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

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

The roll was called and all members found to be present except Kimball, of Salt Lake, Richards and Thatcher.

Prayer was offered by the Rev. Ritchie, of the Congregational Church.

The journal of the thirty-sixth day's session was read and approved.

Petitions and memorials.

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? [*note*]

File No. 198, signed by Geo. Canning, of Salt Lake, and 120 others, by Van Horne, of Salt Lake.

File No. 199, signed by E. Lynch, of American Fork, and 160 others, by Cunningham, of Utah.

File No. 200, signed by Thos. Fryer, of Box Elder, and 62 others, by Peter Lowe, of Box Elder.

File No. 201, signed by P. H. Candland, of Salina, and 142 others, by Ricks, of Sevier, by request.

File 202, signed by Geo. W. Groo, of Park City, and 70 others, by Murdock, of Summit.

File No. 203, signed by A. D. Moffat, of Park City, and 62 others, by Murdock, of Summit.

File No. 204, signed by Henry Booth, of Stockton, and 40 others, by Stover, of Tooele.

File No. 205, signed by John Faunce, of Ophir, and 70 others, by Stover, of Tooele.

File No. 206, signed by H. C. Larson, of Elsinore, and 49 others, by Brandley, of Sevier.

File No. 207, signed by C. F. Olson, of Hyrum, and 49 others, by Roberts, of Davis.

File No. 208, signed by W. H. Meneray, of Silver City, and 22 others, by Ryan, of Juab.

File No. 209, signed by C. H. Blanchard, of Silver City, and 27 others, by Ryan, of Juab.

File No. 210, signed by Dan Blanchard, of Silver City, and 36 others, by Ryan, of Juab.

File No. 211, signed by Mrs. L. Parson, of Sandy City, and 196 others, by Cushing, of Salt Lake.

File No. 213, signed by Mattie S. Woodward, of Salt Lake City, and 20 others, by Goodwin, of Salt Lake.

File No. 214, signed by Mrs. W. S. McCornick, of Salt Lake, and 160 others, by Goodwin, of Salt Lake.

File No. 215, signed by John Stubbs, of Salt Lake, and 30 others, by Goodwin, of Salt Lake.

File No. 216, signed by A. W. B. Lundquist, of Thistle, and 60 others, by Goodwin, of Salt Lake.

File No. 217, signed by Ben F. Whittemore, {810 - ORDINANCE} of Salt Lake, and 150 others, by Goodwin, of Salt Lake.

File No. 218, signed by Wm. Holmes, of Salt Lake, and 45 others, by Thurman, of Utah, by request.

File No. 219, signed by James P. Jensen, of Newton, and 50 others.

Special orders.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, before we pass this, I ask unanimous consent of the Convention to allow me to make a presentation to the president, by request.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection the gentleman may do so.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I have been requested to present to you this collection of portraits of the officers and members of the Convention, not as an evidence of our egotism, nor even as a token of the regard which we all feel for you. The gift, while of us, is not from us, but is presented with the compliments of the enterprising photographer, Mr. Shipler, who captured us, it seems, with these ends in view. Doubtless in the years to come, when you survey this artistic specimen of his handiwork, this counterfeit presentation of the sea of upturned faces that now greet you, you will be reminded of many interesting scenes and incidents. Let us hope, however, that none but pleasant memories will be recalled, and that both you and ourselves will continue to cherish kindly feelings for each other, with affectionate reminiscences of the time when you held the helm of this Convention and guided the bark of deliberations through stormy seas of debate to the haven of an accomplished task. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT. I hope and trust that the friendships awakened here may continue forever.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, is that intended to be submitted separately? [Laughter.]

The PRESIDENT. It looks as if it was; yes.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move you that we suspend the rules and resolve ourselves into the committee of the whole for the further consideration of the article on public lands.

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 11 ayes, (noes not counted,) the motion was rejected.

The Convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article entitled ordinance.

Subdivision one was read by the secretary.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I do not rise to make any argument or introduce any resolution, but for an inquiry. When that section was reached on yesterday, Mr. Hart rose in the Convention and made some statements regarding the requirements of the Legislature to enact some law or laws regarding the punishment for the violation of the law mentioned in that section, and called the attention to the fact that if that was not done by the Legislature there was nothing in the provision as it stood. I did not fully understand him yesterday, but I wanted to inquire what his opinion was there regarding that matter and what the necessity was. Well, the point, Mr. President, was simply this, that provision of the Constitution is not self-executing. It would require legislation in line with the same provision in order to secure the ends desired, and I simply presented the matter for the consideration of the Convention, as to whether it would be expedient in order to remove all questions of doubt, as to whether the provision on this subject that we incorporate it in the Constitution is strong enough to be beyond all question. I had no amendment, Mr. President to propound at the time, but simply suggested a fact, which I think will be conceded by every attorney here, {811} that provision is not self-executing. There was a similar question came up under the constitution of California, and if I remember rightly the ruling of the supreme court there was that the provision of the constitution was not self-executing; that in order to make it so and to cover that ground more fully, you would have to go further and declare the act an offense in the Constitution itself.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President; there is no motion before the house, but it seems to me this complies fully with the Enabling Act, just as it is. The Constitution will undoubtedly put in effect all the laws of the Territory, and there is a territorial law making these offenses penal. I would not be in favor of changing it at all. I think it is just as it should be.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I realize that there is no question before the house. I was a member of the committee that drafted this article. I am not chairman of the committee. Mr. Heybourne, of Iron County, is the chairman. I will state that the committee gave this clause, “and polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited,” the greatest consideration, and after consultation with members outside the committee, we came to the conclusion that we met the requirements of the Enabling Act fully if we adopted the language of the Enabling Act.

The PRESIDENT. There is no question before the house, gentlemen.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, I move the passage of the ordinance as read.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee the object of providing in the fourth paragraph for the maintenance of systems of public schools? It is provided in the article on education for a system of public schools.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I will state in answer to the gentleman it is simply the language of the Enabling Act in the fourth paragraph.

(Reads.)

The PRESIDENT. The question is why you put in systems in this section, instead of system.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. There may be a typographical error there.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that the word “systems” be stricken out and the words “a system” be inserted.

The motion was agreed to.

The roll being called on the adoption of the article entitled ordinance, the result was as follows:

AYES_90.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver

NOES_0.
ABSENT_16.
Crane            
Johnson        
Jolley            
Kiesel            
Kimball, Weber    
Lund            
Murdock, Wasatch     
Pierce            
Richards
Snow
Spencer
Strevell
Thatcher
Varian
Warrum

The PRESIDENT. The article on ordinance has been adopted and will be referred to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move that we resolve ourselves into committee of the whole for the consideration of the article on public lands.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am opposed to that motion.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, it is not subject to debate.

The motion was agreed to.

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

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the business under consideration is the article on public lands. There was an amendment pending, offered by Mr. Maloney.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, upon due reflection, I will withdraw the amendment I proposed to section 1.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the gentleman's request relative to the amendment will be granted.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment to section 1. I was preparing it. I think it is a matter of some considerable importance.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will write it out and send it to the clerk.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will call the attention of the committee to it now. The amendment is somewhat crude. The amendment would be to provide that school lands and other lands where people have actually settled upon them prior to the date of survey and plat in the land office, that they should be entitled to receive such land at a less price than its actual value. I will prepare the amendment a little later on, and I want to call the attention of the Convention to it now. Section 1 provides, among other things, that these lands be disposed of pursuant to general law providing for such disposition, by paying the full market value of estate or interest disposed of. I think it will have to be recommitted. If I am right in my theory of it, I think this Convention will recommit this section to the committee. The point I make is this, if I may be permitted to make it, that we all know in this Territory that many people settled upon lands which are now school lands. At the time they settled upon it, they did not know they were school lands or not. The lands were unsurveyed. They made their homes upon them, and it would seem to me now to be unjust that the State should require these people to pay the full value for those lands to day

[*note*], and the substance of my amendment would be to let the Legislature make such provisions as would enable those people to secure those lands at a less value than their actual market price.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman wishes to have it recommitted, it would be necessary to make a motion, and then give his reasons for it.
{813}
Mr. EVANS (Weber). I move that the section be recommitted to the committee on public lands.

Mr. MAUGHAN. I second the motion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). For the purpose of taking into consideration the advisability of adding some provision by which the people who settled upon these lands prior to their survey might receive title at a less price than its actual market price.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, for the information of the Convention, I would state that the committee on education, which is also a committee upon school lands, has an article in process of preparation, if not already completed, that covers that question, and I do not know that we would need two articles. If it was put in here, why the committee that I speak of would not need to make any report. It seems to me it comes more appropriately under the head of school lands than the committee we are treating of.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, in the early days of our Convention, I stated that there was a conflict in the duties which we thought incumbent upon the respective committees, that of education and school lands and the committee on public lands, which we think can be modified to a certain extent and incorporated in this article. The motion to recommit I think would be the better way to reach this proposition, so that we can successfully arrange it and satisfactorily report to the Convention.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, the only proper way to recommit would be for the committee of the whole to rise and recommend to the Convention that it be recommitted to the committee, and if that is the desire, I move that we now rise and recommend to the Convention that this section be recommitted to the committee on public lands.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is not necessary for this committee to rise to do that. I think that we should pass this article with a view of reporting it to the Convention, and then have it recommitted. I would therefore, amend the motion that we pass this section now, and when we rise ask the Convention to recommit the article.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, I will offer a substitute to the amendments, by inserting after “disposition,” in the fourteenth line, the following, “except as otherwise provided by this Constitution.” If it is as Mr. Bowdle states, that this is provided for in school lands, why, this will meet the objection that is raised against it. A disposition of school lands as provided for by another committee.

Mr. ANDERSON. I will adopt the suggestion.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, the committee on education and school lands handed me their provision with reference to the matter, and I suggest that it be inserted in this article. Perhaps it would be the way out now if this be read. Possibly it would satisfy the committee on school lands.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Anderson's motion in order? I will second it if it is.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I judge that this matter is too important for us to pass over hurriedly, in view of what has been said here in relation to the probable report of the committee on education and school lands. I think it would be wisdom on our part to in some way pass the further consideration of this matter, and either let it go back to the committee, or defer it until the report of the committee on education comes in. I understand now the motion is that when we rise we recommend to the Convention that this whole {814} article be recommitted to the committee on public lands.

The CHAIRMAN. That was what I understood the gentleman's motion from Salt Lake to be.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I understood Mr. Adams has something to offer. There was some confusion and I could not hear all that he said. I did not understand what the chairman of the committee desired.

Mr. ADAMS. It was merely the suggestion made by the committee on education and school lands, and I stated that possibly it would do away with the matter of reconsidering this. I think it could be brought up now and read. If not, I would vote to recommit.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, speaking to the proposition of passing this, and reporting the matter to the Convention when we do arise, I wish to say that I hope there will be no attempt to accept the proposition by the committee on education and school lands, and I stated that possibly it would do away with the matter of reconsidering this, because the provisions that they have covered being only applicable to school lands might not cover some of the public lands that are not school lands, and I believe, sir, that this is a matter of such importance that it really ought to go back to the committee for consideration, and I don't think that it would be safe to undertake to substitute the article proposed by the committee on school lands to cover all the public lands of the State, and I therefore hope the motion that we pass shall prevail.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, being that a suggestion from the committee on education is now before the committee, and I believe that a large portion of the inhabitants of the Territory and the future State are interested in this matter, and also members here on the floor, I would like to have the suggestion read that we might know what is intended to be done. I want to say I am in favor of recommitting the matter, but I would just like to hear the lines upon which the matter is

to be considered read.

The suggestion by Mr. Adams was read as follows:

The State board of land commissioners shall consist of three members, who shall have the direction, control, and disposition of public lands of the State under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. They shall be selected at large by the qualified electors of the State, and, except for the first term as herein provided, they shall hold office for four years. Of the lands located and selected to satisfy the grants made to the State, it shall be the duty of said board to make allotments to each of the several uses for which the same were granted, so that each may receive its fair proportion thereof, both as to quantity and value. The Legislature shall provide by law, at its first session, that all persons who located and settled upon the lands reserved as school lands, and their grantees, shall be protected in the occupation, cultivation and improvement of such lands by having given to them priority in the purchase; provided, the price of such lands shall not be increased by the value of any improvements made upon them, but shall be sold to the settlers at a fair appeasement of such lands as of the date of settlement thereon.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; to recommend that it would be recommitted.

