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

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

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Rev. A. M. Martin of the Swedish Lutheran Church.

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

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

File No. 223, signed by C. H. McCoy, of Salt Lake, and 48 others, by Hill, of Salt Lake.

File No. 224, signed by Mrs. J. T. Donnellan, of Salt Lake, and 38 others, by Whitney, of Salt Lake, by request.

File No. 225, signed by C. W. A. Snell, of Salt Lake, and 208 others, by Van Horne, of Salt Lake.

File No. 226, signed by A. W. Smith, of Salt Lake, and 67 others, by Eichnor, of Salt Lake.

File No. 227, signed by Wm. L. Treweek, of Summit County, and 24 others, by Kearns, of Summit.

File No. 228, signed by L. E. Cammomile, of Summit County, and 175 others, by Kearns, of Summit,

File No. 229, signed by H. S. Townsend, of Summit County, and 300 others, by Kearns, of Summit.
{851}
File No. 230, signed by W. M. Gerard, of Taylorsville, and 30 others, by Haynes, of Salt Lake.

File No. 231, signed by J. L. Taylor, of Farmers' Ward, and 71 others, by Bowdle, of Salt Lake.

File No. 232, signed by John Wall, of Santaquin, and 47 others, by Halliday, of Utah, by request.

File No. 233, signed by J. F. Farrer, of Emery County, and 21 others, by Howard, of Emery, by request.

File No. 234, signed by W. H. Streeper, of Centerville, and 74 others, by Roberts, of Davis.

File No. 235, signed by Joel Shomaker, of Manti, and 99 others, by C. P. Larsen, of Sanpete.

File No. 237, signed by E. E. Stuart, of Millard County, and 65 others, by Crane, of Millard.

File No. 238, signed by Andrew Corry, of Iron County, and 70 others, by Heybourne, of Iron.

File No. 239, signed by W. H. Sells, of Salt Lake, and 29 others, by Squires, of Salt Lake.

File No. 240, signed by M. H. Darrow, of Moab, and 41 others, by Peterson, of Grand.

File No. 241, signed by E. Miller, of Castle Gate. and 58 others, by Sharp, of Emery.

File No. 242, signed by W. W. Wiscomb, of Salt Lake, and 29 others, by James, of Salt Lake.

File No. 243, signed by H. P. Larsen, of Ephraim, and 150 others, by Lund, of Sanpete.

Ordered filed.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I hold in my hand a petition from the residents of Smithfield, Cache County, and as it was sent to me this morning with a communication attached to it, I desire to present it by request. I would not take the trouble to do so, were it not that it is a most emphatic expression of the sentiments of the people of that precinct. The secretary then read as follows:

Petition for the separate submission of an article on woman's suffrage. No signatures.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I stated by way of introduction that it was the most emphatic expression of the sentiments of the people of that precinct, on the part of any constituency, after it had been thoroughly canvassed.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move that the petition or the non-petition be returned to the gentleman. Certainly it is in contempt of this house.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I understand that there is a letter accompanying that petition.

Mr. VARIAN. As it appears now, Mr. President, a blank paper is presented by a gentleman stating that the blank represents the minds of his constituents. [Laughter.] It is either a contempt of the privileges of this house or it is in derogation of the rights of the people. In either case, it ought to be returned to the gentleman.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, the blank petition has been forwarded by my constituency, with a note attached, which is now attached to it, that they should present it for signatures and return it to their constitutional delegate for presentation in this Convention. I have no other way

of disposing of it than to place it at the disposition of the gentlemen of this Convention. Therefore, I have placed it with a communication attached to it in the regular order.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to ask if the gentleman has ascertained that that matter was submitted to the people or did the person to whom it was mailed merely return it?

Mr. LOW (Cache). He says it does not conform with our delegate's voice in the Convention; therefore, we return it. I presume a number of them were {852 - APPORTIONMENT}
consulted on the matter and the parties to whom it was sent returned it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is, however, a presumption. I would like to hear that read. I take it that that is an insult to this Convention, and I think that we ought to know just what that business is.

