[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.

THIRTY-SIXTH DAY.


MONDAY, April 8th, 1895.



The Convention was called to order at 10 o'clock a. m. by President Smith.

The roll was called and all members found in attendance except Mr. Thatcher.

Prayer was offered by Rev. John D. Nutting, of the Congregational Church.

Journal of the thirty-third day's session was read and approved.

Messrs. Nixon, Farr and Davis were admitted to seats on the floor of the Convention.

The following petitions were presented asking that the question of woman's suffrage be submitted as a separate article to the vote of the people:

File No. 180, signed by Mrs. L. C. Trent of Salt Lake and 43 others, by Eichnor of Salt Lake.

File No. 181, signed by Oscar Maunburg of Salt Lake and 199 others, by Goodwin of Salt Lake.

File No. 182, signed by C. R. Aley of Provo and 18 others, by Corfman of Utah.

File No. 183, signed by C. E. Miles of Payson and 37 others, by Lemmon of Utah.

File No. 184, signed by R. G. Wilson of Eureka and 38 others, by Ryan of Juab.

File No. 185, signed by F. S. Hynds of Juab County and 35 others, by Ryan of Juab.

File No. 186, signed by E. S. Kirby of Salt Lake and 58 others, by Ryan of Juab.

File No. 187, signed by James McEvoy of Mercur and 120 others, by Stover of Tooele.

File No. 188, signed by R. C. McKinney of Ogden and 79 others, by Kiesel of Weber.

File No. 189, signed by W. W. Woodring of Mt. Pleasant and 50 others, by Page of Sanpete.

File No, 190, signed by Chester B. Marshall of Salt Lake and 29 others, by Stover of Tooele.

File No. 191, signed by John Egan of P. V. Junction and 28 others, by Thurman of Utah.

File No. 192, signed by Leslie Thompson of Salt Lake and 350 others, by Eichnor of Salt Lake.

File No. 193, signed by P. W. McCaffery, chairman of a workingmen's meeting held in Salt Lake City, by Eichnor of Salt Lake.


File No. 194, signed by John J. Donovan of Salt Lake and 154 others, by James of Salt Lake.

Ordered filed.

Mr. Peter Lowe of Box Elder presented a petition, File No. 195, signed by Mary Ann Hubbard and 139 others, asking that a section providing for woman's, suffrage be adopted.
{770}
Ordered filed.

The following petitions were presented asking that the question of prohibition be submitted in a separate article to a vote of the people:

File No. 196, signed by N. C. Christensen and 37 others; by C. P. Larsen of Sanpete.

File No. 197, signed by Rasmus Jensen and about 260 others, by Lund of Sanpete.

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I was not present when this motion was made to adopt section 1 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage. If it could be, I would like my name now to be recorded as voting with the ayes.

Mr. SQUIRES. It is not in order.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, unavoidably, I had to be excused at the last session in the evening, and I got Mr. Lewis to pair with me on the vote of submitting to another committee the suffrage question. The vote was taken on the final question and section 1 was passed. Had I been there I would have voted in the affirmative, and I wish it recorded as such, because I don't want it lost_

The PRESIDENT. The matter has not been passed yet.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, all those gentlemen who were absent on Friday will have that opportunity when it comes to the roll call of the final passing of this article.

Third reading of article on elections and rights of suffrage.

The PRESIDENT. The chair will announce that section 2 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage is the matter now before the house for consideration.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move that we suspend the rules and go into committee of the whole, in view of the vast amount of work that we have on the calendar of the committee of the whole. It will bring before the delegates work perhaps that they have not had their special attention called to.

Seconded.



Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I object to that motion and suggest that it is as important to go ahead with this as it is to go into committee of the whole and take up new business and bring it into the Convention. We have started on this and there is just as much importance to the balance of this bill as any other bill before the house. Inasmuch as we have started in on it, it would be proper to get through with it.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I hope that that motion will not prevail. I don't see any necessity of leaving this article half finished. I think we ought to complete it.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I am of the opinion that this is something out of the ordinary line to switch off in this business. I hope the gentleman's motion does not prevail. I do not think it is going to take this Convention but a very little while to consider this matter that is now before it. Then we can pass on to another. I should oppose the motion to go into committee of the whole.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Eldredge, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 25 ayes to 46 noes, the motion was rejected.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. PAGE. Mr. President, I move to amend section 2 by inserting the words "and none others" in the 6th line between the word "elections" and the word "shall;" that will do away with the necessity for section 5 that it was voted to strike out when it was up before.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman from Sanpete if that is not as strong now as it would be if those words were inserted. It simply defines who may vote, and that would exclude all others.
{771}
Mr. PAGE. What was the remark of the gentleman?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is my view of it. That it would be just as strong as it now stands as it would be if your amendment prevailed. No persons can vote anyway except those enumerated in the section; I do not see the necessity of the amendment.
Mr. PAGE. Mr. President, at the time this was under consideration before, we voted to strike out the fifth section, and it was thought by some gentlemen that the first three lines of section 2 did not sufficiently describe the qualifications. The Legislature might, in their discretion, allow still others to vote that were not covered by this particular ground. I thought this was likely to do away with any question, I think it was my friend, Mr. Thurman, that raised that question, if I remember that right.

The PRESIDENT. According to the secretary's record here, the fifth section is not stricken out.

Mr. THURMAN. It was reinstated.

Mr. PAGE. The fifth section was stricken out, and then there was a motion again to reconsider,

which brought it back to the condition in which it formerly stood.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it does not seem to me that there is anything in the objection that the section of this article is not sufficiently specific. There is a well known principle of law, that if you mention a qualification, it excludes any other qualification than those mentioned, and I think that by saying what the qualifications of the electors in this State shall be, the mere fact that the Constitution legislates upon that question excludes any others than those that possess that qualification from the suffrage of this State. I do not see that there is any necessity for the passage of section 2, that that section 5 should remain there, even without the words of the amendment.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I have the same opinion of this matter as the gentleman who just preceded me, and we find that section 26 of the bill of rights covers this ground.

The amendment of Mr. Page was rejected.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word "sixty" in line 5, and insert "thirty," as the law stands now.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I move to amend by striking out in lines 5 and 6 the words "and in the precinct sixty days," and inserting in line 5, after the word "county," the words "and precinct"_four months in the county and precinct. I would not make any distinction there.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I second Captain Stover's amendment.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, before you put the motion, I also want to second Mr. Stover's motion for this reason, that it will only work a hardship to some voters and be no protection to the balance, to make it sixty days in the place of thirty. You have put a provision in requiring a residence of one year, and ninety days a citizen. Now, that is the protection that will go to the ballot, outside of any regulations from one precinct to another, or merely inconveniences. Particularly if it is a long period before the day of voting. As we know, a great many men, and particularly as poor men, that do not own their own homes, and rent, and move from one precinct to another, and are just as qualified to vote as though they were men in their own precinct, but if this long period is fixed, it will, in many instances debar a legal voter from a vote.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I call attention of the members in this Convention to the fact that in Salt Lake City the change of precincts is often a change of simply moving across the street in the same city. For instance, from the first to the second precinct it is across Main street, from the first to the fifth precinct it is across Third South street, from the {772} fifth to the fourth precinct it is across South Temple street; from the second to the third, across South Temple street. A man simply moving across the street under this provision of living would be debarred of his suffrage. I think the United States law took that matter elsewhere into consideration, in fixing the period at thirty days. The intention is not to exclude any one from suffrage because of his change of residence, but it is simply to put the necessary check upon regularity of the vote. To say that we know this man is entitled to vote, because we know that he has lived here for a year

in the Territory, and he has been where we could find him for thirty days preceding this election. That is the intention of the residence in the precinct, it is to identify the voter. Well, he can be identified by thirty days' residence as well as by sixty. The only thing is to have a check upon a legal voter, and that is done by thirty days as well as sixty.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I favor the amendment of the gentleman from Juab, Mr. Ryan, because I believe it insures a stable vote. I think it may be a little questionable whether this should aboslutely be tied up. The Legislature should have the privilege, under proper regulations, to provide for transfers of the right to vote, but I believe that a four months' residence in the precinct is little enough_the same residence in the precinct as exists in the county. Thirty days in a ease of colonization is not a very great length of time to take votes of one part of the county into another. It might be a municipal election that people wanted to carry, and all they would have to do would be to go in the other precincts near by and colonize them for a few days in the city. I think everybody ought to want to guard against extending the right to vote to that class of voters, and we have had it in this Territory. It is said by most of the old parties that most of them resorted to it to the everlasting shame of the honest people. Let us provide in the Constitution for such an emergency as that in the future, and not leave it open so that it may done; while at the same time try to allow every man that has a right to vote a fair opportunity to do so.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment, and will give my reasons in a moment. In cities as large as Salt Lake, Ogden, and Provo, people frequently move from one precinct to another, those people who have lived there probably all their lifetime, and it seems to me that it would be improper to disfranchise a man simply because he goes from one precinct into another. Now, I could give an illustration of myself. Twice I have moved in Ogden, and yet I have lived there a good many years. Under a provision of this kind, I would not be entitled to vote; probably it would be just as well for me, but other people would like to have that right. I like the section just as it stands, or else would like the whole thing struck out and leave it to the Legislature.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, my object in offering that amendment is simply that I think it will give us the fairest elections, and it being the inception of political power, you will always have good elections. I would not make any other qualifications. I would strike out section 8 of this bill entirely, because I believe a poor man has just as much right to vote on school elections and for public indebtedness as a rich man, but I think we should regulate it at that point. I think this is the place to guard, and if you guard well here you will be right all through.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Juab will not prevail If this Constitution is going to set the example, a poor man will have no chance in this Territory. It does not only affect Salt Lake City, but go out in the precincts where {773} the young men are_for instance, they work one place and then go to another place. If you are going to disfranchise these young men of Utah Territory, set the example.

Mr. RYAN. Will you let me ask you a question?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.



Mr. RYAN. If this entire Convention was forever disfranchised, would the State suffer?

Mr. EICHNOR. I believe not. If you are going to legislate what you say we are doing here in the interests of the people that have their homes, why say so. If you want to give a little show to the poor man or a man who may have had property in his time and had it struck away by misfortune, why make the time reasonable time, but four months is an unreasonable time. I tell you, some of you men may have property at this stage of the government, but you do not know how long you may have it. You may be as poor as the rest of us.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I am in favor of the section as it stands. I think it is more conservative as it stands now, and probably it will obviate ourselves from the conditions of colonizations we have seen in the past. I think the section to allow four months' residence in the county and in the precinct, with the other qualifications here, it seems to me would put all the safeguards necessary in this matter, and I am in favor of placing it in the Constitution as it now stands.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. President, it has been a provision of our statute for a great many years, thirty days, and I see no reason now why it should be changed at this time. It would certainly deprive a great many people of the suffrage, because, as the gentleman has said, they change residence frequently, and it would deprive thousands of their suffrage. Therefore, I hope the amendment will prevail.

The amendment offered by Mr. Ryan was rejected.

The amendment offered by Mr. Stover was rejected.

Section 3 was read by the secretary.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, it is quite possible, although I am not prepared to make a specific objection, but there might be some other occasion when electors ought to be arrested, except for breach of the peace. The Legislature might establish offenses against the election law which would not reach the dignity of felony, and this article would prevent any arrest as it stands. It seems to me it would prevent the arrest of a man guilty of such an offense when he ought to be arrested right at the time. It would not be a breach of the peace. I think that we had better consider that a little more. The truth is, I see no necessity for having the section there at all, but the Convention has passed upon it. A little reflection perhaps will convince us that there may be some offenses relative to the election laws which ought to be arrested at once, that is, to arrest the offense and arrest the offender.

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman make a motion in regard to this question?

Mr. VARIAN. If the Convention chooses to pass it I will endeavor to present it before they get through with the next two or three sections.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I will move to amend section 3 by inserting after the word

"felony," in line 2, the following words, "crimes against the elective franchise."