Mr. THURMAN. In view of the reasons assigned for recommitting, I offer to amend by proposing that it be recommitted to the committee on public lands and school lands jointly. I think that it ought to be that way, because I do not think that any of these committees can act very well without the other.

In fact, that is the way that this matter has come in the shape that it has now, by these committees acting independently; if they are united and deal with this whole question together, I think that we will get a better report.

Mr. SQUIRES. I will accept that amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, {815 - MILITIA} since hearing the report of the committee on school lands, I think if that be adopted, it would fully cover the suggestion which I made, and the amendment suggested by Mr. Anderson would cover everything which is necessary to insert after the word “value,” in line 14, “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.” If I knew that we were going to adopt that I would be in favor of this amendment, but since it may not be adopted, I think it would be all right to recommit it.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, by way of explanation, I understand from the chairman of the committee to whom these recommendations from the committee on school lands were referred, or from whom they came, they were submitted that there might be no conflict between the two committees, the one on public lands and the one on school lands. It was for the consideration of the one on public lands. If it were to embody those sentiments in the article on public lands, then they would not be covered in the article on school lands, and when the question was raised by the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Anderson,) Mr. Adams sought to introduce this so that we would

not go beyond the recommendation made from the committee on school lands, the conference or joint committee would arrive at a proper conclusion on this matter, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is that the committee of the whole recommend to the Convention that the article on public lands be recommitted to the committee on public lands, and committee on education and school lands jointly.

The motion was agreed to.

The article on militia was considered as follows:

MILITIA.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, would it not be wise to include in our militia not only those who are fully citizens, but those whom have declared their intentions to be such_those who have taken out their first papers? I have been engaged in the last month in enrolling the militia of this county under the provisions of a territorial law, which provides that those who have declared their intentions shall be enrolled, and if that is the law now, I do not know why we should not continue it.

Mr. CHIDESTER. There is no motion before the house.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “male” in the section. [Laughter.]

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, who makes that motion? I want to ask if you belong to the militia?

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Now? Oh, no. I am exempt by the color of my hair.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I am going to say that if he did, for the purpose of improving the militia, I would support his motion. [Laughter.]

Mr. Evans of Weber offered the following as a substitute for section 1:

The militia shall consist of all able bodied male citizens and those who have declared their intention to become such, of the State, between 18 and 45 years of age.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will accept the amendment.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I hope that will not pass, because there are a good many boys in the militia. already who are not 21 and a great many boys are better before they are 21 than they ever are afterwards.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am also opposed to that amendment.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not {816} think that a person ought to be required to serve in the militia that has no right to vote. I am opposed to their either serving in the militia or paying a poll tax until they are 21.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman permit me a question. I would like to ask if you are in favor that all those who do vote shall be in the militia? [Laughter.]

Mr. BUTTON. Can the State compel a minor to join the militia?

Mr. SQUIRES. Certainly.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chafrman [*note*], I favor this amendment for this reason, all aliens that are of that age are excluded; they are not expected to bear arms for the support of the government. Why? Do not they get the protection? They are not citizens. They have no voice in the affairs of the nation, neither a male citizen until he is twenty-one years of age. It is one of the things that necessarily seems to me ought to be coupled with the right of suffrage. I am not speaking about their right, as we propose here to extend it to the females, but as to the male citizen, if he has a responsibility, and upon him is placed the duty of protecting the State until he has something to do toward voicing his sentiment in the matter of its control. Therefore, I am in favor of its be twenty-one.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, if that is the rule, which the gentleman from Salt Lake would apply to this subject, why not strike out the other limit, forty-five years, and let a man serve in the militia until he is a hundred years old?

Mr. BOWDLE. Because it is supposed when he gets to be forty-five years old that he is no longer any account for anything but to vote. [Laughter.]

Mr. SQUIRES. I call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that I am a little over forty-five years old, but I am still able to bear a musket and am still willing to do it. My entire service in the army was over before I was twenty-one years old, and my experience was that the young men who served in the war of the rebellion made the best soldiers. I don't think we should make this limit to twenty-one years. I was a soldier when I was sixteen. I believe the young men make the best soldiers.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Let Goodwin show his record in the war now.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman, in order to set that right, I will state that the United States statute says that the militia shall consist of all able bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years of age.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, I shall object to the amendment offered, more especially as we have heard the expressions of opinions of such learned gentlemen as Colonel Squires, and Captain Stover, and other gentlemen upon the floor here who have earned their laurels, and Captain Hart, from Cache County, desires to express his sentiments also.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, it is known pretty well that there are a great many boys that are not men at 18, and there are a great many boys {817} that are men at 16, and able to do military work, but to compel a boy of 18 that is not competent, that has not got his majority_that is, have not got their strength and their vigor, to do military service at 18, I do not think it would be wise or prudent, consequently, I would like to see the law framed to admit a man at any age, if he is competent, and wants to serve his country, he should not be objected to; but to force men at 18 to do military duty when they are boys, I do not think that that would be right, I do not think it would be good management, but they should have that privilege of serving at 18 if they so wish, but to compel them to, I would not do that any more than I would compel a woman to serve at 18. If she wants to serve at 18, and the men want her, let her serve. [Laughter.] Do not compel her. Let her consult her own desires.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I find in the constitution of the state of New York, that was passed in 1894, “All able bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 years.” It is in nearly all the constitutions. It is in Wyoming.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, some of the members don't understand what this means. It does not mean that every man that belongs to the militia must necessarily serve during time of peace. That is what is known under our national system as a national guard. It simply means that the State, in case of necessity, may call on men, and that they are required to do military duty, these people between 18 and 45_and that is all the section means. If men above 45 want to make voluntary enlistment in case of war, or men under 18 that are growing up to the requisite standard and want to enlist, the statute allows them to enlist, but the men between 18 and 45 can be called upon.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word as to the motive that influenced the committee to report the article as they have reported it. Personally I do not like to see the enlarged militia service that states are generally adopting; and many of the committee desire to curtail somewhat, and we thought of making it from 21 to 35. I agree with many other gentlemen that men don't

make much soldiers after they are 30 or 35, but looking the matter all over, we follow exactly the provisions of the United States statutes, that all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. We would have made it then in one section except that we wanted to give the discretionary power to the Legislature that they would not have to organize or arm and equip the whole militia force of the State, but they commence at a battalion and go to a regiment or two regiments, if they wish. I think you have men enough in the militia service as that section is adopted, and I would not favor any amendment to it, even for the purpose of taking in those who have declared their intentions to become citizens only. I think you have large enough military force with the provision as reported.

Mr. Jolley, by his request, was excused for the remainder of the day's session.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this section as it stands. The gentleman from Salt Lake said he was a soldier at sixteen. I was a sailor at fourteen. I go him two years better, and as times are moving_societies, Coxeyites, what do you call them_commonwealers, Dave Day and his Indians, we don't know what will happen. Let us keep them all in from eighteen up.

The motion of Mr. Bowdle was rejected.

The question being taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Evans, the committee divided and by a vote of fifty-three ayes to twenty-three noes, the substitute was agreed to.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment at the end of the section, by adding the following words: {818} “Except such as are exempted by laws of the United States and of this State.”

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I second that amendment.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be opposed to that also. It is an embodiment in many of the constitutions, but it don't seem to be necessary. The statute requires all able bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. Able bodied covers everything, unless persons who are engaged in certain lines of occupation that the law would exempt them from military service, and the amendment don't cut any figure, I don't think.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I take it that all able bodied male citizens between eighteen and forty-five years are liable to military duty, and I cannot see that the Legislature is authorized to pass any exemption laws under that section, and we realize that certain exemptions should be made_cases of railroad engineers, telegraph operators, and other people who are employed at work of that nature should be exempt.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I seconded the motion of Mr. Ricks, but I did it upon misapprehension, and I desire to withdraw my support. I think Captain Ryan is right. All able bodied men ought to be required to serve when necessary.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I will second Mr. Ricks' motion.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this amendment. I doubt very much if the Legislature, if it passes as it stands, could exempt any one. Our judiciary officers of the State and all that class of persons certainly ought to be exempt, and in addition to that the classes that have already been spoken of. We ought to give the Legislature some power to exempt the proper persons, and therefore, I am in favor of the amendment.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the amendment on the ground that under the law that now exists there are a great many people who are exempt. Why not allow the Legislature to exempt them by this article? I find that in nearly all the constitutions there are similar exceptions. In the constitution of North Dakota there is an exemption, I believe, precisely in the words of this amendment, “except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State.” I think it is true of nearly every state in the Union. The United States laws exempt certain classes, and we should not step beyond the laws of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why we should be all the time trying to tie ourselves up. Why not leave this according to the motion of Mr. Ricks, for the future Legislature to fix? I see no impropriety in it. I do see an impropriety in tying ourselves up. I do not know why we should. We have been tying it up all along. We have been legislating all along, making laws that should be left to the Legislature_ {819} trying to at least, and I believe we should leave such things open to the Legislature, so that they can change them from time to time.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this amendment for the reasons in part as have already been given. There are exemptions made by the federal laws, and there are at present exemptions made by the laws of this Territory. I think those exemptions should continue, and in addition to that, there may be some individuals who have scruples against bearing arms, and that class of persons should also be admitted under the legislative act by the payment of an amount in lieu of the service, to be exempt from this service. In fact, a great many of the constitutions of the United States make an expressed provision in their constitutions that persons who have conscientious scruples against bearing arms may be relieved from so doing by paying a proper amount. While I do not think it is necessary to go as far as a number of the states have done in making this constitutional provision, yet I would be in favor of a provision in general language such as proposed by this amendment, to permit that class of persons, and, in fact, a number of other classes, such as city, State, and county officers, to be exempt from military duty.

The Legislature shall determine what persons shall constitute the militia of the State, and may provide for organizing and disciplining the same.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I find that some of the gentlemen are very much afraid that we shall legislate in this Convention, and in taking that view of it, it seems to me they go to the other extreme. I would rather have a little too much in the Constitution than not to have enough. I do not think we should leave everything to the Legislature. I am in favor of the section as it is proposed_this article as it has been amended.

The substitute was rejected.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that when we arise we report this article to the Convention with the recommendation that it be adopted.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that we now arise and report progress. The motion was agreed to.

The committee then arose and reported as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT:

The committee of the whole has had under consideration the article on public lands, and they have recommended that it be referred to the committee on education and school lands, and committee on public lands. They have also had under consideration the article on militia, and recommend the same to go on the calendar for third reading as amended.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I move we go into committee of the whole.

Mr. BOWDLE. It takes a two-thirds vote, as I understand it, to suspend the rule.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, we passed that order this morning, as I understand it.
{820 - APPORTIONMENT}
The president here called Mr. Eichnor to the chair.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the motion before the house is to go into committee of the whole.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to go into committee of the whole, from the fact that there is on the calendar of the Convention business, and I am in favor of taking up the business in its regular order on the calendar. Therefore, I shall call for the ayes and noes on that question, as I think it takes two-thirds to suspend the rule.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, this morning we overlooked the point that is raised by the gentleman and went into committee of the whole, transacted some business there, and out of necessity to report back to the Convention the suggestions that were necessary to be made in the Convention, we rose and reported. I presume that then, having taken a recess until two o'clock, the only motion would be to go back into committee of the whole and resume the business that we have on hand.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Gentlemen, the chair holds that we are now in the Convention proper, and the subject on the calendar for our consideration is apportionment and boundaries. Unless a motion is made to go into committee of the whole, and carried by two-thirds vote, the chair shall hold that that subject is now open for consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I oppose going into committee of the whole. I am in favor of going on with the matter which is ready for a consideration on third reading.

The motion was rejected.

Third reading of article, entitled, “congressional and legislative apportionment.”