The secretary then read.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Read the letter that is enclosed.

The SECRETARY. I have no letter here, Mr. President.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask, Mr. President, if the endorsement on that paper was prepared by the gentleman, or whether a member of this house, representing that constituency, endorsed it?

Mr. LOW (Cache). That was endorsed by Mr. Low of Cache.

Mr. VARIAN. I still insist on that motion, that it be returned to the presenter.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Chidester, of Garfield, presented file No. 245, petitions from Washington, Box Elder, Morgan, Sevier and Sanpete counties, containing two thousand one hundred and eighty-nine names, asking that an equal suffrage clause be placed in the Constitution.

Ordered filed.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question. Before these petitions are referred to the committee, may any member have a right to scan them through and see what names are upon them? I hold in my hand a petition from Ephraim, Sanpete County, signed by H. P. Larsen, and 150 others, voters, and our best citizens, asking that woman's suffrage be submitted to the people in a separate article, and also a letter from our mayor as follows:

Be it resolved by the citizens of Ephraim, in mass meeting assembled, that the question of woman's suffrage be submitted to the voters as a separate article apart from the main body of the Constitution.

Adopted unanimously

PETER THOMPSON.

Mayor of Ephraim.

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; we would like to investigate a little. We are thankful for that suggestion of the chair.

Mr. James presented a petition, asking that the question of woman's suffrage be submitted to a separate vote of the people, signed by W. W. Wiscomb and 33 others.

The article entitled congressional and legislative apportionment was then taken up and the third reading proceeded with as follows:

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I believe there is an amendment pending, is there not?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDLE. I would like to make a motion to strike out the proviso and the amendment thereto. (Section 4.) That would leave the whole question then open to the Legislature. I was heartily in sympathy with the sentiments expressed yesterday by the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Varian, upon this question, but the Convention seems to think that we ought not to take that step. The step that I now propose by this amendment is to leave it with the Legislature. If the Legislature in the future wish to keep the representatives as they now are, one from each county, they can do that, but if there should come a time in the history of the Territory that the Legislature would deem it advisable to change that apportionment, they have the power to do it. I admit that representation ought to be upon the number of the population.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I wish to rise to a point of order. This amendment has the same effect exactly as the amendment that we killed yesterday, and I think to go into this question and take up the time of this Convention for two hours, which will result in the same thing that it did yesterday_ {853} we ought not to do it. It is an equivalent motion.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, the question that we discussed and decided yesterday was this: That when an apportionment was made it should be according to population and this amendment does not mean that. This amendment leaves it with the Legislature. The Legislature can leave it one from each county or according to population.

The PRESIDENT. The chair is of the opinion that the point of order is not well taken.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, if the question we discussed yesterday vas not to leave it to the future Legislature to determine, was there anything in the proposed amendment about population?

Mr. THURMAN. That was not the motion; that was the trend of the argument, but the motion was to leave it to the Legislature.

Mr. VARIAN. The motion was to strike out and insert first. That is a very different proposition from moving to strike out alone. The motion to strike out was accompanied by the motion to insert, which included this proviso, “the Legislature shall apportion.” It was mandatory direction that when it did apportion it should apportion according to the population.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Bowdle has the floor.

Mr. BOWDLE. So that you will see that the question decided yesterday was not this question at all. Until the Legislature shall take some action, if this motion prevails, there will be one from each county, but it leaves it in the power of the Legislature to determine whether there ever shall be a time when there shall not be one from each county. Now, we heard a great deal of talk here about leaving things to the Legislature. This is a thing that ought to be left to the Legislature. We cannot look down through all time and determine what may be or what may not be the condition of these counties. It may be there will come a time (which I hope never shall) that some county would see that it was unfair and unjust, and the counties all through the Territory should see the same thing, for them to have a representation. Take the county spoken of yesterday, San Juan, with 375 population in 1890. Now it has gone up, the gentleman says, to 2,000. Suppose the reverse should take place and instead of 375 they should be reduced down to 25. We do not believe that it ever will be so, but suppose it should be so, it would then leave it for the Legislature to determine whether a county of that size ought to have a representation or not. I am willing and perfectly confident that the right would be done by leaving it to the Legislature. The outlying counties will have their one member in every case here to determine this question. When the question will come up for determination every county, as it now stands in this Territory or coming State, will have one member in that body that will determine that question. Is it not safe then to leave it for that body to determine?