Mr. VARIAN. I think that would obviate the objection.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, if that section is to be retained at all, I think it is safer and better to strike out the entire section and leave it to the Legislature to determine. I am opposed to the amendment. I do not feel ready yet to offer to strike it out. I am opposed to the amendment proposed by {774} the gentleman from Weber, for one reason, and that is, that the very object of this section in the Constitution is to guard the right of the voter on election day against trumped up charges made for the purpose of hurrying him, perhaps to prison, or away from the polls, by which he may lose his vote. Now, on election day there are a great many crimes ordinarily against the elective franchise_interference with voters and things of that kind. I do not think it was the intention_I do not think it is in accordance with the genius of our country and our institutions, that men on election day should be arrested for crimes of this kind if they are made by law merely misdemeanors. So I think it is unsafe to put in this sweeping clause proposed, and would be better still to strike the whole thing out and leave it to the Legislature.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, the way the section stands, without an amendment, would that not afford protection for a repeater or a colonizer to vote_just the very evil of which you gentlemen spoke a little while ago?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, it would deprive perhaps a man who is entitled to vote of his right to vote. Now, there are other ways of reaching colonizers, besides providing for it in this section, but this section speaks of election day. You want to deal with colonizers before election day comes on as much as possible, and see that they do not get their names on the list; and on election day of course there is still another opportunity, but this is a question here confined exclusively to the day of election, when the electors go to the polls to vote. If the charge can be preferred against him and he can be arrested and perhaps thereby deprived of his vote, it subjects him to a condition which might be very unjust. I wish to say this, while I have not dealt much in this kind of argument in this Convention_I wish to say that this I presume, as it stands here, is the most familiar, usual, and ordinary provision to be found in any of the constitutions of the states. I believe it is in effect in every constitution of the United States, just about as it stands here.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment, and hope that it won't prevail. I think that it would destroy the very object for which this section was passed.

On election day excitement generally runs high, and if this amendment, would pass, why it would make it possible for charges to be trumped up against a great many electors and thereby deny them a right to vote, and therefore, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, that is quite true. That always exists, that possibility. Charges may always be trumped up against a man. The question is in a case where they are not trumped up. Now, I doubt not if any respectable citizen has a charge trumped up against him at the polls will have little difficulty of finding means of immediate relief.


The objection in making the suggestion that I had in view, was not to tie up the hands of the Legislature in this matter. If we are going to legislate in the Constitution on this subject, it occurred to me we might at least broaden the section a little. There are many offenses against the elective franchise, which, of necessity, have to be dealt with summarily. This is one of the reasons why you are required to have officers at the polls. They do not reach the dignity of felony. They are misdemeanors, both in fact and in law. They ought not to be made felonies, and yet through a systematic effort and concert of purpose, a number of persons may be enabled to do just what these gentlemen are seeking not to have done_that is, prevent lawful voters from voting.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I admit that the section is designed to prevent people being harassed when {775} they are going to the polls, by unauthorized arrest. But as the section now stands, let us see what can be done by a voter. A voter, if he so desires, could start on his way to the polls leisurely along, and might, under the laws of our Territory, as they now stand, purchase the vote of divers persons on his way and secure their assistance in casting a ballot. That would be nothing but a misdemeanor? He might secure the drunkenness of a lawful voter. That is, he might conduct himself in such a way as that voter should become intoxicated, so that it would prevent them from going to the polls, and, as Mr. Varian says, many things could be done under this section as it now stands, and he is right when he says the section is for the purpose of reaching a crime, not for the purpose of trumping up charges. If any individual trumps up a charge against a voter, he is liable for false imprisonment. He has that check upon him. It is only to meet that class of people who commit crimes against the elective franchise, and every expression I have heard upon this floor is to secure the purity of elections. If a person should go out upon the street when he is going to the polls and make a little noise, under this section he would be arrested, but if he should go out upon the street and secure by improper means the votes of other individuals by purchasing their votes, he would be exempt.

Mr. THURMAN. Would it not be a felony to do that anyway?

Mr. EVANS (Weber), No, sir; it is a misdemeanor under our statute. It is a felony to receive a bribe, but it is only a misdemeanor to give it, strange as it may seem. I had occasion to examine that and prosecute some people who have been guilty of these offenses.

Mr. EICHNOR. Impersonation, is it a misdemeanor too?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes. If a man happens to be unfortunate enough to make a little noise, as I stated, he can be arrested while going to the polls, but if a man does the other thing, which strikes at the very foundation of representative government in improperly influencing a vote, he is exempt from arrest and he can go leisurely along to the polls and can stand about the precinct of the city and do these things, and if an officer comes up to arrest, he can say, "Hands off, the Constitution protects me. You cannot arrest me now. I am on my way to the polls to cast my ballot."

And he might make that assertion all day and vote late in the evening, and would be entirely free and exempt from arrest And when the sun goes down and the polls close, probably that fellow

has taken some underground railway, and has left the town and cannot be arrested at all. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me I have read in a good many of the constitutions provisions of a similar nature. I think it is a proper one to be inserted.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment for the very reason that the gentleman has indicated in his remarks, that there are so many ways in which a person can violate the elective franchise, and it seems to me that it is a matter that ought to be left to the Legislature. There is no question but what that is a proper thing to legislate upon, but by this amendment placed in a general way, it would not suffice, it seems to me, to reach that dilemma; that of treason, which is very rare indeed, but felony is the universal rule in all of the states, and breach of the peace. We know that there should be order preserved notwithstanding the gentleman may say that merely making a noise_but the idea that there is order preserved at the polls, that is the object in placing this in there; and I think that is sufficient without particularizing and going into the matter of elective franchise. I am in favor of the section as it stands.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask {776} Mr. Creer a question. If this section is left as it now is, could the Legislature come in and legislate for those other offenses against the elective franchise?

Mr. CREER. Certainly they can.

Mr. SQUIRES. I do not so understand it.

Mr. CREER. Would there not be law still existing_    

Mr. SQUIRES. If we make a restriction here I do not see how the Legislature is going beyond this.

Mr. CREER. It is not a restriction. It is silent as to that.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would be in favor of striking the last section out, leaving the whole matter to the Legislature. I move the whole section be stricken out.

Seconded.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, we should take a vote on the other amendment first.

Mr. ROBERTS. Would that shut off remarks on striking out the section?

The PRESIDENT. No, we will put the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Is the amendment offered by Colonel Squires now open for remarks?

The PRESIDENT. No; Mr. Evans, of Weber, made an amendment to it, which is the matter for consideration.



Mr. SQUIRES. I move to cut out the whole section.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is now open for remarks, I presume.

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I certainly shall vote in favor of that amendment to strike it all out, because, sir, I take it that all such provisions as this section provides for, will not be necessary now, we having adopted the first section. We are going to have such purity in politics, and at the polls, that this section will not at all be necessary, and I am heartily in sympathy with the motion that strikes it out.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I would call attention to some of the constitutions which have the same provision in. Mr. Eichnor has kindly furnished me with it. Kentucky has provided that voters in all cases, except treason, felony, breach or surety of the peace, or violation of the election laws, shall be privileged from arrest during their attendance at elections and while they are going to and returning therefrom. I think the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Thurman, will not dispute that authority. Also North Dakota has a very similar provision in it, and I did not have time to go any further, but I was satisfied that such provisions were found in the constitutions.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Evans was rejected.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move we strike the whole section out.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I see in the constitution of Maine that there is a provision that is worded the same as it is worded here, and in the state of Colorado there is one that is worded the same, and in California. I haven't had time to look for any more. It seems to me that if it has been found necessary in other states, it might be found necessary here. There is no valid reason why it should be entirely stricken out. I believe it is a proper provision to be in the Constitution.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I certainly think we ought not to strike this section out? It is a guaranty to the people that they shall not be arrested on that day on trumped up charges, and to avoid disgraceful scenes that have occurred in some of the states. Nearly every state in the Union contains an article of this kind in the constitution, and it seems to me that we ought not to strike this out of our Constitution and let the bars down so that trumped up charges can be brought against any person and he be arrested and prevented from casting his ballot on election day. and I think that we will simply make a mistake if we leave this to the Legislature. The Legislature may make suitable provisions and they may not, and {777} we are left just in that condition until they do, and perhaps they will not do so, and I certainly think we are making a mistake if we strike this section out of our Constitution.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, if this motion shall prevail, it will probably be incompetent to entertain the motion to insert. I will therefore offer this amendment. Strike out the section and insert the following:


The Legislature shall provide by law for the cases of exemptions of electors from arrest on the day of election.


That will leave the whole subject to be dealt with by the Legislature.

Mr. SQUIRES. I accept that as part of the other motion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask Mr. Varian a question? What is the necessity of inserting that? The Legislature would have that power without it, would it not?

Mr. VARIAN. To meet the apprehension of many members that the Legislature would not act. I think we had better have a declaration in requiring the Legislature to act.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Would that require the Legislature to act?

Mr. VARIAN. It says "shall." It says the Legislature shall.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). As a matter of constitutional law, would it? Would there be any power over a Legislature to compel them to act?

Mr. VARIAN. The same moral power that compels every state power to obey the constitution.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). About the same as a political platform?

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I am in favor of leaving this section just as the committee reported it. It is in harmony with many other constitutions of the different states, and it seems to me that it is a wise provision, and I think we ought to retain that section and vote down all amendments.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Buys, of Wasatch County, a question. You spoke of trumped up charges. Is not it as easy to trump up a charge of felony as a misdemeanor?

Mr. BUYS. I think not. I think the section ought to stand just as it is, I think it just what we want, as I said before. The gentleman from Cache says we need some guaranty against arrest on that day, and we know now just as well as the Legislature will know about what we want, and I don't think that it will be a wise provision to leave this matter to the Legislature to put in there just what they wish. We have a better representation here of this State, of the future State, than we will ever have in the Legislature. There are more men here and know just as well what we want as the Legislature will know, and if this is not what we want let us make it what we want, but certainly have some guaranty in this Constitution guaranteeing the citizens of this State against arrest, and I think it is just what we want as it is, and I shall certainly vote for it.

Mr. THURMAN. I will ask you if you don't think it is altogether improbable that there will ever be as bright a lot assembled together again?


Mr. BUYS. Yes, sir; I do.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Squires, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 29 ayes and 49 noes the amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to strike out all of section 3 after the word "election," in line 3. It is only a repetition, I think, of what is already expressed in this section.

Mr. THURMAN. I would like to ask if that would not prohibit arresting a man on election day, no matter where he was, whether he was at the election or not?

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I certainly cannot see what object we would have in striking out that. All that we wish to bar people from being arrested for is to save them from losing their votes, and I cannot see why we should strike {778} that out and prohibit arresting a person anywhere, whether he was going to the polls or whether he was coming from them, or whether he had voted or whether he was going to vote. I think the section is right just as it is, and I cannot see any object in striking out that portion.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it seems to me that it is a very queer provision. Suppose the government should deem it necessary to have the militia to quell a disturbance at the polls, a man could not be called on on the day of election to serve in the militia. I move to strike out the section.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. PAGE. Mr. President, I move to strike out that section.

Mr. VARIAN. The section was stricken out in the committee of the whole.

The PRESIDENT. It was not stricken out. The final declaration is that it was reinstated.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, then I renew my motion to strike out the section.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I hope this motion will not prevail of striking this section out.

I think this provision is necessary. If we don't have this provision, any persons might vote who were not citizens, that is, the Legislature might pass laws allowing persons to vote who had not taken out, for instance, their first papers. I think it should be in there.


The question being taken on the motion to strike out section 5, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 38 ayes to 44 noes, the motion was rejected.
Sections 6 and 7 were read.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I move to strike out, in line 3, the words "or his absence." A man might be called from his home_difficulties might arise at any time, as to how long it would be necessary to be absent for him to lose his right to the franchise. Temporary absence might be a month, six months or six years.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, the view I take of it is this, this section is unnecessary in all its particulars. The law has always been as I understand it, that absence from a state, whether it be short or lengthy, does not apply to a man's residence. Absence on business of the United States or state, does not deprive a man of his residence. The question of residence, inhabitancy, etc., is determined by the intention. A man might hold a residence in Utah here for years and be abroad for most of the time. This is simply a restatement of what the law is. I move to strike out the entire section.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Christiansen was excused for the rest of the morning session.