Section 1 was read by the secretary.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to strike this section out. My reason for making this motion is because I believe that it is unnecessary to make any enumeration of the inhabitants of this Territory every five years. We will have an enumeration now at the end of every decade, and I think that that is sufficient. The increase of population in a Territory like this is not so rapid as to require an enumeration so frequently as that. I think that once in ten years would be sufficient. One principal objection that I have to it is the cost of making an enumeration. I have not figured on just what the cost might be, but I believe it would be quite a large amount.

Mr. HART. I am aware of that point.

Mr. CRANE. And the State every tenth year.

Mr. HART. I am aware of that point, and I think we can get along with that enumeration that the government does pay for.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman from Cache if we have not now upon our statute books of the Territory a law which requires an enumeration every three years?

Mr. HART. If the gentleman has any information on the subject, let him present the matter. I am aware that there is a law requiring enumerations, but I don't have in mind the exact year, or frequency with which the enumeration is made. Even if there is one requiring an enumeration more frequently than every ten years, I don't think it is a wise one.

Mr. SQUIRES. As a matter of fact, there is such a law upon our statute books beginning with this year requiring an enumeration to be taken every three years, together with other statistics.
{821}
Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake a question. If such is the case, why the necessity of providing for another enumeration?

Mr. SQUIRES. Well, I would wipe out the other and have this every five years instead of every three years.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, the gentleman from Salt Lake will know about what the cost of taking an enumeration in this Territory would be, and they estimate it at about $6,000. Now, I take that the enumeration taken every decade by the federal government is ample, and that the very best we can do, taxes are going to be heavier in the State than they are now, and it strikes me we ought to avoid increasing the tax in every particular if we can do so. And I hope the gentlemen here who are posted in this matter will step out and tell us what the additional cost will be to take this census. I am opposed to it on the ground of economy, and again, I am opposed to it because it is not necessary. Now, the gentleman from Salt Lake speaks of the census being taken every three years. If the Legislature passed such a law as that, I think the sooner it is repealed the better it will be for the Territory. I am opposed to spending so much.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the taking of the census under the existing law comes in connection with taking other statistics, which it seems to me are necessary to be taken for the benefit of the manufacturing, agricultural, and commercial industries of the Territory. The additional expense of taking the census while the other information is being secured is comparatively small, and I do not suppose any gentleman would have us go on without taking the statistics, as other states are taking them and for the same purpose and with the same results.

Mr. SQUIRES. I am perfectly satisfied to leave it to the Legislature as far as I am concerned. I cannot estimate what the cost would be of taking the census of the Territory every five years, but under the present rule the cost is put upon each separate county. It is not a State expense, but each county had to pay the expense of making its own census and statistics.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, it comes out of the people just the same, even if the county does have to pay it. I am informed by one of my colleagues from Cache County that the cost of the enumeration to that county this year is in the neighborhood of $500, and I don't see any beneficial purpose particularly that is going to be derived by the people from that.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman from Weber County and I, like him, am studying economy so far as possible in everything pertaining to the work that we have on hand here, but if the gentleman from Cache will notice, and also the gentleman from Weber, this is not operated until the year 1905, ten years from now. At that time, another apportionment may be found to be necessary in the State. It evidently will be. The probabilities are that we shall have 150,000 or 200,000 or 250,000 more inhabitants than we have to-day, and another apportionment will be necessary. The government, as I said before, takes the census every five years, or every ten years, and the State every tenth Hence, if we take five hundred dollars to take the census of Cache this year, it is only fifty dollars a year, and it is possible it may cost that in 1905. We are following out in this section the same law that has been introduced in almost every constitution that has been built of late years. Almost every constitution has this proviso in it, and new apportionments have been made on the state census and not on the United States census. I think that this {822} is a very good section and should be adopted.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I think whenever the emergencies arise, if it is necessary to take the census of the State the Legislature can provide for that without any action on our part. I am aware that other states have established a precedent_     

Mr. CRANE. May I ask the gentleman a question? The Legislature does provide, if Mr. Farr will notice_it says the Legislature shall provide by law. This is left to the Legislature.

Mr. FARR. We don't want to force them to say what shall be done. If you say the Legislature may provide by law and leave it right there, I agree with that, but we are setting the time when they shall do it. Now, the Congress provides in the census for everything that we need, and if there is anything that is not in their schedule, we can just notify Congress that we would like to have them embrace in there such and such a clause, but they usually embrace everything in that is necessary for every purpose, and I say once in ten years to do that is all that is necessary. It isn't necessary that we should go to that expense. Other states they say do it. Other states are in debt head over heels, and they are going from worse to worse. I think we ought to set an example and try and not get in debt and keep out.

Mr. GIBBS. I would like to ask the gentleman from Cache a question. Did it cost Cache County $500 for the enumeration alone or for the gathering of the statistics as well?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I hope that the amendment will not prevail. I think that the State ought to have interest enough in our resources to develop the territory of the State to spend the necessary amount of means every tenth year to see how we are progressing. Now, gentlemen have referred to the matter of leaving it to the Legislature. I think they have not legislated very wisely upon this question. As has been remarked by the gentleman from Salt Lake City, to-day upon our statute books it provides for an enumeration and taking statistics every three years, and I think that is entirely too often. I think that the expense incurred thereby so often is more than the good that will accrue from such statistics, but I certainly think that we ought not to to depend upon the government of the United States. As it provides here now, every five years we may approximately understand our position, the resources of the Territory and also as to population, and I am in favor of leaving this just as it is. I believe that it would be safer. I believe that the expense would be less than if we leave it to the Legislature.

Mr. HART. I would like to ask Mr. Squires a question, and that is what was the cost of Salt Lake County for the last enumeration?

Mr. SQUIRES. As the work isn't yet completed, it would be impossible to answer that question. It will take probably until the end of this month to complete the work in Salt Lake County. I am unable to give the figures called for.

Mr. JAMES. Can you approximate it?

Mr. SQUIRES. I should think that it would cost in the neighborhood of five thousand dollars for the work that has been done in Salt Lake County, but they have put an additional burden upon us, which won't ordinarily come that way, and that is the enrollment of the militia in the county, but altogether, I believe the expense will not exceed five thousand dollars.

Mr. ELDREDGE. May I ask the gentleman one question? I would ask whether you had any other statistic {823} to gather outside of enumeration and militia?

Mr. SQUIRES. Oh, certainly, we had to gather the industrial and commercial statistics. We have to gather the mining statistics of the county altogether, that of the smelting and sampling works, and others of that nature. Every industry that is in operation in this county has to be reported upon.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). And agricultural?

Mr. SQUIRES. And agricultural is a very large item of it.

Mr. BOWDLE. I would like to ask Colonel Squires a question. In your opinion, what proportion of the cost will be required for taking the enumeration alone?

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, if it is in order, I want to offer a substitute for the motion to strike out.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. I should hold that is out of order.

Mr. JAMES. Well, then, I move an amendment to the motion to strike out.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair holds an amendment is out of order.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I am not in favor of the amendment. I have had some little experience in the matter of census-taking in some of the small counties of this Territory, and if my memory serves me correctly, when this matter was first introduced into this Territory, provisions were made for it annually, and subsequently the Legislature of the Territory took the matter into consideration and tried to get the time every five years, but failed, and finally got the matter revised so that the census was taken every three years. I am not in favor of leaving this matter entirely in the hands of the Legislature, from the fact that our past experience teaches us in this Territory that they have not truly grappled with this question. While I understand that there is a great deal connected with the census-taking as now established in the Territory that perhaps would not come under these provisions_for instance there is the commercial, industrial, and all this matter has to be taken into consideration by the enumerators, and it is a very costly matter, and I am of the opinion that if this section remains as it is now, provided that it will answer every purpose and that every ten years will be sufficient, and all that is necessary to keep us in touch with the nation in regard to our industrial and commercial industries in the Territory. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not prevail and that the section as it now stands will pass.

The motion to strike out was rejected.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word “shall,” in the first line, and insert “may” in lieu thereof.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I hope this motion will not prevail. I hope the word will remain where it is.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I just want to say this, that if the word in the first line, be stricken out, and the word “may” be put in, you might just as well have had the other motion prevail and left it entirely to the Legislature, because that is what it will do.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman that last spoke. If you strike out the word it does not mean anything. The Legislature would have the power anyhow; unless you make it binding upon them, you might as well strike out the whole section.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am in favor of this amendment; I do not believe that we ought to prohibit the Legislature in this matter, or to use the expression that my friend from Weber County

has sometimes used here, tie the hands of the Legislature upon a matter that they should have the free choice of action upon. I am, therefore, in favor of the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I move to {824} amend by striking out the section and inserting:

The Legislature shall provide by law for the adjustment and apportionment for senators and representatives.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word eighteen, in line 1, and insert in lieu thereof the word fifteen, and strike out the words forty-five, in line 3, and insert in lieu thereof the word thirty, making it fifteen senators and thirty representatives.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I ask for a division of that question, and I hope that the motion will not prevail to strike out the word eighteen. This has been duly considered and agreed upon by the whole committee. It has been here and passed upon by the committee of the whole. It harmonizes with this article all the way through. Therefore I trust that the gentleman's motion will not prevail, and that eighteen will stand.

The motion to strike out the word eighteen was rejected.

The question being taken on the motion to strike out the words forty-five, was rejected.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. Peters offered the following amendment, to strike out the word “Tooele,” in line 4 of the senatorial district apportionment, and insert the word “Cache,” and strike out the word “one,” in line 5, and insert the word “two.”

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, upon its face the apportionment looks very fair and impartial, but when we come to consider the contingency of these two counties, Box Elder and Tooele, you will find that they are very far removed. The only communication that we can have with Tooele County is by passing through Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake counties; it is true that we adjoin Tooele on the west, but the Great American desert lies in that locality, and that is fully as insurmountable and more so than any of our mountain ranges. That is, that there is no way of passing from our county to Tooele without a great deal of inconvenience. In fact, we have no communication in that part of the country with the exception of our young men who are out in that vicinity during the winter taking care of their flocks. They probably would go from one county to the other at that season of the year.

Mr. PETERS. I will answer that, there is a wagon road or trail, but there are very few who ever travel it, and the gentleman from Salt Lake, unless he had a guide, would, I am satisfied, lose his way in the desert.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. What disposition do you propose to make of Tooele County in your apportionment?

Mr. PETERS. I will come to that directly, Mr. Squires. The population of Box Elder County is wholly in the eastern part of the county; so we find the population of Tooele the same. Now, we are joining Cache. We are contiguous to that county. Our interests are identical, and according to the present apportionment, Cache really does not have its representation in the senate. In round numbers, Cache has 16,000 population and has one senator. Box Elder has 8,000 and has one representative and only a small share in the senate. Now, we take for example the counties of Millard and Juab. Tooele is contiguous to these counties. In round numbers their population is 9,500_if the population is 9,500, these two counties are entitled not only to one member in each house, but also to a member in the senate, which makes three representatives in the Legislature for a population of 9,000, while Cache with the population of 16,000 we find has four. Now, the pro rata would hardly be equal with that, and Box Elder with a population of 8,000 has {825} but one. By placing Tooele, which is contiguous to these counties, and their interests are identical_by placing Tooele with Millard and Juab, the total then would be about 13,000, which, as I understand, is the pro rata upon which the apportionment is made in the senate or about that_from twelve to fifteen thousand. By attaching Box Elder to Cache, the population then would be twenty-four thousand in that district, and entitle them to two senators. In other words, there would be one senator for each twelve thousand population. It would make the apportionment more equal. Besides, as to revenue representation_while that I do not hold should be any particular point in this, still it should have a consideration; in the taxable property of our county, we rank fifth in the counties_Salt Lake, Weber, Utah, and Cache, are the only counties who stand higher in the taxable values to-day, according to the report of the auditor, if my memory serves me right. Besides that, our interests there_at least present prospects are that our county will increase in population fully as rapidly, if not more so, than any other county in the Territory, except some of those lying in the vicinity of the reservation. We have a large agricultural district which is opened up to make it a fair apportionment and easily accessible. It strikes me that Tooele should be joined with those counties, and Box Elder with Cache. And while I say again that while on its face its contiguity is all right, when you come to reach it, we had just as well be joined to Juab County.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I hope that the gentleman's amendment won't prevail. This matter has been thoroughly discussed in the committee, and Tooele County has very friendly feelings towards Box Elder County, and therefore would like to join with them. The gentleman said that it was quite difficult to get to the two county seats There are railroad communications to the two and telephone, so that there are no objections to us as I can see. We join for somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred miles of distance_our counties adjoin and our interests there are equal, and there are thousands of sheep that are wintered in the two counties, and it is very

necessary in my estimation that Tooele and Box Elder should be joined. It has been the aim of the committee on apportionment to make it as nearly as possible without cutting up the counties or disturbing them, to any disadvantage, and I am in favor of the report of the committee as it now stands.