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I am opposed to striking out the proviso here and leaving it for the Legislature, for the reason that this Convention by a large majority have already voted against a proposition of that kind. I also notice that when the larger counties, especially the county in which we find ourselves located at the present time, cannot get a certain proposition through this Convention, they always want to switch off to the Legislature, thinking that perhaps they can manipulate the Legislature better than they can the Convention.

Mr. BOWDLE. In what case has that been true?
{854}
Mr. THORESON. In several.

Mr. BOWDLE. Can you name one?

Mr. BOWDLE. Well, any other?

Mr. THORESON. I think, gentlemen, after we have decided on the representation for the various counties we ought to stay with it, and I do not think any future Legislature will improve it_these larger counties conceding largely to the smaller ones and aiding them in their struggles. I admit that our county is not getting a fair representation. I admit that Salt Lake and these larger counties are not, but I tell you that we depend to a great extent on these smaller counties that are undeveloped yet. We expect to send our sons and daughters into these counties to make homes there, and we want them to be represented in the Legislature of the future State, and I am willing to concede, and I believe this Convention will concede, these privileges that we have given to these counties, and retain this article as it is reported by the committee. I hope it will be voted down.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, the gentlemen will find that if this motion should maintain and this is left out, that section 2 will accomplish the same object that was voted down here yesterday, for in section 2 it says, that every five years an enumeration shall be made by the Legislature, and that the representation on the basis of such enumeration shall be fixed by law. If this should be left out, then the Legislature must apportion every five years according to the ratio fixed by law, and the same result would be obtained that the gentleman from Salt Lake sought to obtain yesterday, when it was voted down.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I understood Mr. Van Horne or some gentleman, last evening, to move as amendment that a certain word would be inserted, which would give the counties the representation provided for in this article. I ask whether that is pending or not?

The PRESIDENT. There is a proposed amendment by Mr. Van Horne now pending.

Mr. HART. Then, I ask for the vote first upon the amendment of Mr. Van Horne. That is a question of order that has come up several times before, and I thought it was pretty well settled. I am in favor of the amendment of Mr. Van Horne, which will give to the counties the representation that they now have. If it is going to be the judgment of this house that we should have a house of representatives consisting of forty-five members, then I am willing to vote for each county to have one representative_for these counties that now exist, but I would not be in favor of going further and permitting new counties, however small they might be, and perhaps created hereafter for the very purpose of getting representatives_I would not be in favor of the proposition which would make it possible for an arrangement of that kind. I call for the vote first upon the amendment of Mr. Van Horne. I do not think there is any question but what that is the proper order, for the reason that we are virtually sending a measure that is imperfect to its grave. We are sending it to account with all its imperfections on its head. Perhaps the friends of that proposition should have a right to perfect it and get it in the best shape before striking it out, because some individuals who would vote to strike it out would not do so if it were in the best possible form.

Until otherwise provided by law, representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties of the State as follows:

The roll was then called on the motion of Mr. Bowdle, with the following result:

AYES_28.
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Coray
Emery
Farr
Goodwin
Green
Haynes
Hill
James
Kiesel
Lambert
Lund
Page
Peterson, Sanpete
Pierce
Preston
Roberts
Ryan
Sharp
Shurtliff
Squires
Stover
Symons
Van Horne
Varian
Wells.