Section 8 was read.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I move to strike out section 8. It refers back to section 2. I think when the right of suffrage is once established, it should always remain on all subjects, and should be the right of the poor as well as the right of the rich in voting indebtedness, or on any other question, and that is my reason for being opposed to that section. And I will say here that I might owe an apology. I did not mean any criticism, I recognize the great ability of the members of the Convention, but in my question to Mr. Eichnor, a while ago, I simply meant to illustrate the insignificance of one person as a unit of a community, and not as a criticism of the members of the Convention. I don't think this section has any place in the Constitution. As I said, when you established a person's right to vote_a right to exercise the franchise, he should be left to exercise it on all occasions.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I desire to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that in the bill of rights a provision {779} was inserted, "no property qualification shall ever be required of any person to vote or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution." And this is the provision referred to. If this is stricken out there will be no provision anywhere. You will have to strike out the other if you strike this out.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, that is exactly what I would like to see done. I think the right to vote on all occasions should be the right of citizens after once being admitted to the right of suffrage.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I understand you take the negative position. That is, that no person who may be ever so poor will be deprived of voting;

but what about persons in the school district, or in a city even, where they were voting upon bonds? Now, would it not be proper that the Legislature should provide that they may have an opportunity of voting under property qualifications on a special tax or for bonded indebtedness?

Mr. RYAN. I don't know that I caught all the gentleman said, but I think I have the substance of it. I do not hear very well. I don't see any reason why the man without any property or a little property should not have the same right to vote on school questions and the matter of public indebtedness, just as well as the other man; it has been my experience that the vicious votes do not always come from the poor. They often come from the rich. I would not exclude a man from the right of franchise on any question after once giving him the right, and with that view I tried to amend section 2. I think if you guard the right at its inception that you would be right all through.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I am in favor of this section just as it stands, and for this reason above all others: The experience that Salt Lake County has had on the subject of voting bonds for the county. They have made three or four trials. In the first place, before we had indebtedness it was proposed here to bond the county for the purpose of putting up this building, and making other public improvements, and the vote was a general vote, and it was voted down. The county court, however, found that under the law they could go on and create this indebtedness, which they proceeded to do, and they were obliged, doing it in that way to have it cost the county a higher rate of interest than would have been the case had the bond been voted. Now, we come up to the time when the last movement was made for the purpose of taking up these outstanding warrants, which were bearing interest at eight per cent, and funding them in a five per cent bond, saving to the taxpayers three per cent on the indebtedness. The vote was general, and it was voted down. I don't believe any gentleman who is present here has any idea that if the taxpayers alone had been interested in that loan, and they alone had had the vote, that they would not have voted to save themselves three per cent interest of their indebtedness. Of course, the man who has not the property, has not the same interest in the matter as the taxpayer has, and I believe that in all questions where a special tax is to be levied for a special purpose the taxpayer alone_the man who has got to put up the money, should have a voice in the matter, whether it should go or not. I am in favor of the section just as it stands.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman, I think the section should be retained just as it is. The bill of rights refers to this subject, that except creating indebtedness or levying special taxes, no property qualifications shall be required. In the article submitted on taxation and public lic debt we provide also that the electors {780} that are taxpayers shall have the right to decide whether or not the county, the State, or municipalities within it, shall have a right to vote beyond a certain limit in levying taxes or creating indebtedness, and I think of this subject, the taxpayer, the person who is liable for the debt, should be the person to decide by his vote whether or not such debt should be created. I believe in persons paying taxes being properly represented, but I don't believe that those that are not taxed should represent those that are in such matters as pertain to their property and the levying of indebtedness for taxes upon them. I think the section should remain just as it stands.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I am in favor of the principle of the section, and in offering to change it, I do so simply to have it in form with the context of the section. I offer this amendment

for, or substitute for it: "The Legislature may provide property qualifications for electors voting at elections levying a special tax or creating indebtedness." As the section now stands, it is a negative form, and it is incongruous and inharmonious as a matter of construction, if nothing more, with the preceding sections. As for instance, section 2 declares affirmatively the qualifications for electors, that every citizen of a certain age with specified residence shall be entitled to vote. Now, if you are going to modify that, it seems to me it ought to be in an affirmative form and not in this negative way. The intention of course is that the reading of this should be made affirmative. The intention is that the Legislature may prescribe property qualifications in certain kinds of elections or for certain elections. Now, by changing it, it seems to me that you will correct any incongruity. I call attention also to "or hold office" in that section. It does not seem to have much meaning. There is some obscurity or doubt in this section as it stands. It does not read just right. The house will understand, of course, from my amendment that, I am in favor of this proposition, only I want it put in a little different shape.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I think there is a great deal of force in the idea advanced by the gentleman from Juab, at least so far as the phrase "creating indebtedness" is concerned. Now, I think, to levy a special tax the man of property to-day, who has to pay that tax, ought to declare whether or not the tax shall be levied by his vote and nobody else, but when you come to creating indebtedness to be paid twenty-five or fifty years hence, the young man of to-day, just entering upon manhood, without any taxable property whatever, will have to pay that debt. The bona fide resident, whether he has any property or not when we come to creating a debt to be paid a generation hence, it seems to me there is an injustice in saying that, because he does not happen to-day to be a taxpayer he shall not vote upon a matter that will prove of vital concern to himself, and the very men to-day who have the property, and who would be permitted to vote, may not have a dollar's worth when that debt is to be paid, and the man that we exclude to-day will probably be the man that will have to pay the debt, or pay his share of it.

Now, a special tax which means a tax for this year, is all right. A man of property would be sufficiently guarded, if he alone has the right to vote on a levy of a special tax.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I understand from the argument presented by the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Varian, that he desires to change this from negative to affirmative, but by scrutinizing the substitute, which he read, I find it also negatives a sentiment which is contained in this section 8 entirely, and that is the office holding qualification is omitted entirely in the substitute, as presented, and that is why I shall vote against the substitute {781} and support the section as it now stands.

Mr. VARIAN. If the gentleman, before he takes his seat, will tell me what effect he can give the words "holding any office," if they have any effect_what effect they have? What does that mean?

Mr. LOW (Cache). As I view it, section 8 provides as follows:

(Reads.)

Mr. VARIAN. What meaning is to be given to the words "or hold office." In other words, how

can an officeholder settle the question in a vote to levy a special tax or create an indebtedness? What has an office holder to do with that?

Mr. LOW (Cache). I understand the proposition now.

Mr. VARIAN. There was nothing lurking in leaving it out. I left it out because I couldn't see any possible effect of it.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. Varian by striking out the words "or creating indebtedness."

Mr. VARIAN. I am opposed to that. While I am willing to admit there is some force in the suggestions made by the gentleman from Utah, yet, after all, you cannot deal with every detail in a great question like this. And it is true that as a whole the mass of voters everywhere who are not property holders, are not apt as a rule to give the proper consideration to questions of this kind as they would if they had a stake in the country.

Now, when you undertake to create a public indebtedness, state, county or municipal, you are practically putting a mortgage upon the property of the people. It is true that in most instances payment of that mortgage will not be had for a number of years, but who are the people at the time that have the general control, and ought to have the control of the administering of public revenue for the safety of the community? The majority of those who pay taxes as a rule.

Now, this principle involved in this section, it seems to me, is a good one, whether you levy a special tax or whether you authorize the issuing of bonds to create an indebtedness. The reason for it is to be determined, and should be determined by those who at the time are administering the affairs of the commonwealth. I am speaking of the financial affairs, and we all know how easy for persons who have no interest themselves for the time being, whatever they may possibly have in 50 years from now, in the financial affairs of the community in which they live_how easy it is for them to vote away other people's money, or to vote for the purpose of creating an indebtedness. They don't care. It is not brought home to them. I take the position that in voting to create indebtedness which those who come after you have to pay, you ought to be just as careful, just as circumspect, and act just as honestly and conscientiously in it as if you had to pay it yourself, and expect to pay it yourself with your property and that of your neighbor. Now, I do not agree with my friend from Salt Lake that the bond elections here are voted down by persons non-taxpayers. I think the taxpayers voted it down. They understood perfectly well that this pretense of eight per cent interest was all pretense. It wasn't legal. It never had any existence in law, and hasn't now. It seems to me that you will emasculate this section of much of its force and vitality, if you strike out the words, "or creating indebtedness."

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, it is not my intention to occupy the time of the Convention but a moment, and I would not do this if I were certain that this section were not interfered with, but the hasty action we took on section 7_and I think it is a very great mistake, and if I had voted for it, I would certainly move to re-consider it_prompts {782} me to say a word on section 8. It seems to me the section is all right just as it stands. It provides first this: (Reads.) We restrict the

Legislature to that extent, and then we provide that laws may be passed by the Legislature governing the right to vote upon questions where the levying of special taxes is at stake. So that I don't see anything will be gained by adopting the substitute or by changing this section from its present form. The Legislature will then have power to provide property qualification in special elections where taxes providing for indebtedness will be created, and they will have no power to provide a property qualification in general elections. I think that ought to be restricted in general elections and I think this gives them all the power they need for special elections. Those words, "or hold office," I agree with the gentleman that they seem to be perhaps necessary. I don't think they do any harm there. My opinion is we will not better it.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, the gentleman understands I am not attacking the principle of this section. I simply took the view to change it from the negative to the affirmative form_    

Mr. IVINS. I call the gentleman's attention to this fact, that if his substitute shall be put in here, there will be nothing which prohibits the Legislature from providing property qualification in a general election. There will be no prohibitory clause in this Constitution. I don't want that stricken out.

Mr. VARIAN. If that were so, I would concede to your premise, but it is not so. I call your attention to the fact that this is an affirmative declaration of what the Legislature may do in accordance with the affirmative declaration of section 22 as to qualifications of the electors. Certainly the Legislature could not go any further than that.

Mr. IVINS. Well, perhaps they could not. I am positive that they could not under section 8 as it stands, and it suits my mind better to leave it in that condition than it does to change it.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I only want to say a word about this matter of a tax for creating indebtedness. There is a reason why that should be left that has not been stated that I have heard. There was a very strong following of that kind which says all taxes shall be levied on land. We don't know what fury will take possession of the people at some future time, and they might vote everyone who had a house and home out of that house and home. It is absolutely essential. It is simply a protection to those people who have a little property, and I hope whatever other change may be made in this article that that may be left as it is.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. President, I happen to be a property owner here in Salt Lake County, and if taxes are increased any greater than what they are at the present time, I am satisfied it will pay me to sell out or close up my house and rent; and this indebtedness has been brought about by the promiscuous voting by unreasonable persons, I am satisfied, to a very great extent. I have figures here that were given to me yesterday by a man of authority on the subject, showing the indebtedness of Salt Lake City to be $2,580,000, the county $435,000, the school $825,000, and of the Territory, $700,000, making a total of $4,540,000. I have not figured the interest on this, gentlemen and Mr. President, but it seems to me that future generations for forty years to come will be born in debt. The property value of this county and city shall not be able to pay off this indebtedness. I should certainly vote to leave this clause as it is.


Mr. KERR. Mr. President, section 4 of the bill of rights, beginning on line 16, provides, "No property qualification shall ever be required of any person {783} to vote or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution." The exception I take is that which is covered by the substitute offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake. I think the objection to the substitute of the gentleman from Washington is provided for in this section of the bill of rights.

The amendment offered by Mr. Van Horne was rejected.

The question being taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Varian, the Convention divided and by a vote of 37 ayes to 44 noes the substitute was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on the striking out of the section as proposed by Mr. Ryan.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I move to strike out of line 2 the words "or hold office."

The motion was rejected.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. President, I move to amend the section as follows: To strike out all after the word "except," in line 3, and insert the following, "that in elections levying a special tax for creating indebtedness, the Legislature may provide property qualifications for persons to vote." I do not think as it stands now it is sensible at all.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, in the article on revenue, taxation, and public debt, a provision is made for a property qualification in case of certain elections. I think the article as it now stands is all right. I do not see any objection to it. There is nothing that prohibits the Legislature from providing such qualifications as may be necessary. and it is in conformity with the usages of other states, particularly as our friend, Mr. Eichnor, would say, in Washington.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move that lines 3 and 4 be transposed and begin the section so that it will read this way:

Except in elections levying a special tax or creating indebtedness, no property qualification shall ever be required for any person to vote or hold office.