Mr. PETERS. I just merely want to ask the gentleman a question. A far as contiguity is concerned, and the communication, it may be easy, but you will admit that in order to reach Tooele County, it will be necessary to travel through these three counties that I have mentioned?

Mr. CLARK. Certainly.

Mr. PETERS. There is no other way of leaving or getting communication with Box Elder, but by passing through Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber counties?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, but you will admit that there are good railroad facilities. I don't see how there could be any objections to that.

Mr. PETERS. There is railroad communication from here to Juab County also.

Mr. RICKS. I would like to ask Mr. Peters a question. Would the travel from Tooele to Juab be any easier than it is from Tooele to Box Elder_is it any nearer?

Mr. PETERS. Well, there is no desert.

Mr. RICKS. No; but they have to come through Salt Lake, Utah, and the biggest part of_

Mr. PETERS.    Not necessarily through Utah.

Mr. RICKS. On the railroad. I had something to do with making this apportionment, and I will state that my {826} labors in it were entirely in the interest of different sections of territory, and in making these combinations of counties and senatorial districts, we worked for the interest of those districts. As regards Tooele and Box Elder, I do not think that the gentleman from Box Elder ought to be concerned about that at all. Box Elder will never be required to go to Tooele for the reason that the population is more than twice what the population of Tooele is, and if there is any traveling to be done, it will be natural that Tooele will have to go to Box Elder to attend the conventions and other meetings that may be necessary, therefore, in that line I do not think the gentleman ought to concern himself at all. But, if we take and combine Box Elder with Tooele the combination is a natural one, and the proportion of representation of the two counties_the district being taken together being entitled to one representative to each county, and one senator, will make a representation of the district of one to 3,780 of the population, and I think that is about as near as it can be arranged. Cache County has been mentioned as being out in her proportion of representation, that is, one senator to 15,000 people, but the gentleman forgot she has three representatives for the same 15,000 people, and if he will take and add the two representations together, the three representatives in the house and the one senator, he will find that Cache has got more than she is really entitled to in proportion to her population_that is,

she has one representative in the Legislature to each of 3,875 of her population, so that when we take it from all its bearings, I think that every gentleman upon this floor will concede that the representation and apportionment to representation in this Legislature is just about as fair as can be arranged_that is on that basis, and I hope that amendment will not prevail.

Mr. JAMES. May I ask Mr. Ricks a question? What estimate did you place upon the population of Salt Lake County?

Mr. RICKS. Fifty-seven thousand and something, and her representation is as to one to 3,890.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, in view of the figures give by Mr. Peters, it does seems to me that uniting Box Elder and Cache, we give a fair representation to those two counties in the senate. I find here, Mr. Chairman, that the twelfth senatorial district, which consists of Emery, Carbon, Uintah, Grand, and San Juan, has a total population of 8,744, while the population of Cache, which has only the same representation in the senate, has just double that population. I ask, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, if this is fair? Now, in the apportionment in the house of representatives, it seems to me that we have gone as far as we should go, to say the least, in giving counties representation as counties. For instance, a county of my friend Hammond with a population of something like three or four hundred_365, I think, is the population given in 1890_has one representative. Salt Lake County with a population of 58,000 has ten representatives. If you give Salt Lake County representation according to population_I hope, Mr. Chairman, that population is the principle if not the only thing that should be taken into consideration in determining representation_I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that counties, simply because they are counties, should have an extraordinary representation; I think, where there are advantages in the matter of representation that can be thrown to smaller counties, that should be done, but I think it is going too far when you consider the real differences in population and representation that this source of a system will give when carried out fully; if Salt Lake County have the same representation in proportion to San Juan, she would be entitled to one hundred and seventy-four representatives in the house of representatives, and {827} further, I showed you that the population in the eighth district is only one-half that of Cache County, and yet they have equal representation in the senate with us. There are other districts, that of the eighth representative district, consisting of the counties of Juab and Millard, having a total population of 9,650, only a little over one-half the population of Cache. If, Mr. President, you put the county of Tooele in the district of the counties of Millard and Juab, you would then have a representation almost as great as that of Cache.

Mr. CANNON. May I ask a question? I understood the gentleman to say the eighth representative district. The eighth representative district is Salt Lake County.

Mr. HART. Senatorial, I should say. The gentleman from Sevier, Mr. Ricks, says that Cache has the advantage of apportionment of representatives. I am unable to understand how he figures that matter out. Cache has a population in round figures of 16,000_more exactly, 15,500, and she has three representatives, that would be one representative for a little over 5,000 population, and that seems to be the basis, if there were any basis, upon which this representation to the house of representatives was fixed. But if you look all through the list you will find that there is great

difference against Cache in the population. For instance, the first senatorial district has a population of 11,342. The third representative district has a population of 10,000; the fourth senatorial district, which has two senators, has a population of 11,000 to each senator, and so it goes, all through the list. The eleventh senatorial district having a population of only 11,000 people in the first place. Mr. President, I am opposed to the whole article on the ground that I believe there are too many senators and representatives provided for. I think it gives a Legislature that is altogether unwieldy; to have the house of representatives
for this small Territory consisting of forty-five members to begin with. I think that you would have better legislative work, you would have better deliberation, if you had both houses smaller than this article provides for. I believe, too, Mr. President, that we have gone a little too far in giving smaller counties_

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. The gentleman is arguing now the question of the numbers of representatives, the very thing that we passed on a while ago under this motion. This motion does not presume to change anything at all, and I think he ought to confine himself to the question.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. I think the gentleman is in order. The point of order is not well taken.

Mr. HART. As I was about to say, while I am in favor of giving the smaller counties any reasonable advantage that we could in that direction, I believe, sir, when you come to giving all the smaller counties in the Territory representation, based upon the sole fact that they are counties, when the basis in reality should be the population of the people, I believe that you are going too far and that you are doing a great injustice to the large counties. I submit that this whole thing is unequal, that the population, both of the senatorial districts and of the representative districts, is not equal and not fair, and should be re-arranged throughout.

Mr. SQUIRES. I am opposed to this proposed change in the report of the committee, and briefly, for this reason: That if we open this subject at this point and for the reasons given by the gentleman from Cache, and the gentleman from Box Elder, we are liable to consume as much time in the discussion of this question before we get through with it, as we have already consumed in the discussion of the woman suffrage question. I agree with the gentleman from Cache on the one proposition that {828} the large counties_the more populous counties, are not receiving all the consideration of this article which I believe they should have. There is but one true principle on which representation should be based, and that is an actual population, but_     
Mr. CRANE. May I ask the gentleman a question? I would like to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake if he can point out one constitution that has been made in recent years wherein the basis has been made entirely on population?

Mr. SQUIRES. No; I do not think I can. But, if every state in the Union has made an apportionment leaving out of sight that bottom principle on which it should rest, it would not convince me that the principle is not correct. I would still believe that apportionment in our Legislature should be strictly upon the basis of population, and there is a strong sentiment among the members of this Convention, which we are all aware of, and that every county_even the

smallest counties in population in the Territory, should have representation, and we have tried to convince those gentlemen that they are represented when they are joined with another county just the same as they are in senatorial districts, but the gentlemen won't have it that way, and when we get through discussing this question we shall come right back to the basic principle upon which this apportionment was made at the end. We shall have to accept this proposition and for that reason I am not in favor of opening the subject here and discussing every district all the way down the line. I believe in the interest of economy and of our own time and the public funds, we should stop this matter right here and vote upon this proposition and vote it down.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, I would like to say something in behalf of San Juan, if I knew how to say it, but I have got a good deal to say or that I could say. The gentlemen seem to forget that the census was taken in 1890, now we are living in 1895. True, I believe the census was fairly and honestly taken at that date, but since then conditions have changed and an influx of immigration, through the discovery of gold down there, has brought many people to our county, and many of them are remaining there, not only working in the placer mines on the river of San Juan, where I live, but also they are working at lead mines forty or fifty miles this side of there in what is called the Elk Mountain_the grand Key, as I term it, as these mountains are whence water flows. Now, sir, to the very best and honest judgment in my mind, there are at least two thousand people there in that county, there to-day, and that class, as a class, are well adapted to pioneering, and bringing forward the resources of that county, and that portion of our Territory. Therefore, I would like to stand up in favor of each county having at least one representative in our Legislature. It met with my mind from the first proposition, although really when I left my home it was more than I expected to get. I will say that honestly; but inasmuch as the committee have labored diligently and honestly in this apportionment matter, I feel to stand by the section as it has been presented to us. Now, the gentlemen of the Convention will remember that San Juan County has been held back_

Mr. EVANS (Weber). May I ask the gentleman a question; I would like to ask what the question before the house has to do with San Juan County? As I understand the amendment offered it is in reference to Box Elder and Tooele. San Juan is not involved at all.

Mr. HAMMOND. But Mr. Hart, as I understand, was attacking San Juan; that was what I arose to.

Mr. HART. I am not attacking San Juan.

Mr. HAMMOND. Well, you mentioned {829} San Juan and Hammond, too, if I remember right.

Mr. HART. It was only as an illustration of the inequality of the representation.

Mr. VAN HORNE. May I ask the gentleman a question? In giving his estimate of the present population of San Juan County, I would like to know whether he includes the Indians not taxed?

Mr. HAMMOND. San Juan tells her own story. Now, since that is sprung I will answer the gentleman honestly. No, we have not attempted to enumerate our Indians, should; we do so, Salt

Lake would hardly be in it. There are over twenty thousand right there on to her border.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Please confine yourself to the question before the house. The question is on the substitute of Mr. Peters, of Box Elder.

Mr. HAMMOND. Well, I am opposed to lessening in any manner the representation as it stands in this section. I want to say further that in consequence of that Indian matter hanging over us there for so many years, our improvements have not progressed as they do usually in all pioneer and outside colonies. For years that matter has been suspended over our heads. Now, I am happy to state, it seems to have been disposed of, and the prospects are that from this time on San Juan County will grow and increase as no other county in this Territory.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. President, as a member of the committee, I desire to support their report. They gave this matter their careful attention, looked over the Territory from one end to the other thoroughly, and this is the result of their best efforts, and I hope the motion will not prevail.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, it appears as though the gentleman from San Juan has an idea that I attack San Juan, as a county, but I do not desire to be understood in that any at all, nor did I intend to cast any reflection upon the relationship between Box Elder and Tooele. I realized that our past relationship with that county has been very friendly and that we have had considerable to do in the last four or five years regarding the question of boundary and so on, but I do not consider that that has anything to do with this question at all. That is a matter of justice. It is not a question of friendship, and in order to retain that friendship I think that Tooele County had better stay away from us, [laughter] and that she had better remain with Juab County, but I hold that the apportionment as we have it now is not a fair apportionment. I am perfectly willing that each county should have a representation, but we take the twelfth district for instance_     

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The chair holds that is not your substitute, you should confine yourself generally to the substitute.

Mr. PETERS. I propose to show that we are not represented in the council according to this apportionment in proportion to our population, and in order to bring that out, it is necessary to refer to other counties. We take the twelfth district, with a population of less than ten thousand people, they will have six members of the Legislature. They will have one from the council district and five from the counties which are taken to make up, that which would be six for ten thousand. We only have one, practically speaking, for eight thousand. Now, this apportionment, I will admit, discriminates more against Summit County and Box Elder County, than any other two counties in the Territory, and if the apportionment committtee has not already (which I think probably they have) considered the matter seriously, they will find that these {830} two counties are discriminated against and that they don't get a fair representation.