NOES_66.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes

ABSENT_10.
Adams        
Cannon        
Gibbs            
Ivins            
Kimball, Weber     
Mackintosh
Nebeker
Strevell
Thatcher
Whitney.

EXCUSED_2.
Hart    
Larsen, L.

Lost.

During the roll call the following remarks were made:

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask to be excused from voting, for the reason that I would like to vote on the other proposition. I am opposed to the proposition as it stands, but with the amendment of the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Van Horne, I am willing to vote in favor of it.

Mr. L. LARSEN. Mr. President, if there is no objection, I would like to withdraw my vote on the motion. I am in the same position as the gentleman from Cache.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, before a vote is taken on this, I just wanted to say one word. I want to call attention to one feature of this article. As I understand it, we are limited now for ten years by this proposition to a Legislature composed of 18 senators and 45 representatives. Now, if the proposition stands without this amendment and new counties are constructed in the meantime, those counties must each have a representative and those representatives must be taken from the larger counties. I do not see any other way out of it. We are limited to 63 members of the Legislature.

Mr. CRANE. Five years.

Mr. SQUIRES. I do not so understand it. The chairman of the committee puts the construction on it that this apportionment may be changed in {856} five years. My understanding of it was that it would not be changed until 1905. Now, if it is the understanding that it is only five years, that should be plainly stated, but I want to call attention to that one feature of it, that if new counties are created between now and 1905, they must have a representation under this section, and where is it to come from? We are limited by the article itself to 63 members of the Legislature. I believe that this amendment should prevail so that if any new counties are made between this time and the time of the new apportionment, they will have no representation in the Legislature, except as they are represented by the districts as already prepared in this article, I think that this amendment should prevail.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I do not understand how a new county can be formed except by an act of the Legislature, and then, as I understand this section here, it must be done immediately following, or is supposed to be done immediately following an enumeration, either by the State or by the national authorities, In 1900_five years from this, we have an enumeration by the government. Then new counties can be formed. We shall have one in 1905, and then new counties can be formed.

Mr. SQUIRES. Do I understand the gentleman to mean that under this section, you are providing for the organization of new counties? I thought that this referred simply to the organization, of representative and senatorial districts and not to the organization of counties.

Mr. CRANE. We do not provide for the organization of new counties at all, but it provides, after the enumeration, for the new counties being formed. The Legislature then may apportion new counties or may give a certain portion of the counties now existing a new county government, and this provides here, as I understand it, for representation from those counties.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, do I understand that no new counties can be formed until after the enumeration provided for in that article?

Mr. CRANE. By no means, because it provides here in the representative districts that in any future apportionment made by the Legislature each county shall be entitled to at least one representative. As soon as a new county is formed, as I understand it, there will be one

representative from that county. That is mandatory.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by Mr. Van Horne. I am opposed to it upon principle. It is the same motives that have actuated me all the time in favoring county representation. I am sorry to see men here who feel that the Legislature would be made cumbersome, because of the creation of an additional county and an additional representative. I take it, that wherever a county is large enough, and populous enough, and has wealth enough to form a county, it ought to be entitled to representation My principal reasons for this are, that no county can get good representation when it is coupled with another county, and is compelled to be represented by a person who perhaps lives in another county. We have had enough of that kind of representation in the last few years to show us the fallacy of it. For instance, I have a case in mind in which, in the last Legislature but one, Washington County had a very valuable slice of land taken from it, without a particle of justice in it, simply because another county wanted it and not because there was any good reason for it at all. Our representative represented both of these counties. He was powerless to act in the premises. He simply passed it over in the hands of strangers, who decided it without knowing anything of the merits of the question whatever, and I call attention {857} to the fact that these same differences over county lines have existed in almost every Legislature that has ever met in this Territory. It is a continuous thing. There are always conflicting claims of one kind and another between the constituents of different counties, and when a man is compelled to represent both of those counties, he cannot do it. He is
non est. He is worse than a nonenity, because then they have no representation at all. Out of sheer delicacy, he does not wish to act, because if he acted in favor of one he would offend the other. And another thing, if a man is a candidate for representative, where there are two or three counties forming the representative district, why the representatives of this district, if they have any pet schemes or any hobbies, they want to know how that representative stands on these questions before they vote for him. They may want a slice of some other county and it is perhaps the county he hails from. He is placed in an embarrassing position. I take it that if every county is given a representation, he can then act and speak for his constituents in whatever interests them. And there are a great many things that interest every organized county in this Territory. Legislation directly affects them in all their occupations, and they ought to be entitled to representation and a voice. I am opposed, therefore, upon principle, to the amendment offered by Mr. Van Horne. It is no satisfaction to me to give the existing counties a representative and bar any future county that may be created, because I think those counties of right are entitled to representation.