The PRESIDENT. Is this an amendment to the gentleman's amendment?

Mr. GOODWIN. I beg pardon. I will withhold this.

The amendment offered by Mr. Wells was rejected.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move to amend the section as I stated.


Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Judge Goodwin a question. Is not that the duty of the committee on compilation and arrangement to transpose as they may deem it necessary?

Mr. GOODWIN. I want to fix it here, because I know if it comes back from that committee it will take another hour and a half. That is all.

The amendment of Mr. Goodwin was agreed to.

Mr. Partridge was excused from the remainder of the day's session.

Section 9 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that we take a recess until 2 o'clock.

The question being on the motion for recess, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 34 ayes and 38 noes, the motion was rejected.

Section 14 was then read as follows:

After the adoption of this Constitution, all general elections, except for municipal, school and judicial officers, shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of each even year. Special elections may be held as provided by law. The terms of all officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January next following the date of their election. Municipal, judicial, and school officers shall not be elected on any day when other officers are elected, but the time of their election shall be as provided by law.


Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I suppose that the intention is here to hold the election for school officers and judicial officers at the same time. Now, the intention of the people generally_the Legislature, has been to have school elections non-partisan. Of course we {784} would all like to have them. If they should be at the same time, it would be impossible to have them non-partisan, because I do not think we could have judicial officers elected in a non-partisan manner. Therefore, it would be a detriment to the school election. The gentleman from Salt Lake the other day said it would be a big expense on the Territory for special elections. You go to the peopie and tell them you would like to have a judicial officer elected in a non-partisan manner, they will say all very well; but if you tell them it will cost so many thousand dollars to do so, they will say, "Oh, well, boys, let us have it all together." Therefore I move you to strike out the word judicial in the 4th line, also where it appears on page 4 in line 10, so that it will read as follows:

"Except for municipal and school officers, shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of each year." Also line ten will read, "Municipal and school officers."

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, before the question is put, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee on elections a question. Mr. Chidester, is the idea of section 14 that we should elect State officers every two years?

Mr. CHIDESTER. Well, I presume that has been the practice and would likely be remedied by

the committee on schedule, I should think. I am not certain about that. But some other committee will likely regulate that.

Mr. EICHNOR. The executive department may have to be elected for four years, and there will be a conflict. This is 1895, and if we elect our State officers this year, we would have to elect State officers next year_1896.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Eichnor, I want to suggest that there will be some State officers to elect every two years, and there will have to be a member of Congress every two years.

Mr. ROBERTS. I suggest that also members of the Legislature are to be elected every two years.

Mr. EICHNOR. I believe Mr. Thurman has an amendment to it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I think there is something in the point raised by the gentleman. I had thought about it before. This says "all general elections for State officers," etc., shall be held "each even year." I think that means that all of those officers must be elected in the even years. It is a little awkward to make the amendment, but I would move to strike out "each even year," and insert in the place of it "the year in which the election for such officers is held." That will leave the Constitution in some other parts to fix the times and terms of officers, and this will comply with every case.

Mr. EICHNOR. I second Mr. Thurman's amendment.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, if they are going to amend this section, I move we take a recess until 2 o'clock.

The motion was agreed to, and the Convention then took a recess until 2 o'clock p. in.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

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

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, section 14 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage is before the Convention.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the way section 14 now stands, school and judicial officers are not elected at the general elections. It appears from the way it is stated here that the judicial officers will probably be elected at the same time, or if not, that there will be an extra election on that account. As far as school officers are concerned, we would like to have them elected at a non- partisan election, if possible, but it appears to me to be impossible to carry on elections for judicial officers and have it non-partisan, and besides that, a special election for judicial officers would create {785} expense that I think the people would not like. Therefore, I would move to amend section 14 by striking out the word "judicial," in line 4, and placing the word "and" just before the word "school," in line 4, and by placing the word "and" after "municipal," striking out

the word "judicial" in line 10, so that the section would read as follows:

After the adoption of this Constitution all general elections, except for municipal and school officers, shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of each even year. Special elections may be held as provided by law. The terms of all officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January next following the date of their election. Municipal and school officers shall not be elected on any day when other officers are elected, but the time of their election shall be as provided by law.


Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, is it still open to any further amendments?

The PRESIDENT. There have been several suggestions in the form of amendments. Mr. Thurman had an amendment pending when we adjourned, that has gone from my mind.

Mr. RICKS. It seems to me it is a very difficult thing to do anything with that section at this state of the proceedings, and I move to strike out the entire section and leave the matter to the schedule committee to adjust later.

Mr. VARIAN. I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Thurman, did you intend to present an amendment?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir; I am writing it now.

The PRESIDENT. Yours would be out of order at present, Mr. Ricks.

Mr. Thurman proposed the following amendment:

Strike out the words "each even year," in line 6, and insert in lieu thereof the words, "the year in which the election is held."


Mr. EICHNOR. I second the amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. The point of order is that this amendment that is proposed is not an amendment to the amendment, and we should dispose of one amendment before the house first.

The PRESIDENT. I had it in mind that Mr. Thurman's amendment was first. The record shows that Mr. Allen made the first amendment. The secretary informs me that Mr. Thurman's. is the only one on the records here.

Mr. ALLEN. I moved to amend first.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President_

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



Mr. VARIAN. I would like to say it does not make any difference which one we vote on first. The amendments are not germane to each other.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house will be upon Mr. Thurman's motion.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, is a substitute in order for all the amendments? I have a substitute that I would like to offer.

The substitute offered by Mr. Crane was read as follows:

After the adoption of this Constitution all general elections for State, district, county, precinct, municipal, school and judicial officers shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of the year in which the election is held. Special elections may be held as provided by law. The terms of all officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January next following the date of their election.


The Legislature may provide for separate elections for municipal and school officers.


Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, my object in this is to do away with so many elections that would otherwise be held in the State. With the exception of the election to be held the coming fall, there would be no elections held in this State once in two years. If we elect the judges of a supreme court and the judicial officers of a Territory every other year, the State will be put to an expense {786} of probably forty or forty-five or fifty thousand dollars each year for elections that can just as well be held when the State officers are elected as the year next following that. It is for the sake of economy that I introduced that substitute.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Crane a question. I see your substitute has the same expression that elections shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of each even year. Now, 1895 is an odd year. Do you intend they shall elect State officers in 1896 and 1898?

Mr. CRANE. No, sir. This year can be provided for in the schedule. This will be a special election this year. In the schedule an article can be introduced that State officers can be elected this year to remain in office either one year or three.

Mr. EICHNOR. Another question. "Each even year," when will that be?

Mr. CRANE. That will be 1896, 1898, and so on.

Mr. EICHNOR. Do you want the State officers elected every two years?

Mr. CRANE. Every two years or every four years. That can be altered by the schedule.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Crane whether he will accept the amendment offered by Mr. Thurman, and embody it instead of "each even year," to have it read "the year in which the election was held"?



Mr. CRANE. Yes, I will accept that amendment of Mr. Thurman.

Mr. THURMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Crane, if you have any particular reason for naming all of these officers? Haven't you named all that can possibly be elected?

Mr. CRANE. I tried to.

Mr. THURMAN. Why not say, "all the officers made elective by this Constitution or the laws" instead of naming everything you can think of?

Mr. CRANE. Well, I wanted to put them in there so that there would be no mistake. As there seems to be a feeling that we should elect the judicial officers of the State in a different year from what the State officers are elected, my idea was to put them all in one election, and then give the people a rest for two years_have one year when there was no election held in the State. If you elect the school officers and the judicial officers every two years, and the State officers every two years, why the Territory would be put to an expense the coming year at least of forty thousand dollars. If there is a new registration taking place every year it will be a still further expense to the State, and my impression is that these officers can be elected just as well at one time as another.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, of course I am not wedded to this section as it stands. It is a matter that a great deal of consideration was given to in the committee on elections, and we adopted it as it stands. The feeling of that committee was unanimous that at least school elections should be separated from the other elections, and that inasmuch as school elections would be separate anyway, with the same expense, or with additional expense at least, judicial officers could be elected at the same time. Now, it was suggested that there need not be a new registration, but the election could be held something as our school elections are held now, within a short time after the general election, so that the registration list would answer for the judicial and school election. I would not myself be in favor of going to the expense of new registration, just for the sake of trying to make these elections non-partisan, but if it does not require a new registration, I am in favor of having a different election. I do not believe that the election of school trustees, school county superintendents, and the superintendent of public instruction, ought to be on the same day when the Legislature is elected.
{787}
Mr. CRANE. May I ask the gentleman a question. Why do you object to that?

Mr. THURMAN. Because I am satisfied that we will act with more coolness and fairness, and a disposition to get the best man, regardless of his politics. I don't believe in carrying politics into our schools. I don't believe they have any just place in our municipal elections, and I know they have none in the judiciary_ought to have no place whatever. I do not say_

Mr. CRANE. Let me ask you another question. You will admit that politics has been carried heretofore into our school affairs, as well as into our judicial affairs, and always will be?

Mr. THURMAN. No, I do not admit that_I will admit that if your amendment prevails, it always

will be, and that is just what I would like to see defeated.

Mr. CHIDESTER. May I ask the gentleman a question? In your opinion, Mr. Thurman, in electing the judicial officers as mentioned in this section, in connection with school officers, would not that be just as apt to make it partisan?

Mr. THURMAN. I don't think so, but if so, then I say put the judicial officers to the general officers of the State, because I certainly want to keep politics, if I can, out of the schools. I have seen this question of politics carried in the schools so far that it got right down to the teacher, and the question arose, "what is the politics of that teacher?" I say, gentlemen, when it comes to that it is a shame. I will admit that is not a perfect scheme by any means, but it has a tendency in that direction. Why, down here in our county, after the general election last fall, the two parties had no trouble to agree on men to put up as candidates of the school_absolutely no trouble at all. The election was over. The intense party feeling had subsided. Men came to look upon things for the general good of the community, regardless of politics. They said, "now who will we have for our school board in Provo?" That was only one instance. We agreed upon our men, we put them up and the two parties voted for them, and politics, never entered into the question at all. I say, that we can do that if we would try, but gentlemen we cannot do it on the general election day, no matter how hard you try. We can do it if we will separate those days.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, it is evident that we ought to have an eye now under our laws to the saving all the expense we can, and, to me, I have not seen or heard any valid reason advanced here why we should separate the times of electing those different officers. I never claimed to be much of a politician. But I am more of the policy man than the politician, and I am more for the man that is capable of filling the office than I am for anything else. That has always been my policy. I have not been able to see anything yet to hinder a man from voting at any general election for the man he wants, and the man that gets the highest number of votes is the person declared elected, or should be. And why should we argue the point of politics? What has it to do with it? Vote for the men we want, irrespective of politics. I cannot see any propriety of bringing any politics into this at all. I don't hear any argument in favor of it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if this question had come up before we adjourned this morning, I think very likely I would have voted to have had one general election cover all the cases that are enumerated in the substitute offered by the gentleman from Millard, but after devoting some consideration to that subject, during the intermission, I have come to the conclusion, sir, that I would prefer to see some of these elections separated. And one of my reasons for wishing that so is this: That if you {788} have municipal elections and school elections at the same time that we have our general election for representative to Congress, for members of the Legislature, you will have the local issues, and fitness of these men for positions in municipal and school elections, so overshadowed by the general topics that up in a general election, that proper consideration for the local officers to be elected and the fitness of the candidates would be entirely overlooked. Another thing that occurs to me as being against this proposition is that you fix by this proposition in the substitute, all the municipal elections and all the school elections at two years. The term of office in all those cases must be two years. Now, I take it that in the municipal government, perhaps that might not always be desirable, and that the people of the municipality

would prefer to have annual elections every two years. And in consequence of the fact that these local questions affecting these school and municipal officers would be crowded out of proper consideration by the general topics considered in the election_and for that reason I would prefer to see not only judicial elections, but elections for school officers, and also municipal elections held on a different date, at a different time than our general elections. I therefore trust that the substitute will not prevail in those particulars at least.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I certainly am not in favor of the substitute. So far as school elections are concerned, we do not want to have our school elections mixed up with other elections, for several reasons_the reason set forth by the gentleman from Utah and also from Davis. And there is another thing that would interfere in the election of school officers. Our school year ends on the 30th of June at the present time, and it is certainly the best time that it could end, because the school commences in the fall and there is a continuous term from then until the next year. That is our school year, and the summer time is the best time for a vacation. Now, this would provide the school officers should be elected in the fall, and this was tried by the Legislature. The Legislature established that, and it was abandoned, and for very good reasons. The school officers would be elected in the fall. They come right into the middle of the school year_the middle of the term_and take hold of the school business. They don't know what arrangements the previous trustees have made, and if they do know they don't take much notice of the arrangements that have been made by the previous trustees, and it interferes with the school business. It interferes with the school system and the interest of our school, and I think that we should have the school officers elected in July and not in November. And we should leave that to the Legislature so that the Legislature can regulate it, and if they see fit to change the school system, then they might possibly change the election, but the election of school officers should be made at a time to fit the school system. And I certainly hope that the feelings we had here on our general election_and I have found invariably that this feeling is growing. I dislike seeing it in our school affairs, but we should study school economy and these elections should all take place at one time and not any oftener than once in two years.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, is an amendment now in order to the substitute?