We could get a better representation by being joined with Cache County. They owe us a debt already. We used to be joined to them and they had the senator for some time, and now they owe us a senator for two years, and it seems to me that they are considerate of the debt and we would then get two senators. I trust that the substitute will prevail.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, the gentleman from Box Elder County seems to consider that this Convention is going to act as a collecting agency for the purpose of collecting for Box Elder the debt due in a senatorial way from Cache.

The purpose of this motion has become very evident through the little expression of Cache being indebted to {831} Box Elder for a senator for two years, and he is unwilling to join with his friends from Tooele apparently on the proposition that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and if they get together they won't be so pleasant. It seems to me the argument of the gentleman is summed up in those two illustrations.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I want to call attention to the facts that last fall, in the election for delegate to Congress, Box Elder had 1,418 votes, Tooele had 850, total 2,268. Salt Lake

County had 10,966. Five times 2,268 makes 11,340_making 374 more votes in those counties in the same ratio than Salt Lake. That is, the complaint is that Salt Lake has too much and these counties have too little. Salt Lake has five times as many votes as both of these counties, less 374.

Mr. PETERS. May I ask the gentleman a question? Will you be kind enough also to compare Salt Lake County with Juab and Tooele. Those are the counties I referred to.

Mr. GOODWIN. I just came in when I heard this trouble about Box Elder and Tooele. I will do that later.

Mr. PETERS. We didn't have the representation as compared with those two.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I would like to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake if he has at hand there the number of votes cast in Juab and Millard last year?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir. Juab had 1,200, Millard had 840.

The substitute offered by Mr. Peters was rejected.

Mr. Varian offered the following amendment:

Strike out lines 4, 5 and 6, in subdivision entitled representative districts, and insert: Provided that in any apportionment, the Legislature shall apportion representatives and senators upon a basis of an enumeration of the people according to the ratio to be fixed by law.

Provided, in any future apportionment made by the Legislature each county shall be entitled to at least one representative.

to such a situation that they will be compelled to abandon or at least ought to be compelled to abandon county government. The representation of the State at large may, for a variety of reasons, require changes_a difference in the apportionment, and {832} yet with this prohibition in the Constistution [*note*], it will be impossible for the Legislature to do what they ought to do_apportion equally and justly. To my mind, this sort of a scheme is in violation of republican principles. I use the word republican of couse in its governmental sense, and not at all in its party sense. I believe that the whole scheme of representation_the exercise of the functions of government by a thorough representation, is, and ought to be, predicated upon an equal representation of the people. Not the representation of the municipalities, and other quasi municipal corporations as units in the scheme of state government. A county in that sense bears no relation at all to the sovereign state in its connection with the other states of the Union. A county is simply a governmental agency, if you please, adapted in the aid of the purposes of the state government. There is no analogy whatever between the counties of the state and the states of this Union in their several relations to each other_no analogy at all in the system provided for under the Constitution of the United States giving an equal representation to sovereign states as distinct empires, units by themselves. And the argument is misleading and far fetched that seeks to draw comparisons between the two classes of cases.

Under the Constitution of the United States the principle of representation is as I have indicated. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their representative numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. When you undertake to make an arbitrary system of apportionment which would give to three hundred people the same power, and a power equal to that given five thousand people, you overturn the system, you invade the great principle underlying it, and to that extent you do not present the republican form of government, and you can readily see that it might be pursued to such an arbitrary and manifestly unjust extent that on its face it would exhibit the fact that the Constitution or the law representing it was not republican in form. Now, I am not prepared to say that is the case here. It is the principle that arrests my attention. I am not prepared to attack this apportionment scheme for the reason that I have given. I submit to the judgment of those present upon that question, but I protest against incorporating it in the Constitution itself, which will perpetuate it here, sir, until this Constitution shall be amended, and I ask a careful consideration of the matter in order that this amendment may be given the weight which I think it deserves. It simply provides that when a new apportionment shall be made the Legislature shall return to the principle that I have suggested and make such apportionment in accordance with the population. By that you do equal and exact justice everywhere. It does not follow because the county line makes a division between a community or a people who are represented in a Legislature that any rights are lost.

The right of representation is maintained in all its strictness and in all its purity, if it is equalized, if the equilibrium is preserved throughout the commonwealth as nearly as may be, and every man and every woman and every child entitled to the right of representation is only entitled to that right with respect to the others of the community in the like situation. You will observe if you consider the matter that this amendment does not disturb the equilibrium of this bill at all. It does not affect anything that you propose to do. It does not affect anything that the committee has passed upon, with relation to the practical question of apportionment among the people. It simply

authorizes the Legislature at some future time, when the occasion shall serve, to change this system in {833} accordance to what I believe at least to be a just and proper principle. If that is done, I can vote for this article. If it is not done, I cannot and will not vote for it, because of my convictions in that particular.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I just desire to ask Mr. Varian a question. If my recollection serves me right the section of the Constitution which he is reading from provides that the apportionment shall be based upon the population, then he goes right on to say that every state shall be entitled to at least one representative. There is a provision in the Constitution, if I recollect_whether it is in that section or not_I do not know whether it was in that, and I want to know how you would interpret that part of it.

Mr. VARIAN. If that be so, I should answer that at the time the Constitution was adopted each state under the system adopted would be entitled to at least one representative. It is possible that the gentleman has confused the question of appointing senators, which the gentlemen will remember was the great question, and around which centered the great struggle between the representatives of the states. It was the state pride, and the seeking to preserve the state sovereignty that forced that struggle and culminated as it did in the provision in the Constitution that each state should be entitled to two senators, and should never, in the future, be deprived of either of them without her own consent.

Mr. PETERS. I would like to ask a further question. I think I am correct on this. Now, the present basis of representation in the United States, if I recollect right, is 179,101. Take, for instance, the state of Nevada, with a population of 42,000 or about that. She is entitled to one representative in the lower house of Congress, but she would be barred if the question of population was the basis. That is the reason why I think that I am right in saying that the provision guarding the house of representatives is in the Constitution of the United States. It is so long since I read it_

Mr. VARIAN. So far as that is concerned, she had a much larger population at the time she was admitted, and there were other considerations and reasons moving Congress at that time, but it was very largely in excess of what it is now, as the gentleman will remember. I do not remember the provision in the Constitution that the gentleman speaks of. Still it might be there.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I think I have a better authority than the gentlemen have been referring to, and later. I refer to Wyoming. That is, they have representatives for each county, and no county has less than two. They also have, I think, 31 members, and only have ten counties, and have 16 senators. I think it is the best that can be done under the circumstances, and we ought to proceed with this matter and pass it as it comes from the committee. I am in favor of voting down even the provision introduced by the gentleman from Salt Lake County to remove and change the basis in ten years from now as aimed at at the present time by this committee.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I regret very much that I am compelled to differ with the distinguished and eloquent gentleman from Salt Lake on this very important question, and did I not feel that I was absolutely right and that this was a just and reasonable demand by the apportionment committee, I should not now be on my feet; but, sir, in justice to the people whom

I in part represent, I have a few words to say on this question, one that I think is of more importance than any other question that has been brought before this Convention. It has been intimated by some of the gentlemen who have preceded me that this will be in part a partisanship apportionment. I desire so far as I am {834} concerned_and I believe that I can speak for every member on the subject of apportionment, that I do not believe for one moment that a partisan sentiment, or a thought of party aggrandizement of power, entered into this apportionment in any shape or form. I believe that the demands that we have made for representatives from each and every county in this State are just and reasonable demands, that should exist between great aggregations of population, in the cities and the scattered inhabitants of rural districts in the law making branch of a representative government. I feel confident that when I quote the authorities that are before me, there is no gentleman in this Convention that will for a moment think that partisanship entered into this apportionment in any form. To test, Mr. President, whether this is a partisan measure or a partisan apportionment, we naturally and instinctively turn to the older states in the Union_

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to suggest to the gentleman that this argument does not seem to be fitting my amendment. I do not offer an amendment on the basis of partisanship. Simply object to tying this matter up for all time.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The gentleman from Millard will confine himself to the question.

Mr. CRANE. Replying to the gentleman, I desire to say that the apportionment that has been made, and in this section that he seeks now to amend, is one that is in force in almost every state in the Union. It has been adopted by the most enlightened states, and it has been adopted by every state that has in recent years amended, changed, or altered its constituiton [*note*]. I desire to draw the attention of the gentleman to the states by which we are surrounded. The state of Wyoming on the east says: “Each organized county shall be represented in the state legislature by one senator and one representative, regardless of the population of such county.” Referring to the state of Montana, “Whenever new counties are created, each of said counties shall be entitled to one senator, but in no case shall the senatorial district consist of more than one county.” It was deemed by the committee on apportionment_at least some of the gentlemen of that committee thought that each county should be represented by one senator. Others again thought that one senator and one representative should be sent from each county. It finally culminated in the apportionment that has been presented to this Convention, that one senator should be permitted in one of the law-making branches of the government from each county_one member. Now, turning to the older states of the Union, we have in the state of Florida, “The representation in each house of representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties as nearly as possible according to the population, provided, however, that each county shall have one representative in the house of representatives.” And further, Mr. President, it also says, that no county shall have more than three representatives. Georgia with one hundred and seventy-five representatives, provides that to the six counties having the largest population there shall be three each, to the twenty-six counties having the next largest population two each, and to the remaining one hundred and five counties one each.

Maryland also, in its constitution, provides for the just relations that should exist, as I have said,

between great aggregations of population, and the rural districts, that the city of Baltimore, with 433,547 inhabitants, out of a total of 1,000,000_in the distribution of its senators, each county in the state shall have one, and each of the three legislative districts of Baltimore, one, thus limiting Baltimore, that has one-fourth of the population of the state, to three senators out of twenty-four, for there are twenty-four counties in the {835} state. Missouri, another of the great states, with the great city of St. Louis, having a population of 450,000 and upwards out of a population of 2,700,000_that is, the population of the city of St. Louis is one-sixth of the entire population of the state, which has a representative body of two hundred members_one-sixth of which would be thirty-three, but the city of St. Louis is limited to a representation of seventeen. Turning now to some of the northern states, we find Maine divides its one hundred and fifty-one representatives, each town having 15,000 shall have one, but that no town shall ever be entitled to more than seven representatives. Pennsylvania, one of the most populous states in the Union, limits the city of Philadelphia, containing already more than one-fifth its population, to one-sixth of the power of representation in any event. Rhode Island, also, with the city of Providence, the largest city in the state, having 132,000 odd population, out of a population in the state of 345,000, limits the power of that city to one-sixth of the representation; and you might go on, Mr. President, and multiply these instances for almost every state in the Union that has offered in any way, shape or form, the apportionment of recent years, gives to each county in the state one representative. Some give one representative to the lower house and one senator. In a review of the apportionment of the state of New York last year, when I believe the new apportionment was made, the Honorable Joseph H. Choate, one of the most prominent lawyers in the United States, and an authority on all matters of this kind, makes these remarks:

It is and always has been a cardinal principle in apportionment in this state, and in every other state of which we have ever heard, where representative government exists, that every county, however small, shall have a representative of its own in the assembly. The importance of the distinct and independent recognition of counties as separate political divisions of the state in the distribution of the law-making power has never been lost sight of and must not be now. As each new county has been organized the exercise of political power for its inhabitants has been identified with the county. Their relations with the state were defined by county lines. Their representatives, in senate assembled, have always been designated by the county name. The fixed habit, customs, and thoughts of the people have been largely county concerns, and the representation by counties in respect to state affairs. No one has ever yet suggested that in the distribution of political power in the legislature these county lines should be effaced.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I understand the substitute offered by Mr. Varian, it does not contemplate disturbing the present apportionment, but merely refusing to confirm for all time_to go in our Constitution, the basis of the present apportionment, in so far that each county must always have a representative in the house of representatives. But, rather assumes that the principle of apportionment guiding the Legislature hereafter shall be that which is based upon the population of the State. I favor, sir, that substitute. When the first skirmish took place upon the floor of this house in regard to the principle of county representation, I was not in favor of it, and I have seen nothing to convert me, or heard nothing to convert me to the rightfulness of that principle in this State. I believed, as I believe now, and have just received a very good evidence for my belief, from the remarks of the gentleman who just preceded me, that the idea was based upon the false notion that our counties, in their relationship to the State, are analagous to the relationship of the states to the American Union, a principle or idea that I cannot for one moment accede to. The American states, at the time of the formation of the Constitution, stood in the relationship of well nigh independent nations to each other, and when the question of representation came up, they had to consider that question in the light of this fact, that those colonies whose representatives were trying to form a Constitution, establishing a more perfect union, had the right and the power to step out of the Union if they could not obtain such concessions as they thought were just. I take it, that the gentleman who last spoke will not undertake to say that our counties, now that this State government is forming, have any such power as that.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Did you understand that was the position we took?