When we think that the Legislature is the great storehouse, the great comissary that is going to parcel out the benefits to this Territory, make all the appropriations and levy the taxes, and place all the burdens upon the people, I think that ought to be a sufficient argument to give each county a representative. Now, I wish, while I am on my feet, to deny the insinuations that have appeared in a morning paper, and that have appeared time and time and again, that the democratic members of the committee on apportionment have been taken in by this bait of county representation. I want it understood that we have been just as ardent for that from the beginning as any of the members of the other party in this Convention, and we have not been influenced by any improper motives whatever, but we have tried to deal fairly and justly in this apportionment, recognizing contiguous counties and counties that have intercommunication and business

relations with each other where they could get together, where they naturally lie and have roads intermingling, and inter-communicating with each other, where it would be easy of access. We have taken these things into consideration and have consulted members from every county and from every delegation in this Convention, and we have not acted from selfish or improper motives. It is true that this apportionment is not all that I would wish it. It is not perhaps as favorable to the party to which I belong as I would like to have it, but on the main, I think it is just, I think it is humane, and I deny the insinuations that have been cast upon the minority of that committee, who are the members of the party to which I belong. I wish to set myself and my confreres right on this proposition. I am opposed to the amendment, and I hope it will be voted down, as it should be.

The PRESIDENT. If the amendment prevails, the section will read as follows:

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

Mr. BUYS. May I ask the gentleman a question? Is not this proviso in section 3, “the Legislature may increase the number of senators and representatives,” sufficient for that purpose?

Mr. THURMAN. I believe the gentleman is right. I think that that answers my objection. I am ready to vote against the proposed amendment.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Squires) a question. I had not the advantage of being present yesterday to discuss, nor do I know what amendments were made to this article, but I understood the gentleman to say that the Legislature were limited in their power to act to the times when the census was taken; am I correct in that?

Mr. SQUIRES. As to re-apportionment?

Mr. SQUIRES. Increasing the senatorial and representative districts, they are certainly held by this section, but there is nothing here in regard to counties. What the amendment contemplates is that if new counties shall be created, it will be left to the Legislature to say whether they shall have each a representative.

Mr. RICHARDS. What I desire to ask is what portion of this article is it that would prevent a Legislature from increasing the number of representatives at the time that it created a new county?

Mr. SQUIRES. My attention was just called to it. I had not noticed that section.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, if this amendment should prevail, it will not prevent the Legislature, as I understand it, from giving a new county a representative when it is created, if the Legislature thinks it would be just to do so, but if this amendment does not prevail it would be obligatory upon the Legislature to give that new county a representative, regardless of the amount of population. It might be smaller than some of the smallest counties we have now_small counties, which in their present position promise to grow rapidly in population, and I am in favor of the amendment.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, I would like to ask Mr. Hart a question. The statement that it would be obligatory upon the Legislature to give a representative to the county_would that be so until a future apportionment was made? The proviso is that in any {859} future apportionment made by the Legislature, each county shall be entitled to at least one representative, and it provides that the apportionment shall be made at the enumeration, and until the enumeration is made, I do not think it would be obliged to give a representative.