The PRESIDENT. Yes.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I would like to inquire how many amendments are before us.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order, that the substitute itself is nothing more or less than an amendment. It ought not to have been entertained, but I did not care to {789} take up the time of the Convention, but now I shall have to insist on the rule.

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

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I would like to know where we stand. I understand the rule to be that we have got to perfect this substitute if it is going to be voted in, before we vote on it. If the substitute is not in order, a vote may be taken on the other amendments until the substitute shall be in order, because I have an amendment to offer to that substitute.



The PRESIDENT. I think then we had better clear up some of these amendments.

The question then will be upon the amendment of Mr. Thurman.

Mr. CRANE. I would like the permission of the house to amend the substitute and add a few words.

The PRESIDENT. We will consider these other propositions first.

Mr. Thurman's amendment was then read.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, Mr. Crane accepted Mr. Thurman's amendment, and consequently it is merged into Mr. Crane's substitute.

Mr. THURMAN. Hardly. Mr. Crane offered an entirely different proposition, but on that particular part he was willing to accept the same language which I offered to the section, and the section as it stands here, in order that you may understand it, I will read it: "After the adoption of this Constitution all general elections for State, county, district, precinct, and municipal officers, except school and judicial officers, shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of the year in which the election is held." No matter whether they are elected for four years, six years or two years, or what time, the year in which the election is held for these officers, which will be on Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The amendment of Mr. Thurman was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. Now, the question recurs on the amendment of Mr. Allen to this section.

Mr. Allen's proposed amendment was read by the secretary.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I call for a division on that. It is impossible to put it all together. It is an amendment in two or three different lines.

The PRESIDENT. To strike out the word judicial, in line four, and place the word "and" before school, in line four.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The next part of the proposed amendment is to strike out the word "judicial," in line ten.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. Now comes the substitute of Mr. Crane.

Mr. THORESEN. I now ask that my amendment to that substitute be read.



(The president here called Mr. Varian to the chair.)

The proposed amendment of Mr. Crane was read.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, the more I hear said and the more I hear read, the more I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Millard County. I have had some observation regarding the elections in my time, and I say that any country that can avoid elections every alternate year is very fortunate. It is not only the expense of the election, but it is the distracting of our business affairs that elections cause in a community. It takes men away from their business. It engenders bad feelings, and it accomplishes nothing. Now, some of our speakers on the floor have enlarged on the propriety of keeping politics out of the judiciary and school affairs. Now, I agree with those gentlemen; that is true. But why not let us abolish politics from everything? Let us not have any more. Let us not elect any governors or any sheriffs, nor any mayors, nor any other officers {790} with politics. Let us abolish the whole business. Now, gentlemen, it is mere moonshine to talk such stuff. The government of the United States is controlled by two great parties. Sometimes we have a little side issue, but the history is it is two dominant parties that control this country, and I don't believe that this country would be one-half as great to-day as it is, had it not been for that system of government of this nation. It is one party watching the other. It is one party holding in check the other. That is the reason or the secret of the enforcement of nominating good officers, and of officers performing their duty.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Mr. James, will you suspend a moment until I can get the whole question before the house? The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Thoreson to strike out, where it shall occur in the substitute offered by Mr. Crane, the words "school and municipal," and add to the substitute "provided, that school and municipal officers shall not be elected on any day when other officers are elected, but the time of their election shall be provided by law."

The question will be on the amendment.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment. If it is the proper thing to do, then this matter should be left to the Legislature. Now, what is the use of encumbering our Constitution with a whole lot of laws that are of no avail and we cannot get rid of them? Now, if it is absolutely true, as has been argued on this floor, that you can separate these elections and prevent politics going into them, maybe that may do some good, but I claim it cannot be done. We have had lessons right here before our eyes_examples which were given to you here last November. We saw just as much politics in a bond election or in school election for trustees as we saw almost on the day that we elected our delegate to Congress. If you were around the polls in the fifth precinct, I say to you, gentlemen, you did. You saw the teams, the workers, the whole paraphernalia. that is brought to bear in any general election, there at that school election; and you cannot do it. But if it is true that you can do it, allow the Legislature to do it, so that they can do it specifically and in detail and in a way that they are not bound hand and foot, so that they have got to stick to some proposition whether successful or not. Consequently I am opposed to that.


Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I am not in favor of the substitute offered by the honorable gentleman from Millard. I am rather disposed to favor the amendment that was offered by the gentleman on my right. I am opposed, Mr. President and gentlemen, to mixing political matters and feelings with our educational interests. I think that this should be avoided if possible, while at the same time I desire to study economy reasonably; but if there is any institution or interest in this Territory that we want to guard well it is that of educational matters. And while I understand the school law at present is working reasonably well in our Territory, I understand at the same time that the, school year ends in the summer season, sometime in June. I believe it is nothing but right and proper that we should adopt the amendment to the substitute leaving out our educational interest_I am not so particular with regard to the municipal affairs_and then allow the Legislature to make the necessary provisions for the holding of school elections. Therefore, I shall vote for the amendment to the substitute.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment to the substitute. I think that it ought to be left as has been suggested by the gentleman from Iron County, to the Legislature, but I take it that the substitute that was offered will reach that provision. {791} As I understand it, it provides that the Legislature may provide by law for the holding of school elections as well as municipal elections, upon some other time than that of the general election. So far as I am concerned individually, I would much prefer that it have the municipal elections in it. I believe that it is one of the elections that has a tendency to engender more bitter feelings, that it is one of the elections that is fought harder than any election that is held in the Territory. I think that in the interest of economy_in business, in the interest of good feeling among our people, that our elections should come at the same time except as to school elections, and the substitute provides that the Legislature may regulate that. Now, sir, the expense of our school elections is very nominal, each district providing its own regulations. Under the present law the trustees act as the judges of election. It is something that is confined to each locality. It will not be necessary to stump this Territory from one end to the other, thereby creating great expense, but I am certainly in favor of holding our elections upon the self-same day, beginning with the head of the State, down to the municipal, including the precincts, and all for the reason that has been stated by the other gentlemen, in the interest of economy.

Let the people rest at least one year, and not engender the feeling appurtenant to our elections since our division upon party lines; and I am certainly in favor of this substitute. I hope it shall prevail. I hope the amendment will be defeated and that we shall incorporate right in the Constitution that article providing for the election of all the various organizations of this new State, upon the self-same day, leaving the question of schools and municipalities to the Legislature, for the reason that I believe their good wisdom and their good judgment having come from among the people, will suggest to them that that of the cities may be incorporated in the general election.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I believe that my amendment is necessary in order to carry out the ideas that the gentleman has to the substitute as originally offered.

Mr. Crane's substitute was then read by request.


Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the words "municipal and school" to be stricken out of my substitute.

Mr. THORESON. My amendment covers that ground. I wish to explain that the substitute just read is not the original substitute, but it has been amended by the gentleman since I offered my amendment to his substitute.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The gentleman from Millard asked leave to amend his substitute some moments ago.

Mr. CRANE. I accept Mr. Thoreson's amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Oh, no.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, the way I understand the amendment of Mr. Thoreson, that makes it imperative that municipal and school elections must be held on a separate day. The way I understand the substitute of Mr. Crane is, the Legislature may provide for a separate election of municipal and school officers.

Mr. CRANE. That is the way I understand Mr. Thoreson's. I would like to hear the amendment read.

Mr. Thoreson's amendment was read.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I would like to ask Mr. Crane a question. The substitute you offer now_if you understand that to provide that all the officers both school and municipal should be elected on the same day, while it may be provided that the school and municipal officers must be elected at the same day, is that it?

Mr. CRANE. The Legislature may provide different days if it sees proper {792} so to do. It puts it in the power of the Legislature entirely.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, are amendments still in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. One amendment is.

Mr. CANNON. I move that we strike out, commencing in the seventh line_

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Not an amendment to the section but an amendment to the substitute.

Mr. CANNON. I believe the language is the same, but I am not sure. The words, "the terms of all officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January next, following the date of their election." I move that this provision be stricken out.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Will the gentleman reduce it to writing? We cannot keep this at all

correct unless you put it in writing. Send up your motion.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I second it.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Might I ask Mr. Thoreson a question?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. One moment, if you please, until we get this.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, my reason for making this motion is that collectors in the various counties throughout the Territory assume the duties of their office about June or July. I think if you made it so that they are compelled to take their office on the first Monday in January, it would be very awkward. Taxes are not settled usually until about that time. I think it would be very awkward for the officer retiring to close up his books at that time. I think it can be still left to the Legislature. This is the reason I desire it stricken out.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I believe the substitute of Mr. Crane, after adopting my amendment, leaves that out.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair is of the opinion that Mr. Cannon's amendment is not an amendment to the section, but an amendment to the substitute, and the question will first recur therefore on Mr. Thoreson's amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I would like to ask Mr. Thoreson one question. Is it the intention of your amendment to provide that the Legislature must have the election for municipalities at a different time?

Mr. THORESON. Yes, sir; and school officers at another time.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am in favor of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Millard. I think we ought to hold our elections on the same day, except for school officers. If the substitute is adopted, I give notice that I shall offer an amendment to strike out the word "school" and have all other elections on the same day in order to save expense and give people a rest from political trouble.

The question being taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Thoreson, it was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question recurs upon the motion of Mr. Kimball.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Millard was amended by_

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Mr. Thoreson's motion was lost.

Mr. KERR. Would that leave it optional with the Legislature as to whether school officers should be elected at the general election or not?



The PRESIDENT pro tem. If it is desired I will have it read or read it again, as it will be if this motion shall prevail.

Mr. Crane's proposed substitute was re-read.

Mr. KERR. I would like, Mr. President, to inquire if an amendment is still in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. An amendment to the amendment is in order. An amendment to the substitute can be reached after this motion is disposed of.
{793}
The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Cannon to amend the substitute the, Convention divided, and the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the substitute.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move that the word "municipal" be stricken out.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The house has just refused to strike out the word "municipal" in a prior amendment.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move that the amendment to the substitute be laid on the table.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I have a substitute that I wish to present, and they might both be laid on the table at the same time.

The motion of Mr. Goodwin was rejected.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I have a substitute for the whole section. I think, if read, it would answer the whole thing.

Mr. Farr's proposed substitute was read as follows:

All general elections shall be held on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of the year in which the election is held. Special elections shall be had as may be provided by law. The terms of all officers elected at any general election, shall commence on the first Monday on January next following the date of their election.


The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question recurs upon the substitute of Mr. Crane.

