemen say how can we get this thing before the Convention?

Suppose that the gentleman from Salt Lake had come forward with this motion to amend section 1 by putting in its place another section which belongs there, and say in his argument, “I have a proposition which I want to submit to the people, which I wish to read as apart of my argument, to show you my views on this question of woman suffrage.” That would be germane, that would be proper, but we contend that when the chair ruled that it was not germane to have the elections and right of suffrage article amended by a proposition which cannot go anywhere else but in the article on schedule, the chair ruled right and that the appeal ought to be denied.

The question being taken on the appeal from the decision of the chair, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 50 ayes to 35 noes, the decision of the chair was sustained.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, are further amendments in order now?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELLS. I have an amendment that I wish to offer to section 1 to add at the end of the section:

Provided that laws shall be passed excluding women from serving on juries or acting as officers of the peace, and for military duty.

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman permit me a question? In case of a man who has passed the age at which military service is required, or who is deformed, or infirm in body, would you deprive him of his vote?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I would not deprive women either of their vote. Let women that are crippled and have the same disabilities that the gentleman has referred to have the same exemptions that men have. I lay down, that it is a proper principle that whenever you grant the elective franchise to any part of the citizens, everything connected with it ought to accompany it.

The fact of the business is, Mr. President, that I am of the opinion that in consequence of the fact that this body of citizens that you propose to enfranchise are not physically competent to meet all the duties that go with an exercise of the elective franchise upon them, and for that reason I

cannot sustain that amendment.

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask him a question?

Mr. DRIVER. May I ask Mr. Roberts a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly.

Mr. DRIVER. Under the law, I am exempt from serving on juries, have I the right to vote?

Mr. ROBERTS. I cannot state anything about the condition of the gentleman.

Mr. DRIVER. I am exempt from serving, not on account of age. Have I a right to vote?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know anything about the gentleman's disabilities as to voting, but whatever the disabilities are and if they are justified, I would be perfectly willing to have the same courtesy extended to the women that he possesses in individual cases.

Mr. DRIVER. I am exempt from serving, not on account of age. Have I a right to vote?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did not know the gentleman was a clergyman.

Mr. DRIVER. Prescription druggists are exempt from serving on juries.

Mr. ROBERTS. My answer to that is that if there are women druggists or women ministers, let them exercise the same privileges that men in that same condition do.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I just desire to alter the reading of my amendment a little; “Provided that no female citizen shall be compelled to serve as a juror or act as a peace officer or perform military duty.”

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not prevail. This is legislation. I think that we can safely trust the Legislature of a coming State to make such provisions in relation to jury service and exemptions, etc., as may be proper. I think that it will be very improper for us to adopt an amendment of this kind to this section.

Mr. JOLLEY. I accept the slight amendment and will yet second the amendment of the motion.

Mr. VARIAN. I call the attention of the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Wells, to the fact that so far as a military service is concerned, he may leave that out. The law of the United States regulates militia; limits that to male citizens.

Mr. WELLS. I will accept that suggestion, if that is a fact.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question? Whether he contemplates the

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It simply provides that they shall not be compelled to do that.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, if it is in order, I would like to have that amendment so that Mr. Jolley's wife would not be a justice of the peace. He spoke about that particularly, I believe.

The amendment of Mr. Wells was rejected.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I would like to offer an amendment to that section. On line 3, in section 1, after the word “of” and before the word “sex,” insert “race, color, or.” I make this statement, because it was required in the Enabling Act, which reads as follows:

The Constitution shall be republican in form and make no distinction in civil or political rights, on account of race or color.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, it seems to me, there is no necessity for that amendment at all. Section 1, as it stands, makes no distinction as to race or color.

The question being taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Maloney, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 37 ayes to 39 noes, the amendment was rejected.

The Convention, at 5:05 o'clock p. m., adjourned.