Mr. ROBERTS. I understood the position that the gentleman took to be that the relationship of the counties to the state was the same as the states in the American Union.

Mr. CHIDESTER. No, sir; that was not the intention I intended to convey. The intention was that we were entitled to a representation, but as to the other part of the relationship, I did not enter

into it at all.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I concede that the gentleman did not carry the idea to the extremes that I have carried it. I merely carried it to the extremes that he may see the absurdity of the position of claiming for each county a representation. That is all I intended by carrying the matter a little further than he took it. I believe that the correct principle in providing representation to the house and senate of this State is that of population, and that these subdivisions of the State into {837} counties ought not to enter into the consideration at all on that apportionment, and I find, sir, that in order to make this article harmonize, the change suggested by the gentleman, or proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Varian, is necessary, for section 21 provides that the Legislature shall provide laws for an enumeration of the inhabitants of the State in the year of our Lord, 1905, and every tenth year thereafter, and at the session next following the said enumeration and also at the session next following the enumeration made by the authority of the United States, shall revise and adjust the apportionment for senators and representatives on the basis of such enumeration according to the ratio to be fixed by law, and now the substitute of the gentleman from Salt Lake is in harmony with that. The only other question to be considered is in answer to the remark made here upon the floor by several gentlemen that the Constitution of the United States provided that each state shall at least have one representative in the lower house of Congress.

Mr. CRANE. I would like to have the gentleman from Davis County point to me where section number 2 is not in harmony with this_lines 4, 5, and 6, of section 4. That is in perfect harmony, as I take it, because in the further apportionment made by the Legislature each county shall be entitled to at least one representative.

Mr. ROBERTS. I take it, sir, section 2 recognizes no other apportionment than upon a basis of an enumeration of the inhabitants, and does not look towards the granting of counties representation at all. Referring now to the matter that I was about to speak of, when the Constitution of the United States was framed, according to my recollection, the number of inhabitants required to secure a representative in the house of representatives was 30,000 or thereabouts, and I take it, sir, that they never contemplated that there would be a state formed with less than 30,000 inhabitants, and hence the reason for making the provision that there should be a representative from each state. They had no idea that they would ever form a state with a population less than any number that should be fixed as granting a representative in Congress. I shall vote for the substitute.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I regret to take up the time of this Convention. But I feel like saying a word or two. It strikes me as though this was a very important matter, and I feel that it is my duty to support the amendment offered by my colleague from this city. My opinion is that a proper principle of representation should be based in a state upon population, and I believe that our committee that has made this report to us has worked diligently and conscientiously and has submitted to this Convention the very best fruits of their labor. Now, the gentlemen seems to confuse what is, to my mind, a wrong principle of representation by counties, comparing them with states. The proposition to my mind is altogether wrong. Counties are frequently made out of other counties being cut up, and I suppose in many instances are abolished entirely, while these

states maintain their identity, and that was the proposition before on the floor, when the states came into the Union. They came as representing nationalities of their own, which had a right to demand certain things that would maintain their independence, and that larger states could not swallow them up. There has been something said on the floor about Montana. I happened to read a letter written on this question by a late member of the Montana legislature to a member of this Convention, in which he complained about the difficulty and trouble that it had got into by adopting just what we propose to adopt here, and it comes out of this: There is no provision {838} to prevent the creating of new counties, hence any part of the State that may become jealous of the other part of the State can go to work and make new counties as fast as they please, irrespective of population. They get representation in the Legislature. Now, it strikes me, my friends, that this is one of the greatest evils of this proposition, that it will give an opportunity to arouse dissatisfaction, and induce the doing of a wrong thing.

Mr. Peters from Box Elder has claimed upon this floor that he does not think the apportionment is fair. Mr. Hart has so argued. Now, if the gentleman from Cache is not satisfied with this representation, all he has got to do is to make two or three counties of Cache and he will increase his representation. Also, it is true of Box Elder County, and so will it be true throughout the entire State. Consequently, I shall support the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake. While I am willing to vote on representation in the house of representatives as now proposed by the committee, I don't think that we should absolutely make that proposition perpetual by incorporating it in our Constitution. My position in my remarks a short time ago seems to have been misunderstood by some, and in order to make the matter clear, I desire to say that when this question came up in the first contest between the committee on legislative and the committee on apportionment, while I was a member of the committee on legislative the question was whether they should have that matter in their hands. I voted to give it to the committee on apportionment, although I knew at the time that it was their desire to give as far as possible representation to the counties. I am in favor of that principle so far as the thing can be done, with justice, to the larger counties; and with regard to the number of members that shall compose the assembly, while I have a decided preference for an assembly consisting of fewer members than the assembly that we have decided, or the house has decided to have, yet, inasmuch as their decision is to have the house consist of a certain number, I am in favor of giving the counties representation as far as possible_that is, each county a representative, so far as it is practicable and just to the other counties. My idea was that while it was desirable that each county should have a representative, that it would be possible that some of the smaller counties grouped together, some of the adjacent counties, consisting of small numbers might be grouped together, in view of the fact that an assembly should consist of a reasonably small number of representatives, and that only justice would be done to the larger counties. I would not have it understood that I thought for a moment that any member of the committee on apportionment desired to do any injustice to Cache County. I don't think so for a moment. I think that the matter has just occurred in this way, and my reason for calling attention to the inequality of representation, and my argument was that inasmuch as the counties have been represented because they were counties, throughout the Territory, that when it came to the senate the

representation should be strictly upon population, and I call the attention of the house to the fact that in the eighth senatorial district, and in the twelfth senatorial district, they have just twice the representation that Cache County has, that is, those two districts together have two senators while their population is only a little in excess of the population of Cache County. I desire to say this much, that my position on this matter might be understood. I thought when the question came up of increasing the district of which Millard and Juab now {839} form a part, by adding Tooele to it and by adding Box Elder to Cache, that you would then have two districts with a representation that was about equal and fair to those districts. I desire to state so much in order that my position on this matter might not be misunderstood.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be sustained or that the proviso will be stricken out entirely. It seems to me that it does no good in the article. The situation is very peculiar in Utah. It is not comparable with Montana or Wyoming, or with any other new state about us, for the reason that in those states there are no large cities, and there are very few counties that are not more densely peopled than some of ours. There is another reason. We have in this Territory an area of country, as large as New England_about the same. It would be in the power of a coming politician if he had a little money and a little fore-thought, to make arrangements just prior to a census being taken to have the Legislature add half a dozen counties to this State solely for the purpose of using the representatives of those counties under this rule, which it is proposed to make perpetual, for his own good. Again, if some city in a state should bring to itself or have brought to it extensive manufactories, the little jealously which is felt in the Territory toward some of the larger towns would be immensely increased on the outside, and the disposition possibly of legislators from those counties, (because I have no idea legislators in the future will be all pure men like those we have in this Convention,) would be to make counties as often as possible. And now, really there is no sacredness surrounding the county lines. The idea that there is, has come down from the old constitutions in this country. That is altogether a dispensation that has been explained. For instance, when the government was formed, each section had certain products which it was distinguished for. The east had navigation; there were diverse interests at work all the time, and those states grew together and acted like the boy and the tiger on the raft, waiving their differences and agreeing to float down together to a place of safety where they could fight it out. So with those several colonies, they had a common interest on the sea, but in themselves they were separate. You never heard of a Fourth of July orator in the world that did not talk about sovereign states. Did you ever hear one talk about sovereign counties? And that thing has gone on particularly to the south. If a man tells you he is from Illinois or Ohio he merely says Illinois or Ohio. If he is from Kentucky, he says, “I am from Bourbon County, sah.” Or if from Missouri, he says, “I am from Pike County, sir.” The counties cling to them, they seem to think those arbitrary lines means something. It was that spirit that directed the division in Wyoming so that they had to give each county representation in order to get a legislature large enough to do business. The same spirit ruled in Montana and the principle behind it all is that it is not just. There are just two things that count in this country, one is property and the other is people. We cannot come down to a property qualification in an adjustment. We have to do it by the people. For instance, with all due respect to my friend from San Juan, it takes fifteen times the population of his county to come up to that point from which senators' representation is considered. Now, is it fair to believe that if San Juan, for instance, is attached to Grand County, and they had one representative, that all their region would not be

properly represented? Is it fair to believe that any other part of the Territory or of the State would oppress them? I do not think so. This Territory is not composed of counties that have grown up separately with distinct interests, each jealous of {840} all the others, but rather we are all growing up together and the only exception that ought to be taken is, when states get very large, their representation ought to be a little reduced, because they have the combined power and with a combined representation they work in solid compact and can do injustice if they please to a more sparsely settled country outside. I think if the amendment was adopted it would be right, or if this proviso was stricken out entirely the article would be complete as it is.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment. I think it is no more than just that each county should be represented. A man living in the county is better able to represent it than one who resides in another county. He understands better the wants and needs of the people of that county. Therefore, I think that is a just principle that each county should be represented in the Legislature of the State. These sparsely settled counties that have been spoken of are full of resources. They have scarcely been touched by enterprise or capital, and in a few years are very likely to be popuous counties. This apportionment remains as it is until 1905, and by that time, I do not think there is a county but what will have at least five thousand inhabitants. I think that each county should have a representation, and it should be apportioned according to population; why, I would be in favor giving the county that had the least number of inhabitants, one representative, and give the others in proportion, but I hold that it is no more than just that each county should have but one representative.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, it is impossible to discuss intelligently the proposition with gentlemen who will not consider fundamental principles, or who will incorporate in it misleading statements. Now, I have not had time to examine the different constitutions,
but I will undertake to say that so far as I have been permitted to examine, since the statement was made here on the floor, a few minutes ago, as to what their provisions were, they were just contrary to what you were told they were, and I don't believe_although, of course I have not examined them_that there is a state in the Union where the principle that I speak of is ignored. Now, you can take the state of New York, and I care not what Mr. Choate argued on the floor of the convention, the action of that convention was not as stated by the gentleman from Millard. The provision is that every county heretofore established and separately organized, except the county of Hamilton, shall always be entitled to one member of the assembly, and no county shall be hereafter created, unless population shall entitle it to a member. So far as new counties were concerned, the principle of representation by population is definitely affirmed in that constitution. So far as the old counties are concerned, all of them, perhaps, except the county of Hamilton, were entitled to the representative, but however that may be, it is quite evident the principle is not affirmed there as stated by the gentleman from Millard.