Mr. FARR. My purpose in offering that is this. We are not making any laws to take effect until after the Constitution is adopted. Consequently there is no use saying anything about that. The law cannot take effect until after the adoption of the Constitution, and we are not making the law for any other state, but this State.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, in view of the prevailing practice in the Territory of having the county collectors of taxes begin their terms of office on the first of June of each year, I move to

insert in that substitute of Mr. Crane these words, "except county collectors whose terms of office shall begin on the first day of June after the date of their election."

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Where would the gentleman insert that?

Mr. SQUIRES. In the second clause providing for the terms of office.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. I will state that this method of handing in amendments is liable to result in these statements of the propositions before the house. All amendments ought to refer with precision where they are designed to be incorporated, and the name of the mover ought to be attached, because it is impossible for the clerks to keep a correct record of it. We are in convention now, and there is a record to be kept of all of this. As a matter of necessity the chair will attempt to fix the place where this amendment shall be placed. After the word "officers" and before the word "shall," in line 4 of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Millard, insert "except county collectors whose terms of office shall begin as provided by law."

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the substitute of Mr. Crane.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word "school" in the 4th line, I think it is of the substitute.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The house has already refused to strike out the word "school" on a prior vote.

Mr. HART. Not on this question. It was a different question. I beg the pardon of the chair for interrupting him. I have an amendment to offer to this section. I move to strike out the word "judicial"_I don't know the number of the line.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It is on the 4th line.

Mr. HART. Strike out the word "judicial" in the 4th line, and insert it {794} in the 7th, making it possible for the Legislature to provide for a certain time for election for judicial officers as well as school and municipal.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. We will have to have it in writing. It is impossible to keep the record here at all unless you do. The question recurs upon the motion of Mr. Hart to strike out the word "judicial," in the 4th line, and insert the same after the word "municipal," in the last line of the section, so that, as proposed to be amended, the section would read, "After the adoption of this Constitution, all general elections for State, district, county, precinct, municipal, and school officers shall be held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November of the year in which the election is held," and as inserted in the last line "the Legislature may provide for certain elections for municipal, judicial, and school officers."


Mr. HART. Mr. President, in view of the peculiar construction of the first part of that it will not be necessary to strike out the word "judicial" in the 4th line. I ask consent of the house to modify my amendment so as not to strike out the word "judicial," in the 4th line, but simply insert it in the last line.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. If there is no objection the chair will arrange the motion in that way.
The motion of Mr. Hart then is simply to insert the word "judicial" after "municipal," in the last line of the section.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, if this word "judicial" is stricken out it compels us to have a separate election throughout the entire State.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. There is no motion to strike out "judicial." The motion is to insert "judicial" in the last line.

Mr. CRANE. Well, it is the same thing. It provides for the general election for a judicial officer throughout the State.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment for the reasons already given, that we should hold all these elections on one day and save expense to the State of a separate election, which would be absolutely necessary if the Legislature should provide for an election of the judiciary at a certain election. When a municipal election is called the expense would be on the municipality, and there would be only a few cities in the State where such an election would be necessary, but a judicial election will be an election for the Whole State, and it puts an additional expense on the State for registration and everything of that sort.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, it seems to me the Legislature might be entrusted with that. There are a great many here who are opposed to having judges elected on the same days with other officers. The extra expense in that event will simply be the election judges' salaries for that day, because the same registration would be used in the general election, and the Legislature would take care of it. I think it is all right as it stands. I think that should be included with the municipal elections and school officers. Of course, there are some offices to trade on if they are all elected on the same day, but there is a feeling in the community that judges ought to be above having a scramble in their elections; that the very best man ought to be elected judge, no matter to what party he belongs, and, at least, that the people should not be distracted in judging whom to vote for for judge by the turmoil of a general election day. Perhaps there is nothing in it but sentiment, but it is just as safe to leave that to the Legislature as it is to make an ironclad rule that the Legislature cannot avoid if they wish. I hope the amendment will prevail, and leave the thing back the way it was in the beginning, except that instead of {795} being mandatory in the Constitution, it will be in the province of the Legislature to change it if they want to.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I am fully in sympathy with the substitute. I think that probably the whole section might well go out as being legislation, and that the whole matter could be safely entrusted to the Legislature, and I am surely opposed to the motion that we are sitting here as a perpetual legislature, which shall be for all time, as the people of Utah, and

wherever we can consistently leave to the people, through their representatives elected, the ordinary matters of particular details, I am in favor of it, and for that reason, I am heartily in sympathy with the substitute.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, is another amendment in order now at this stage?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. There can hardly be an amendment to this section because it is simply to insert a word.

Mr. PETERS. Or a substitute?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It will be in order after the motion is disposed of; there is already a substitute to be passed upon.

Are you ready for this question, to insert the word "judicial?"

The question being taken, the Convention divided and by a vote of 39 ayes to 41 noes, the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the substitute offered by Mr. Crane.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, if it is in order now, I wish to offer my substitute.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. There are two substitutes then pending for the first section. I will have them both read.

The proposed substitute of Mr. Farr was read as follows:

All general elections shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of the year in which the election is held. Special elections shall be held as provided by law. The terms of all general officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January first following the date of their election.


The proposed substitute of Mr. Peters was read as follows:

After the adoption of this Constitution, all elections shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of each even year; provided, that the Legislature may provide for special elections for school officers.


The PRESIDENT pro tem. Neither of these substitutes are amendments to this. The question will first recur on the substitute offered by Mr. Crane.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I certainly will have to vote against this substitute for the reason that "school" is in there, and the position we should be placed in if this should prevail with schools in there_as we have it now, the Legislature has provided for holding an election in July. After the adoption of this Coustitution we must hold our election for school officers in November, and

then the Legislature may meet and provide by law for holding an election in July again, and it will interfere with our school system, and I certainly cannot vote for the substitute with the word "school" in as it is now.

The question being taken on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. Crane, the Convention divided and by a vote of 36 ayes to 52 noes, the substitute was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs on the substitute offered by Mr. Farr.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I would just like to say a word on that. I am satisfied that every thing that has been spoken of here is embraced in this section, if they will examine carefully the phraseology of it. I am in favor of giving the Legislature the privilege of making laws for special things. I do not see that there is any use of lumbering up our Constitution with special laws, but leave that to the Legislature.
{796}
Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I have a substitute here that I would like to offer by consent of the delegates.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It will be passed on after a vote on this, unless it is an amendment to this substitute. Is it a substitute for the entire section?

Mr. ELDREDGE. It is a substitute for the entire section.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair will order it read after disposing of this.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. President, I also have a substitute for the entire section.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. We will dispose of it when we dispose of these.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, as we have been proceeding here these other substitutes have been read before action has been taken on the first one. In justice, I think these substitutes ought to be read, too_    

The PRESIDENT pro tem. All the gentleman has to do is to call for the reading.

Mr. SQUIRES. I call for the reading of Mr. Eldredge's substitute.

Mr. BARNES. I desire to have mine read.

Mr. Strevell, by request, was excused indefinitely on account of illness.

Mr. Barnes' proposed substitute was read as follows:

All elections shall be held at such time as the Legislature may provide.
Mr. Eldredge's proposed substitute was read as follows:



All elections for State, district, county, precinct, municipal, school, and judicial officers shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of each even year. The terms of all officers elected at any general election shall commence as may be provided by law. The Legislature may provide for special elections.


The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question was upon Mr. Farr's substitute.

The substitute offered by Mr. Farr was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the substitute offered by Mr. Peters.

Mr. PETERS. There is an objection that I seek to remedy in this amendment, and that is the matter of the officers assuming their duties on the first day of January after their election. As the law stands at present, the collectors don't assume their duties until later in the year, but if this substitute is adopted you will find that the Legislature will have the sole power of fixing the time that every officer assumes his duty, and also the time that it expires. It simply provides that the election shall be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday. It fixes a uniform day for holding of elections, not general. You will notice the article as it now reads is that after the adoption of this Constitution all general elections for State_and so on, shall be held. This simply says that all elections, excepting school elections, shall be held on that day. It even provides that special elections shall be called on that day, although it affords an opportunity at least that they can be called on separate years, but on the day that the general election is held. It seems to me this would cover a great many objections that have been brought up during this discussion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would ask the gentleman from Box Elder a question. Your substitute provides for special elections being held on the same day as general elections?

Mr. PETERS. It does not provide for special at all. The Legislature would naturally have that power. It simply provides that all elections shall be held on one day.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That would require a special election to be held on that day also, would it not?

Mr. PETERS. Well, it is questionable. I think it would. It may not be the same year.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The very object {797} of a special election is to fill some vacancy, is it not?

Mr. PETERS. Well I think that our Constitution provides that these vacancies may be filled by the executive. Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think not until a special election can be held for that pnrpose [*note*].

The substitute of Mr. Peters was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the substitute offerred by Mr. Eldredge.



Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, the object of this was to get all elections held on one day as has been stated here, in order to save the expense of an election each year. It will save us from going through a state of excitement and unnecessary expense for election, but it is left that the Legislature may provide for a time that the persons shall assume the duties of the office, so that it can be arranged that one class of officers may assume their duties on the first of January, or the collector may assume his duties on the first of June, and that school officers may assume theirs on the first day of July, just as it may be arranged and provided for by the Legislature. It is to be left exclusively within its power.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Eldredge you have that phrase in there, "of each even year." Do you contemplate another election for State officers next year?

Mr. ELDREDGE. I contemplate that the general election shall be held on each even year, but not necessarily that an officer should only hold his term of office for two years. He may hold it for four or six.

Mr. EICHNOR. He would be elected a State officer this year, then, according to that substitute would he be elected again?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. I think it is better not to have colloquy of that kind. Let the gentleman propound his questions and take the answers. It is utterly impossible for anybody to understand what you say, and we cannot permit it. Let the gentleman propound his question and the answer be given, and stop with that.

Mr. EICHNOR. Do you intend by your substitute to hold an election this year for State officers?

Mr. ELDREDGE. I think an election shall be held this year.

Mr. EICHNOR. When is the next election to be held for governor?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Under this, it would have to be provided, it would be in any even year_ whether we provide in the schedule it shall be next year or two years hence.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I call attention of the gentleman from Summit to the words, "each even year." That has been stricken out by Mr. Thurman's motion and there is inserted in lieu thereof, "the year the elections are held." Now, it strikes me these matters ought all to go out. It is a matter strictly legislative, and it ought to be postponed until the coming in of the report of the committee on schedule and future amendments.

Mr. Eldredge's proposed substitute was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the substitute offered by Mr. Barnes.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I move this section and all amendments be committed to the committee on schedule and future amendments.



The PRESIDENT pro tem. It takes the article with it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I am opposed to recommitting the section. I see that this house is getting back just as fast as it can to accept this matter about as the committee on elections brought it in. They have voted down everything. I think they have voted now on about everything except that, and I think we ought to have a vote upon the question as it now stands_the printed report as amended this afternoon.
{798}
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, would this motion to recommit take the entire article with it?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Does the gentleman address the Convention or the chair?

Mr. ANDERSON. I am opposed to recommiting this; I think we should settle it now.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair is perfectly willing to answer the gentleman if the question is put to the chair.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, are substitutes still in order? [Laughter.]

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Not while this motion is pending.

The question being taken on the motion to recommit, the Convention divided and the motion was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is now upon the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. Barnes.

The substitute was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I desire to read a substitute which I will offer and if I get a second to it, I wili make a remark or two to explain it.

After the adoption of this Constitution, all general elections for State, district, county, precinct, municipal, school, and judicial officers shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of the year in which the election is held. Special elections may be held as provided by law. Until otherwise provided by law the terms of all officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January next following the date of their election; provided, that the Legislature may provide for separate elections for judicial, school and municipal officers.


I desire to state in support of this substitute that it seems to me to meet the situation of the Convention. In the first place, objection was made by the gentleman from Salt Lake that the article as proposed and the substitutes would require the collector to assume the duties of this office on the first of January. This will be obviated by the words, "unless the Legislature otherwise provide." No collector will be elected this fall. The Legislature can provide the method by which the collector can go out of office in June during its next session. All the elections are held together unless the Legislature provides that school elections and judicial elections and

municipal be held at some time or another, but if it does not provide for that, then all these elections will be held on the same day. Now, it would seem to me that that meets the whole situation, and it is not changing the article very much either.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move to strike out the entire section. I am not particularly anxious to press this, since the substitute offered by the gentleman from Weber County. There is one thing I would like to ask him, whether it would not be just as well to leave this entire clause out_one providing for the time at which the officers shall assume the duties of their offices? It is purely legislative and if left out would be attended to by the Legislature anyway.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I will answer that in this way. At this general election this fall we elect our State officers. It is impossible to ascertain when they shall enter upon the duties of their office, until after the Legislature meets. They should enter upon the duties of their office on the first day of January. That provides for that set of officers and makes it all right, and then the Legislature can provide when the terms of the officers may end and when the subsequent set of officers may enter upon the duties of their offices.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Wouldn't the officers elected this fall_the State officers_take office as soon as the Presfdent's proclamation was issued?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If we did not have any provision at all, you mean?
{799}
Mr. SQUIRES. Yes.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Well, possibly that is true, but I will answer this, Mr. Squires, it would be a very peculiar thing, however, that the officers should take the oath of office immediately after their election. I think the Territorial officers ought to continue until after the first of January. It is only a little while anyway.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair is of the opinion that the question recurs upon the motion to strike out.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, my reason for moving to strike out the entire section is that I think it will come better from the committee on schedule. I rather favor Mr. Evans's substitute, but I think it would be better to leave it until that committee reports.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I was going to inquire if the motion of Mr. Cannon is not really included as a component part of the motion of Mr. Evans. His is a substitute which includes the motion to strike out section 14 and insert in place thereof the matter he has prepared.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. That is true, but if the house should adopt Mr. Evans's substitute then the motion would recur upon the motion to strike out. It would be in the position of undoing what it had done a moment before.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to strike out for the reason that the

function of the committee on future amendments and schedule is not to provide for the terms of officers, but simply to provide that certain officers of the State may begin their terms of office before the day fixed in the Constitution. For instance, the question proposed by Mr. Squires_whether the governor and other State officers would not take their office before the first Monday in January. If the schedule provides for that contingency, they have the right to do so, but not to fix the terms of all the officers in the State.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, are substitutes still in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair will rule that where there are several substitutes like this pending, for the entire section, a motion to strike out, of necessity must be disposed of first, and then substitutes will be in order. I have two or three here.

Mr. CRANE. I have one that I think will meet all the requirements of the case.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair does not doubt it. [Laughter]. But as a matter of parliamentary rule, I shall hold to the motion before the house_

Mr. HART. Would the ruling of the chair then be that the motion of Mr. Cannon, if defeated, would be equivalent to agreeing to retain the section as it now stands?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Not at all. I should hold that a motion to strike out and insert was in order.

The motion of Mr. Cannon was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now recurs upon the motion to strike out and insert the substitute offered by the gentleman from Weber, Mr. Evans.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would like to ask Mr. Evans a question for information. Suppose we elect in November. The proclamation of the President does not come until the 10th of January. When will those officers be given their offices? Under your amendment, as I understand it, they are to be seated on the first Monday in January, President or no President.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Of course, if there would be no State there would be no officers.

Mr. GOODWIN. Then they would not have their offices until a year from January?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That merely {800} fixes it for the future. Under the peculiar position which you present they could not take their offices on the first of January, but would take them immediately after the proclamation was issued.

Mr. GOODWIN. I only asked for information.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will state further that the schedule will provide that these officers are not

to take their offices until after the proclamation is issued.

Mr. GOODWIN. The reason I asked is I knew the President was a little peculiar and he suspends the law occasionally.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Well, I move that he issue his proclamation before the first day of January.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I move to amend by striking the word "school" out of the substitute. I do not know what line it is in.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair hears no second.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I would like to hear my substitute read.

The same was read as follows:

After the adoption of this Constitution all general elections for State, judicial, district, county, and precinct officers shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November of the year in which the general election is held. The term of all officers elected at any general election shall commence on the first Monday in January next following the date of their election. The Legislature may provide for special elections for municipal and school officers.


Mr. NEBEKER. Mr. President, I am against the field in favor of the section as it came from the committee of the whole and amended in this Convention this afternoon. I think that the printed matter with the amendments that have already prevailed_the amendment of Mr. Thurman, makes this section complete, with the exception possibly of its being necessary to provide for the collector, and I would favor an amendment to provide for that collector, and outside of that I would like to see the section as it now stands placed before this Convention and all substitutes voted down.

The question being taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Evans, of Weber, it was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The quesnow recurs upon the substitute offered by Mr. Coray as follows:

After the adoption of this Constitution the first Legislature shall provide for all general and special elections in the State.


The substitute was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now apparently recurs upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Millard. Is it the same practically that was presented in the former substitute?

Mr. CRANE. With the exception of the school and municipal officers. I have eliminated them from that substitute.


Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words "after the adoption of this Constitution," in the substitute.

The motion of Mr. Van Horne was rejected.

The question being taken on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. Crane, the Convention divided, and by vote of 32 ayes to 47 noes the substitute was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The clerk will read section 15.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I understand that Mr. Nebeker offered some amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. He didn't send it up.

Section 15 was read.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question before the Convention_

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I was going to move the adoption of the article as amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It is not necessary, I believe. As I understand it, the question before the Convention {801} is the passage upon the third reading of the article.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I understand we are now about to take the vote on the article as amended. Before we proceed to that I would like to call the attention of the Convention to the situation that we will be in. During the rather heated debate upon the first section of this article, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Thurman, made the statement here, which I believe he made in good faith, that if the time should come later on when the Convention should discover that a mistake had been made in adopting this first section as it stands, he would join with the minority in asking for a reconsideration of that vote. I call the attention of the house now to this parliamentary condition, that if we pass this section to-day by a roll call we put it beyond the power of my friend from Utah County or any other county in the Territory to reconsider this proposition. Now, I believe that some action should be taken, in view of the widespread interest there is manifested in this subject throughout the Territory, whereby at some future time, if it shall seem wise to the Convention, we may reopen this subject for a final vote. I merely call the attention of the Convention to that fact. After this roll call has been taken it is passed beyond our power to reconsider it under the rule. I ask Mr. Thurman if he does not consider that is the situation.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, it has been called to my attention to-day that having adopted Roberts' rules of order, a motion to reconsider must be made on the same day on which the act took place that it is desired to reconsider. Now, I know the gentleman don't intend to put me in any false position. I remember my position on this question, but I will say this, and I believe I ought to have the unanimous consent right here granted, that by a two-thirds vote not only the proposition in the mind of the gentleman from Salt Lake, but any proposition in this Constitution

should be reconsidered at any time, and with the unanimous consent of the Convention I will move now that that rule which requires a motion to reconsider on the same day_that that portion of the rule binding this body be indefinitely postponed. I think if two-thirds of this Convention at any time want to reconsider a question that they ought to have permission to do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair will suggest to the gentleman from Utah that two-thirds of the Convention can suspend the rule. The gentleman isn't accomplishing anything by that proposition.

Mr. THURMAN. The only suggestion is this, that it be suspended now so as to meet the fears of the gentleman that we may not be able to reconsider this after this vote.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). So that a motion to reconsider would not be ruled out of order?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; as far as the vote is concerned, I think we ought to vote on this article. I think we ought to pass it or reject it by the ayes and noes.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. What is the gentleman's motion?

Mr. THURMAN. My motion is that that portion of the rule which requires that the motion to reconsider be made on the same day be suspended indefinitely, as to this case or any other.

Mr. JAMES. I was going to ask Mr. Thurman if he would not include in that motion a majority in place of two-thirds?

Mr. THURMAN. Oh, no.

Mr. JAMES. The reason why I ask him this question is I find that in the proceedings in some conventions that rule was adopted for the reason that some things might arise afterward that it was considered important to reconsider.
{802}
Mr. HART. Mr. President; I do not object to the motion of the gentleman to suspend the rules so far as this question is concerned, but the practical effect of his motion to dispose of this article would be to suspend our rules. Of course, it could not be done, I take it, except it comes up in the usual way. I therefore move, as an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Utah, that we suspend this so far as the article that we are now considering is concerned. Of course this matter might be reached in a different way without a motion to suspend this rule or making a motion to reconsider now and then laying it on the table. It could be taken up by a majority vote at any time, and the question of that two-thirds' majority_I think the gentleman must be laboring under a mistake here. As I understand it, our rules provide a different rule from that indicated. I therefore move that we make this apply simply to the article that we are now considering_elections and suffrage.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. It is moved and seconded that the original motion be amended so as to read substantially in this wise:



That the general rule of order providing that a motion to reconsider cannot be made after the day upon which the vote is taken, shall be suspended in the matter of article relating to elections and rights of suffrage_

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think that it would be a dangerous position to leave ourselves here in, on questions in general, if, after calling the yeas and nays on a question and finally disposing of it in that way_if, without notice, a person could take up a question like that any time. You would never know when any question might come up.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. Unless I have unanimous consent, this whole thing is out of order, and it seems I have not got it.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. I don't agree with the gentleman; I think a two-thirds' vote can suspend a rule at any time.

MR. THURMAN. It seems we cannot bring it up in a proceeding like this.

Mr. HART. I don't think the motion should apply to anything further than the article on suffrage and elections, otherwise we will never know when some person moves to reconsider a matter that we think had been passed on. All a man would have to do would be to wait until a number of the friends of the measure are out of the house and then he would move a reconsideration, and get a different ruling, perhaps.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Does not this have the effect of establishing a new rule under Mr. Thurman's motion?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. No; Mr. Thurman's motion, as originally put, the chair would hold that it would modify and change the standing rule; as proposed to be amended, the chair would hold it would be a suspension for a particular purpose.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I make the point of order against the original motion for the reason that it is out of order and cannot be presented that way.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair would hold that the rule sending it to a committee may be suspended by a two-thirds vote. We cannot determine that until the vote is taken. The question is on the amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am in favor of the suspension of the rule, and I would go further than the gentleman has on my part, and everybody knows, too, how I stand, but I would permit a majority of this Convention to reconsider that question, if a majority wanted to do so. I therefore move as an amendment to the amendment that a majority of the Convention may bring this matter up for reconsideration.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Gentlemen, {803} it is not necessary. If the amendment proposed by Mr. Hart shall prevail, or whether it does or not, a majority under the rule can reconsider. The

only question here is that your standing rule prohibits from making any motion to reconsider after the day upon which the vote is taken. Now, it is sought to suspend that rule by the amendment and by the original motion as modified.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, do I understand the ruling of the chair to be that a majority can reconsider at any time, or a two-thirds majority?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair does not rule that a reconsideration can be had at any time. There is no ruling to be made. The chair is of the opinion that a motion to reconsider, if properly made, can be carried by a majority under your rules, but the only question is whether you can suspend the rule as to the time when the motion can be made.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I oppose Mr. Evans's motion. Is that before the house?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. No, sir. He has made no motion.

The amendment offered by Mr. Hart was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question now comes upon the motion as amended.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Now, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, I will state this motion as I understand it to be carried, and if the secretary hasn't it in accordance with the statement of the chair, one or the other of us will be corrected. The standing rule of the Convention providing that motions to reconsider may not be made after the day upon which a vote sought to be reconsidered is suspended in the particular case of the article on elections and rights of suffrage. The question now recurs upon the final roll call. The first section has been passed, has it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. On the remaining portion of this section.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, there are a number of gentlemen present to-day that were not present when the roll was called on the first section, and would like to be recorded on that section. Why not give them an opportunity?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair cannot change the order of parliamentary business. If the gentlemen want to be recorded they will have to be here or arise to a question of personal privilege and have it go on the journal.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, now I want to vote intelligently on this question, and if I understand the question aright, it is simply a vote for the changing of the order?


The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair will state again that you are voting on the final passage of every section in this article as amended, except the section which has already been passed_the first section.