So in North Dakota, the provision is that the legislature may at any session re-district the state and apportion the senators and representatives respectively. So in Washington, it provides for an enumeration of the inhabitants of the state. It provides that the legislature shall apportion and district anew the members of the senate and the house of representatives according to the number of inhabitants, excluding Indians not taxed, soldiers and sailors, and officers of the army. So in Wyoming, until an apportionment of senators and representatives is otherwise provided by law,

they shall be divided among the several counties of the state as designated. Of course, there is an {841} apportionment more or less arbitrary in its character, when it is fixed for the first time in the Constitution. But that is a very different proposition from fixing it for all time in the Constitution, tying the hands of the people through its Legislature from in the future meeting the demands of justice and the exigencies of the cases as they may arise. In Montana, you will note that the provision is that one senator shall all the time come from one county. It shall be the duty of the first legislative assembly to divide the state into senatorial and representative districts, but there shall be no more than one senator from one county. The proposition is reserved you for precedent. The legislature shall not create a senatorial district and provide for more than one senator. But it does not follow that a senatorial district must be created out of one county_that each county must form a senatorial district as would be the case if this proposition were true. I believe if I had the time that the same inaccuracy and misapprehension of these several organic laws of all the states could be exhibited, because I know that the principle underlying this has been recognized everywhere and in all places since the beginning of this government. It is just as well when you come to consider questions like this to understand what the principles underlying them are, and not undertake to formulate a scheme, and because you have formulated it, think you are called upon to defend it regardless of consequences. We have not all had the opportunity nor the privilege of taking part in the discussion of the committee; of necessity, these questions must be presented to some of us representing constituencies of hundreds_where does our right of representation come in if we are to be challenged and led upon the floor of the Convention with the proposition “that the committee has considered it? That the committee has gone through with it?” We have spoken, all of us, in committee, and we hope that the work of the committee will not be disturbed. I am speaking for my own people as well as this Territory. I am speaking in defense of a principle that any student of constitutional history or law_any man who is at all read in the history of free government, recognizes when it is stated, and we are going to be heard upon this floor upon this question. I was willing, and am now, in view of the pronounced sentiment of this house (from the beginning it could be seen) to favor this proposition for the present, but I warn you, gentlemen, not to put this in your organic law so that it cannot be changed. If you will stop to think a moment you can imagine cases where you will encounter difficulties_difficulties arising because of other propositions limiting the maximum and minimum of the representative business_the senate and the house of representatives. Not at all unusual is it in this western country for whole counties to go down. Population is continually shifting, It is all very well to take the optimistic view and say, as you doubtless believe, that in so many years all these counties that have been named are going to grow in wealth and population. We hope so, but suppose they do not? If you adopt that principle for all time, why not include the cities? A city is just as much a community in the economy of government as a county. In fact and in law they are each of them but governmental agencies, not at all entitled as a right to a representation to a separate body, or any other representation than that justified by the population.

Mr. FRANCIS. Mr. President, I wish to ask the gentleman a question. Is not the State also an agency of the people?

Mr. VARIAN. In one sense, yes, but a state under our system of government is in some degree an independent sovereignty, where the line of demarkation between the federal government {842} and state government is defined. On the state's side the state's autonomy is complete, and except

as controlled by its surrender of power to the federal government it is as complete an empire in itself as any nation in the world. It is a government by itself. It does not derive its efficacy and vitality, its right to live, from the United States. It exists under it, in accordance with it, limited only in its powers by those powers which it has surrendered to the general government for the common good of all the states. There is no more comparison, gentlemen, between the state and a county_     

Mr. FRANCIS. I wish to ask a question. Can we begin to live as a state without the right from the United [Is there a whole line missing from the original?]

Mr. VARIAN. It is difficult to discuss, as I said before, questions of this kind with those who ignore apparently all principles of federal law or state law. No state can be admitted into this Union without the consent of its people, nor without the consent of the people of the United States, represented in Congress assembled, but when the state is admitted, it takes its place in the Union of states clothed with all the powers and with all the functions of all the original thirteen states. Then it becomes a sovereign_then it becomes a state_a government, and then it occupies those relations towards the general government and the people of the United States, as I have indicated, but a county is a very different thing. It is not independent in any sense. It is simply a municipal subdivision of the sovereign state, which can be changed and modified at any time wiped out of existence, added to or recreated at the will of the majority of the people of the state. And to say that because the state is in this Union, holding the relations that it does as an independent sovereignty within certain restrictions towards the federal government, is entitled to a certain representation_that therefore a county_a municipal body within the state, of necessity must also be entitled to a certain representation, without reference to its population, is a confusing of matters and things that in the very nature of the case should not exist. No analogies can be drawn. The parallel cannot be made. But you cannot discuss it if gentlemen ignore the principles underlying the whole question. Now, that is the proposition involved in this scheme, but I took pains to say and I again say and affirm that it is not designed by this amendment_that it is impossible that it would be designed by this amendment to affect the equilibrium of this schedule in any degree. It does not disturb any part of your apportionment. It leaves it as it is, except that it takes off the constitutional hand of power which you would lay in restraint upon the Legislature and the people of this State for all time. Why should you do that?

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Suppose the gentleman transfers his argument from the state organization to that of the Territory, what then? The state is subordinate to the national power, as a county would be to the state.

Mr. VARIAN. I do not understand the application. Of course there is a difference between a territory and the state. A territory is under the national government exclusively.

Mr. CREER. It has no representation.

Mr. VARIAN. In so far as Congress may yield its right of government over it locally, it has not the right of representation_a territory has not the right of representation. It has an emasculated right, or rather it is an emasculated attempt to grant a right_the assumed right of representation

upon the floors of Congress of a territory. A man may go there representing the people of the territory. He may voice their sentiments before the committees on the floors of Congress if he can get an opportunity {843} to be heard, but he has no vote. It is only half the right and the biggest half left out. But to return, Mr. President, why will this Convention refuse to loosen the strings of power? Why are you afraid to relax from this constitutional limitation this provision against your future legislatures representing the people from making an apportionment other than that you have selected for them? Why, you haven't got 260,000 people here. You are going to fix the arbitrary mandate in this Constitution that will prohibit the Legislature from fixing the right of representation. Look at it in its face. That is what this means. You are going to say to a certain extent the right of representation has been and is determined by this Convention and by the people of the present year, and you are not going to permit those who may come after you in five years or in ten years to change it. Now, Mr. President, the fair and the just way to do is to reverse this proposition. Put in your own Constitution that when the apportionment may be made after this enumeration has taken place that you have provided for, which is not required to be made I believe until the year 1905_just reverse it. Put it into the power of your Legislature, then if your people require it, and if the necessity of the place demands it, to make a different and other apportionment than you have provided for. I am not challenging now your scheme for the present. I will vote for it. It is against my own judgment and convictions, it is true, but I see no hope of changing it, but I cannot vote for it at any time if you continue in this Constitution so many questionable, unjust and arbitrary provisions as this clause in section 4. I have heard no reason advanced why it should be.

All the argument has been diverted toward the proposition in support of the scheme. When it is conceded that the scheme will go through as reported from the committee, can we not get away from that and come to the question that I really present_simply a question of these three lines relative to the future power of the Legislature? I have shown you that these gentlemen are mistaken when they cited several of these surrounding states. I believe they are mistaken when they claim that any such power as that is withheld from the people in any state constitution, although, of course, I will admit I have not had the time to examine all these constitutions with the view of ascertaining that fact. I hope, gentlemen, that you will see your way clear to make that amendment, or, as has been suggested by another gentleman from my county, strike out the paragraph. It is practically the same thing, but in any event, let us leave it to the Legislature, after the lapse of ten years, to make such apportionment as the people of that time and of that day may demand, and in accordance with such principles as they then may wish to have.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask Mr. Varian a question, my position being the same as that of Mr. Varian, on the basis of representation, but I cannot understand the view the gentleman takes of the extreme evil that could follow in the allowing of this to remain. I would like to ask, if, in your opinion, it would not be true that the objection to the formation of new counties would more than counter-balance the temptation to obtain representation thereby_that is, the expense of the county government that would naturally attend? Would not that be greater and prevent the organization of counties?

Mr. VARIAN. I am not prepared to say. I will say this, however, that in myo wn judgment, this manner of argument in dealing with questions of organic law is utterly vicious. When men come

to speculate in their own minds as to what will, or may be done, by peoples in different communities, or {844} what necessities may exist, or what reasons will arise on this day or the other, they are out upon an unknown sea of speculation, and we are now simply dealing with the organic law, which is restricted and prohibited in the particulars we are now discussing, and the question is whether it is necessary, under the circumstances, to tie up the hands of the Legislature, for not only ten years, but for all time, unless the Constitution shall be amended under such terms and such limitations as you may, in your wisdom, provide for before the adjournment of this Convention. I will say to Mr. Cannon, I do not believe that you can dispose of the question on the basis of expense in the forming of new counties. One county may increase in population to such an extent_two counties may increase_three may increase, others may go down. It may be necessary, in order to maintain the equilibrium of representation in the State, that an entire change shall be had, and it may be impossible that it should be done with such a provision as this here, preventing the Legislature from making the change, and confining it to one arbitrary system, at least in part, of representation.

Mr. CANNON. My position, Mr. President and gentlemen of this Convention, is I think Mr. Varian's motion is right. I have taken this position from the beginning, that representation should be on the basis of population, not of any particular area. At the same time, I cannot understand the distinction that the gentleman seems to make between the proposition as it is here and the basis of representation he proposes. I do not understand why there should be such a radical objection that the gentleman is willing to vote for the basis now proposed, and is not willing to vote for the proposition at all if this proviso should remain in, for the reason that any objection which might be found to future application to my mind is good as to present application as well. I, however, favor the amendment and trust that it will prevail, and will vote for it.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I just want to call the attention of Mr. Varian to the constitution of Rhode Island, inasmuch as he has indicated that no proposition similar to this has been incorporated in other states. (Reads.) That seems to be in perfect harmony with the bill now under consideration, and I call his attention to the apportionment of Arkansas. (Reads). It concedes that the counties shall have at least one representative.

Mr. VARIAN. Let me ask the gentleman a question. I will state that I have no doubt but the gentleman will find that in both Rhode Island and Arkansas that the counties provided for and the cities in Rhode Island provided for at the time of the adoption of the constitution, were by reason of their population entitled to a representative in Congress with the ratio established.

Mr. CHIDESTER. We have not anything in here to establish that principle, but it may_

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I followed your reading of the state of Arkansas, but I did not understand that it provided that new counties that should be organized would have representatives.

Mr. CHIDESTER. No; it makes no mention of any new counties.

Mr. ROBERTS. In that event county representation is not insisted upon in that constitution, only

so far as counties already existing.

Mr. CHIDESTER. But as it contemplates the establishing of towns and counties, it also comprehends that idea, “provided, that towns and counties shall have at least one representative.” And that being the fact, we could not conclude that they would think that no more towns and cities would be established. They contemplate as a natural consequence, that there would be, and {845} in this it provided that it always shall be the case, as in Arkansas, that they shall have a representative. Now, then, in another state here, I noticed a while ago, that they established a little different system, but they give to each county that has a fraction of the apportionment_say two-thirds, where the apportionment was made of five thousand_every five thousand inhabitants were to have one representative. It also provided that a county having two-thirds of that might be represented, so that this is not an unusual method by any means. There are some states that do not adopt it, and it would not be unreasonable for us to adopt it and take it, in view of the precedents that we have.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion here that all should be represented_every person should be represented. Now, I take it, sir, that it is not altogether the number of people that should be represented. I think that there are interests in the counties that should be represented, just as well as the people as a whole. I take it, sir, that each county is an organization of itself, and the proposition that the counties are so much different to the states_a state is a complete organization of itself. A county is a complete organization of itself, so far as it goes. There is a county government, and that government, I take it, sir, should be represented in one house of the Legislature. There are a great many interests that belong to counties, that cannot be represented very well, or will not be represented by persons from other counties. The interests of the people generally can be represented by the representatives of the people from different counties, where two or three counties are grouped together, and if there is one house made up in that way, it seems to me, sir, that there could be no objection to letting each county have at least one representative in the Legislature_in one of the houses of the Legislature. It seems to me that it is a narrow view to take, that because one county happens to have a little more population than another, that the county having less people should not have any representation in a legislative body. Now, the proposition of the gentleman from Salt Lake, that it was against the principle of a republican government to allow one county, or each county, to have a representation_I certainly cannot agree with him on this point and on this proposition. I think it is a republican form of government to allow each division or each government to have a representation in the Legislature, and every county has a government of its own, and this I think should be represented_     

Mr. BOWDLE. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Would not that argument apply to a precinct, as well as to a county?