Mr. BOYER. I do not understand it yet.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair is informed by the minutes and by the president de jure of this Convention that on roll call section 1 was passed on the third reading. The chair is now advised that the question of the passing of the remaining sections of the article is before the house, and upon those sections you are voting.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). We are voting on the whole article, are we not?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. We are voting on all but section 1.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I arise to a point of order. The rules provide that the yeas and nays may be called upon any proposition. We called them on that just like we did on any proposition.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair {804} is of that opinion. The vote before was an unnecessary one. It was a motion upon the adoption of section 1. The question now is upon the third reading and final passage of this entire article.

The roll call showed the following result:

AYES_75.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Brandley
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg


Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Farr
Francis
Gibbs
Goodwin
Hammond
Hart
Halliday
Heybourne
Howard
Hyde
Ivins
Johnson
Jolley
Kerr
Kimball, Salt Lake
Lambert
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lemmon
Lewis Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Low, Cache
Maeser
Maloney
Maughan
McFarland
Miller
Morris
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Summit
Nebeker
Partridge
Peters
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete
Preston
Raleigh
Ricks
Robertson
Robinson, Kane
Robison, Wayne
Shurtliff
Snow
Squires
Symons
Thompson
Thoreson
Thorne
Thurman
Varian
Wells
Williams.

NOES_16.
Adams    
Bowdle    
Button        
Green        
Haynes
Hill
James
Kiesel
Keith
Kearns
Roberts
Ryan
Sharp
Spencer
Stover
Van Horne.

ABSENT_13.
Christianson
Cushing
Hughes
Kimball, Weber
Lund
Mackintosh
Moritz
Murdock, Wasatch
Page
Strevell
Thatcher
Warrum
Whitney.

Messrs. Pierce and Richards were paired.


During the call the following explanations were made:

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I vote aye on all excepting the first section, and vote no on that.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The gentleman cannot record his vote in that way. He may record his vote with such explanation as he may make to go on the minutes.

Mr. BOWDLE. I vote no, then.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I vote aye, and wished to be excused on the first section.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The vote is on the entire article.

Mr. BUTTON. I vote no.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I ask for information whether a delegate can not vote for the article and have his vote recorded against one or two sections?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair is of the opinion that he cannot. He has had the opportunity to do that, and as a matter of fact this house has recorded its vote on this particular matter before. As the sections were passed the ayes and noes were called on one of them, but the chair is of opinion that the third reading of this proposition means as a whole.

Mr. EICHNOR. I will ask another question. If the gentleman who occupies the chair now did not have his vote recorded the other day against section 10 of the bill of rights?
{805 - EXECUTIVE}
The PRESIDENT pro tem. No; the gentleman who now occupies the chair, when then in his seat, explained his vote while voting for the entire article and said he did not approve of nor endorse section 10. It was entered so on the minutes.

Mr. EICHNOR. I vote aye and cannot approve of section 14.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Does the gentleman desire that entered on the minutes?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I desire to vote aye, but I do not endorse section 14.

Mr. KERR. I vote aye on the entire article, but I favor submitting as a separate proposition the section providing for woman suffrage.

Mr. LAMBERT. I vote aye on this and will move to reconsider section 1.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Richards was detained in court this afternoon. If he were here he would vote aye on the bill and I would vote no. We are paired.



Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, cannot a delegate after he has voted qualify any other section?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. No, sir_I do not understand the gentleman.

Mr. EICHNOR. When I voted I said I could not approve section 14. I would like to qualify my vote with respect to another section.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Well, I presume the gentleman may add another section to his remarks and consider it in.

Mr. EICHNOR. That as to section 1?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. I cannot receive a statement now, while the roll is being called. I thought the gentleman was just going to mention a section.
The president pro tem announced that the article on elections and rights of suffrage had passed its third reading and gave notice that he would move to reconsider the vote by which the article had passed.

Mr. Williams was excused until next Wednesday.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that we now resolve ourselves into committee of the whole to take up the executive article.

The motion was agreed to.

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

COMMITTEE OF' THE WHOLE.

Consideration of the article on executive was resumed.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, as the chair is informed, the committee passed section 12, unless there are some further amendments to it.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for section 12.

The same was read as follows:

The governor shall have power to grant pardons, conditional or absolute, to remit fines or forfeitures, and to grant reprieves and commutations of sentence, after conviction and judgment, for all offenses except treason and in cases of impeachment, but no pardon shall be granted nor sentence commuted in cases of felony, except upon the written recommendation of not less than the majority of the board of pardons, consisting of the secretary of state, attorney general, and state auditor.


Mr. VARIAN. I wish to ask as a favor of the committee that they will postpone the consideration

of this executive article and take up some other that they have here.

It will be impossible to conclude this evening and I am compelled to go into court in a law suit to-morrow morning, and as the chairman of that committee, the members expect me to be here. It will not delay you at all, but just pass on to some other article and finish that, and at that time take up the remainder of this article.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard Mr. Varian's statement, if there is no objection we will take up the next article on the calendar_ordinance and federal relations.

The committee then proceeded to the {806 - ORDINANCE} consideration of the article on ordinance.

The first subdivision was read as follows:

The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State:


First. Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.


Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, I have no objections to the first section, if we put "Congress of the United States" in that part. I think that is altogether too broad, and it is not meant in that sense. I move an amendment that we place immediately before the words "United States," in the second line, the words "the Congress of the."

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the Enabling Act provides that this Convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable that the consent of the United States and the people of said State, etc., so I think it would be improper for the committee to insert the words "the Congress of the United States." We want to comply strictly with the Enabling Act.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for inserting the words "the Congress" in that line. The only way that the people of the United States could ever give any consent to this would be by its Congress. We may as well, as suggested by my friend from Washington just now, insist upon putting the words the Legislature of Utah in as to insist upon putting the word Congress there. It seems to me, sir, that the paragraph is perfectly clear. The only way that the United States could ever give its consent to change this matter would be through the Congress of the United States. That is clearly understood.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that means more than the Congress of the United States. It means the Congress and the President of the United States. That is the government. That is so understood.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Davis County and the gentleman from Weber County, that the words "United States" should be used. This is compliance with the

Enabling Act, and, gentlemen, if you want our Constitution to go in the waste basket, just tamper with the requirements the Enabling Act lays down for the compact. Do not tamper with it. That is my advice.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, by way of explanation, reading the Enabling Act, I had the idea that it was Congress there. My attention has been called to it_

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his amendment?

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). I am willing it should go to a vote, because I think it is too broad.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, there is a matter connected with the adoption of this first division that I desire to call the committee's attention to, and that is whether this last clause is sufficient. I am aware of the fact that it is in the exact language of the Enabling Act, but it occurs to me that there may possibly be some question on this section for this reason: That under this language, the prohibition that is sought to be secured here, enacted in these words, is not operative, unless you go further and make this class of offenses a crime or misdemeanor and provide a punishment therefor. For instance, supposing you adopt this Constitution in the form it is now in and the Legislature should omit to follow this up by the passage of laws making this class of offenses crimes or misdemeanors, where would you be then? Of course the object of the ordinance on this subject is to secure the {807 - APPORTIONMENT} punishment of these offenses for all time. That is, it does not desire to place the matter in the discretion of the Legislature or the people of this Territory, and it seems to me that the language as it now stands is not self-operative. That, in order to make it self-operative, in this Constitution we must go further and declare those things offenses and provide a penalty therefor. I haven't prepared any amendment, but I submit this matter to the Convention, whether it would be better to cover this matter clearly and distinctly, and there will be no question in the mind of Congress as to the real meaning of the Constitution?

The CHAIRMAN. There is no amendment to the first paragraph of the ordinance.

The chair hearing none, we will pass to the second.

The second paragraph was read as follows:

Second. The people inhabiting this State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without this State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by this State on lands or property therein, belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing in this ordinance shall preclude this State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal

relations and has obtained from the United States or any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress, containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, which last mentioned lands shall be exempt from taxation so long, and to such extent, as is or may be provided in the act of Congress granting the same.



Mr. CORAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out that portion after the words "United States," in line 12, down to the word "thereof."

No second.

Subdivisions 3 and 4 were as follows:

Third. All debts and liabilities of the Territory of Utah, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, are hereby assumed and shall be paid by this State.


Fourth. The Legislature shall make laws for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all children of the State and free from sectarian control.


Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move the article be adopted as a whole.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee of the whole then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "congressional and legislative apportionment."

Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, were read and passed without an amendment.

The subdivision entitled "representative districts" was read.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. Chairman, I think that the provisions in line 4 may conflict with what has gone before. Section 3 states that the number of representatives shall not exceed ninety. If it should ever occur that there would be more than ninety counties in the Territory, it would conflict.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair hears no motion or second.

The subdivision of the article entitled "senatorial districts," was read.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your further pleasure, gentlemen?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee on apportionment the basis of the apportionment briefly stated in both the representative districts.

Mr. ELDREDGE. There would be about 3300, taking them as a whole.
{808 - PUBLIC LANDS}
Mr. CANNON. Both in the representative districts and in the senatorial?



Mr. ELDREDGE. It is based as nearly as possible upon 12,000.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I then move the adoption of the article as read.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled "public lands."

Section 1 was read as follows:

PUBLIC LANDS.


Section 1. All lands of the State that have been, or that may hereafter be granted to the State by Congress, and all lands acquired by gift or grant or devise from any person or corporation, or that may otherwise be acquired, are hereby received and shall be the public lands of the State, and shall be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as hereafter provided, for the respective purposes for which they have been or may be granted, donated, devised, or otherwise acquired; and none of such lands nor any estate or interest therein shall ever be disposed of except in pursuance of general laws providing for such disposition, nor unless the full market value on the estate or interest disposed of, to be ascertained in such manner as may be provided by law, be paid or safely secured to the State; nor shall any lands that the State holds by grants from the United States (in any case in which the manner of disposal and minimum price are so described) be disposed of, except in the manner or for at least the price described in the grant thereof, without the consent of the United States. Said lands shall be classified by the board of land commissioners as follows:


First._Lands which are valuable only for grazing purposes.


Second._Those which are principally valuable for the timber that is on them, or the stone or coal which is in them.


Third._Agricultural lands.


Fourth._Lands within the limits of any town or city; provided, that any such lands may be classified whenever, by reason of increased facilities for irrigation, or otherwise, they shall be subject to different classification.


Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 1.

The same was read as follows:

Strike out all of lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and line 6 down to the word "shall," and insert in lieu thereof the following:


Section 1. The State of Utah hereby accepts the several grants of land granted by the United States to this State by an act of Congress entitled an act to enable the people of Utah to form a Constitution and a State government and to be admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original states, under the conditions and limitations therein mentioned, reserving the right, however, to apply to Congress for modification of such conditions and limitations in case of necessity. All lands that may hereafter be

granted to the State by the United States, and all lands acquired by gift, grant, devise, or from any person or corporation, or that may be otherwise acquired, are hereby declared.



I wish to say that the section has been amended to follow the Enabling Act exactly. Section 1 as it now stands is not in accordance with the Enabling Act. It provides that lands hereafter acquired be received. It strikes me it is rather awkward to say that we receive lands now that may be hereafter donated. I have followed the Enabling Act word for word, so as to get at the intent of Congress, and I think that we ought to adopt it, and after the word "shall" the balance of section 1 is in accordance with the Enabling Act. I wish the gentlemen of the Convention would compare it with the Enabling Act and see that I am correct about it. I wish to state, as stated by the gentleman from Salt Lake, if we do not comply with this Enabling Act it is not worth while for us to form any Constitution and submit it to the people, as you will see that the Enabling Act provides that if all the requirements of this act be complied with, then the President of the United States must issue this proclamation. So that it is very important that we comply with all the requirements of the Enabling Act.

The CHAIRMAN. What section is that?

Mr. MALONEY. Section 4.

The CHAIRMAN. What section of the Enabling Act did you copy this amendment from?
{809 - PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS}
Mr. MALONEY. I think it is section 8 and subsequent sections.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, as this seems to be rather an important matter, and we have reached our usual hour for adjournment, I move the committee now arise and report progress.
The motion was agreed to.
The committee then rose and reported as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT:


The committee of the whole have had under consideration the article on ordinance and have recommended its adoption; also the article on apportionment and boundaries and have recommended its adoption, and have further considered the article on public lands and beg leave to report progress and ask to sit again.


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


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