Mr. BUYS. The same principle might apply probably, but I would hardly carry it that far, because it would make too many representatives and make too large a legislature, but I do not think it would be too large a legislature to give each county a representation, and the precinct organization is a part of the county organization, but the county is separate to a great extent from the state organization, while the precinct organizations are part of the county organizations, and

for that reason I should claim that the county organization should be represented.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I desire to ask the gentleman a question. Then, if your argument be true, that the county is entitled to a representative because it is an organized part of the state, why wouldn't each incorporated city be entitled to a member of the legislature, because it is a separate incorporation and has no connection at all with the county, as the precinct has? They are entirely separate. The county has no jurisdiction particularly over an {846} incorporated city, like they do over a precinct. Your argument would infer that we would be entitled to a representative from each incorporated city as well.

Mr. BUYS. I believe that principle is correct, just as Rhode Island has it, but a city is within a county where the interests of that section of country may be represented in the Legislature. The county in which that city is_the distinctive county there, can be represented by the representative of the county, whereas, where there is a separate county, and distinctive county there, that cannot have any representation_that is, there is no one from that county to represent the county, there may be a representative from three or four counties, but the representative from another county will not represent the interests of the county that has no representation. Whereas, the representative from the county will represent the interests of the city from that county. I am opposed to the amendment to this article for the reason that I think the Legislature should be restricted to a certain extent_restricted enough so that they will not make the representation or the apportionment so that a county will be left without a representative, and for this reason I am opposed to this amendment, and think it should not prevail, and will vote against it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I represent a county here that is somewhat affected by this provision in the article. In other words, Utah County, by this arrangement, as it now stands in the article, yields something to the outlying counties, because I believe it is the second county in the Territory as to population, but I am opposed to this substitute. I believe the provision on the article is right as it stands. I believe it ought to be now, and it ought ever to be a principle of our State government, that every organized county may have its representative at least in the lower house of the Legislature. There may occasions arise which will demonstrate, to the satisfaction of every one, that in this proposition there is safety. Salt Lake City, for instance, aspires to be, and we all take pride in the fact, and contribute our mite to that end, the great city of the intermountain region. It would not require much of a bound upward for Salt Lake City, under statehood, to have a population of one hundred and fifty thousand people, while the counties on the outside might have comparatively but small increase. n that case Salt Lake City alone would control the State of Utah, and I want to say, with all due respect to Salt Lake City and its representatives, they are generally able men, and men tenacious of power and of the rights of Salt Lake City, and able to defend them, to give into Salt Lake City or any other city in the Territory, the power to control the State, (and they would control it, gentlemen representing those centers will not deny that,) I say that they ofttimes would have a tendency to forget that there was any other part of the State than that particular part of the State represented by themselves.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I believe this apportionment scheme provides for sixty-three representatives and senators; of that number, Salt Lake County is credited with fifteen. The question is, does the gentleman believe any future apportionment with

the representation as it would stand, would permit Salt Lake County, whatever might be its demand, to control the State? The Legislature, composed of forty-eight members to Salt Lake City's fifteen, will have it in hand to make this apportionment. The question is, how would such an apportionment be made?

Mr. THURMAN. I will answer the question of the gentleman, as I proceed {847} with my argument. I believe that Salt Lake to-day has a population of fifty-two or fifty-three thousand.

Mr. CRANE. Fifty-eight.

Mr. THURMAN. What is the population of the Territory?

Mr. CRANE. 207,000.

Mr. THURMAN. 207,000. Say that Salt Lake has a population to-day of a little over one-fourth. She has representation of nearly one-fourth. If she had the representation to-day according to her population she wouldn't have over one or two representatives more at most. She should concede that much to the outlying counties. She should concede it now and concede it throughout all the history of the State. She is the great center. Everything in the Territory of Utah is tributary to Salt Lake. Everything passes through Salt Lake to get out. We meet in Salt Lake. While perhaps no man here ought to commit himself to a proposition, yet, I believe that Salt Lake is the place for the capital and it ought to be the capital, and when we meet here as representatives and senators, we find that every representative and every senator in the Legislature meets the people of Salt Lake on every turn, at every corner, at every block; we are confronted by the people of Salt Lake, and their influence is used with the representatives, not only their own representatives, of the outlying counties, and to-day she is the best represented section of country that there is in the State. She always will be, for the very reason that whenever the Legislature meets there is a power and an influence in the people wielded day by day to bring the representatives of the people over to their way of thinking. You cannot, by any system that could be devised here, deprive Salt Lake of more representation than any other section of the State will have. Now, Mr. President, I believe I represented the people of my section in the Utah Legislature for five consecutive sessions.

I presume that is more than any gentleman on this floor can say. In those sessions I had an experience upon the very questions that we are dealing with here now. Oftentimes questions arise between the city and the outlying counties. Salt Lake was always represented by men of ability. I do not think it is within the power of any man to say that Salt Lake City has ever been unjustly treated. I believe she has always had her rights, and excuse me for saying Salt Lake City, my esteemed friend, the gentleman from Salt Lake spoke of the people that he represented, that he was here contending for their rights, and I take that he speaks of the people here. There can be no danger so far as Salt Lake is concerned. The danger must be to those remote sections of the country. Why, Mr. President, one representative from Salt Lake City can find out more about his constituents in twenty-four hours and can represent them better_one representative alone can find out more about the wants, the necessities, etc., of the people of Salt Lake than a dozen men can know and understand about San Juan. If you are governed by the principle of population alone

the greatest injustice will be done. Now, Mr. President, let me present it to you in this way. It is to the interest of the centers of population to see that our counties are represented, to see that they are developed, to see that they are not retarded in their upward and onward progress, and I say that it ought to be the desire of every man in legislation to meet other men from all parts and all sections of the Territory and ascertain the wants and the necessities of the people there, because as far as the metropolis is concerned, it is now and it ever will be the great center to which the wealth of the people will flow.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the {848} gentleman another question. Did he understand me to contend that the people of the outside counties ought not to be represented?

Mr. THURMAN. I understand the trend of the gentleman's argument to be that they are perhaps too well represented, and he wants to some extent to leave it within the power of the Legislature to curtail the representation we propose to give them here, if they see fit.

Mr. VARIAN. If the gentleman will permit me, I disclaim any such imputation entirely. It is unfair and not called for at all.

Mr. THURMAN. I do not wish to misrepresent the gentleman, but all I have to say is this: If he is not complaining against the allowing of each county a representative in the future_if he is not contending against that provision in the Constitution, then my whole speech is out of order, for I misunderstood him from beginning to end, but I understand he wants the Constitution left so that some future Legislature if they desire may not give to each county a representative, but may give perhaps one representative to two or three counties combined if the population of those counties is such as to justify that sort of a division. Now, I think this apportionment that has been made here is just right. It is right in every particular as far as I can understand It. I tried to find something in it that was not right. I confess that it seemed to me in a party sense that it was not giving to the party to which I belonged that representation based upon the last election to which the party is entitled according to the total vote cast, but when I came to improve it and make some suggestions in view of the great landslide last fall, I have been unable to make any, It seems to me that the apportionment and everything pertaining to it is just right, and we ought to vote for it.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I would almost infer, after listening to the gentleman from Salt Lake commenting on the proviso found in this argument that it provided that there should be only one representative from any one county in the proposed State, but if we look into the proviso we will find that it simply provides that each county shall have at least one representative, a measure which I consider, judging from my knowledge of the inhabitants of the proposed State of Utah, to be eminently proper and correct, and just in the the extreme sense of the term, when we take a broad view of the entire situation. If we are going to look at the principle simply through a tube and place the eye upon the object directly before us, we might then concur with the gentleman from Salt Lake in his opinion, but when we lay down the tube and take a broad view of the entire commonwealth, I cannot see but what the proposition is eminently proper. The gentleman inferred that there had been misrepresentation in regard to the citations from other constitutions. I wish for a moment to call attention to a few of the constitutions that are adopted by the states

immediately surrounding us. We will not go clear off into Maine or down into Florida, but we will take those that we are immediately surrounded with. I read from the constitution of the state of Montana, that whenever new counties are created, each of said counties shall be entitled to one senator and in no case shall a senatorial district consist of more than one county.

Mr. VARIAN. That is not correct.

Mr. ELDREDGE. And I also have a letter here from James H. Milian, commissioner of the state of Montana, dated March 14, in answer to some questions propounded to him by the Hon. Charles Crane, reading thus:

When the state constitution was adopted one senator was provided for each county, and that provision still continues.

Mr. VARIAN. This is the book of constitutions here.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I would be as inclined to accept the pamphlet that the state has put out as I would the book the gentleman has brought here.

Mr. VARIAN. That was not to interrupt you, but to show you that I was misled by that.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I would call attention to the constitution of the state of Idaho also. (Reads.) We will now look to the east and we will consult Wyoming upon this proposition. (Reads.) It goes on and states that each county shall not only have one representative, but shall also have one senator.

The gentleman put a great deal of stress upon the idea or supposition that this committee had sought to prevent a fair discussion of this question that is now before them. I just wish to state for the information of the gentleman, that so far as I am aware they have entertained no idea of this kind. At our convening this morning, this article was the first on the calendar of the Convention, and should, in its regular order, have been taken up then, but the gentleman from Salt Lake came over to me and suggested that the gentleman wished to speak upon this proposition or upon this article, or wished to he heard upon the article, to use his own language, and therefore that he would like to have it go over until the gentleman could be present. I consented readily for it to be carried over the morning session and go into committee of the whole and transact business that was upon the committee of the whole calendar, realizing that there would be no time lost by that means, or there would be no injury done to anybody by waiting, because I have always endeavored to make it a rule to follow out that principle that I would do unto others exactly as I would like to be done by under like circumstances, and if I had been absent and wished to have been heard upon the proposition, I would have felt that I was unduly treated by my colleagues if they had not extended me that privilege, and therefore I yielded upon that occasion in order that

the gentleman might be present, and I think it was unfair for him to charge that we had sought to prevent him from being heard upon this proposition.

Mr. VARIAN. I do not believe I did. I did not.

Mr. ELDREDGE. The gentleman also stated that it was almost useless to argue the question when people ignore fundamental law. Now, I do not know, Mr. President and gentlemen, as I could answer this in any better way than I could to tell an anecdote. I read of a circumstance which occurred in court that run about like this; there was a difficulty existing between two farmers and they brought in an employe and put him upon the witness stand, and it so happened that he was an Irishman (this nationality of course must take all of those kind of things), and in order to test the intelligence of the witness they asked him a great many questions concerning the farm and the work upon the farm, etc. He passed over them very satisfactorily, and finally the attorney, feeling as though his words in that direction were almost to no purpose, discovered a horseshoe upon the table that was used for a paper holder. He took up the horseshoe and he says, “Pat, what may this be?” Pat took the horseshoe and turned it over and looked at it a moment, and he says, handing it back, “Please, sir, I don't know.” “Why,” the attorney says, “It is a horseshoe.” Pat says, “A horseshoe. Faith, if your honor please, what a fine thing an education is. A poor fellow like me would not know whether it was a horse's shoe or a mare's shoe.”
Now, in ignoring fundamental principles {850 - PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS} I do not know how to illustrate it in any better way. I consider that this proposition is eminently just. I think that the counties of this Territory should have representation in the legislative assembly of the proposed State, and in order to secure that beyond question, this proposition was inserted in that article, and we hope it will prevail.

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

The previous question was ordered,

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question recurs now on the amendment offered by Mr. Varian.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I propose an amendment to the proviso; in the fifth line after the word “county” insert the words “now existing.” The reason_

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move we adjourn.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The motion is out of order. Mr. Van Horne has the floor.

Mr. VAN HORNE. The reason in brief for my making this suggestion is that it seems it would cover the difficulty that has been anticipated, and at the same time would do away with any claim that we were desiring to change, that the Salt Lake County members were desiring to change the basis of representation. This apportionment at present is entirely fair to our county_the most populous county, but you can readily see that if the limitation is put upon the members, that it

shall be the maximum number of the house of representatives, at ninety, and the twenty-seven counties of the Territory should be subdivided in such manner that there would be eighty counties instead of twenty-seven, and this provision remains in the Constitution, it would perforce put a county of one hundred thousand inhabitants to a level with counties of perhaps less than one thousand. This amendment will do away with any difficulty of that sort. It will prevent the creation of counties for the purpose of getting extra representation over what is now established, and I think it might just as well be passed in that way.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move we now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to and the Convention then, at 5:32 p. m., adjourned.