Mr. HART. The gentleman is possibly right. There is a chance for a difference of opinion on this. The county when created would be entitled, from the mere fact that it was created, to one representative.

The roll was then called on the amendment offered by Mr. Van Horne, with the following result:

AYES_34.
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Coray
Cushing
Eichnor
Emery
Gibbs
Goodwin

NOES_65.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Buys
Call
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Driver
Eldredge
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah

ABSENT_7.
Adams    
Cannon    
Kimball, Weber
Mackintosh
Nebeker
Strevell
Thatcher

Lost.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, in explanation of my vote, I desire to say simply, this amendment, in my judgment, serves to aggravate what I deem to be a wrong principle underlying the proposition in an equally objectionable way of making a discrimination between the counties, which is just as offensive to me as the other.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I want to offer an amendment to section 2, if I am in order, although I have given up all hope of changing, by any syllable or word, any section or paragraph of this article; but in view of the statement made by Mr. Crane, of the committee, that it is the intention of this article to have an apportionment every five years in this State, I would like to have it made plain in section 2 that that is the purport of the article, so, I offer the following amendment: strike out in line 4 the word “such,” and lines 5, 6 and 7 to the words “United States” and insert: “The United States census of the year 1900 and every five years thereafter.” So that the section will read as follows:
{860}

The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants of the State in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and five and every tenth year thereafter, and at the session next following the United States census of the year nineteen hundred and every five years thereafter, shall revise and adjust the apportionment for senators, etc.

Mr. SQUIRES I do not. I want to make it plain.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, it seems to me that this section is not clear on that point.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, it provides that the Legislature shall, at the session next following the enumeration of 1905, re-apportion, and also at the session next following the United States census, which may follow. There is ambiguity there, and I want to clear it up, that is all, and if my amendment is put in there it will make it perfectly plain. It will read that the first apportionment shall be made after the census in 1900 and every five years thereafter.

Mr. SQUIRES. Yes, after the year 1900; but under this section the first apportionment is provided for in the year 1905.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Would not it double that expense?

Mr. SQUIRES. The intention is to have it every five years. That is what the article calls for.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I do not understand it so. I hope this amendment will not prevail.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. We passed section 2 yesterday, and I think amendments are not in order.

The PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken.

Mr. VARIAN. Do I understand the ruling to be that when we have an article on the third reading we cannot amend it in any particular, because we have passed a section?

The PRESIDENT. That was the intention of the chair.

Mr. VARIAN. If that is going to be the ruling, we will confine ourselves to it hereafter.

Mr. SQUIRES. I understand the entire article is open to amendment until the final roll call is taken on the passage of the article.

The PRESIDENT. I think the chair is mistaken in regard to this matter.

Mr. EICHNOR. I was going to withdraw my point of order.

Mr. KERR. I desire to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Squires, if, while it is true, as he states, the provision here for the enumeration of the inhabitants of the State_is there not also the statement that at the session of the Legislature next following an enumeration made by the authority of the United States the Legislature shall revise, etc. Is it not also true that under this provision the Legislature would be required to revise and adjust the apportionment after the United States census was taken?

Mr. SQUIRES. Well, I think it is open to reasonable doubt, and that is the reason I wanted the amendment put in there. If it means what is said by Mr. Crane, why not make it plain so that there can be no doubt as to what is intended?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, according to my notion, section 2 is perfectly clear, and all it means is that the Legislature should provide for an enumeration in the year 1905 and every ten years thereafter, and the United States makes an enumeration once every ten years, so that the

Legislature will re-apportion every five years, once upon the United States enumeration. I do {861} not believe that that section can be read in any other way than that. I think it is just as it should be, and I shall vote against the proposed amendment.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Under this section, as it is provided, when do you think the first re-apportionment would be made by the Legislature?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). In 1900. I do not think there can be any other construction.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is what I want to cover, but I believe it is open to doubt. The first provision is that the first apportionment shall be made in 1905.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). No, 1900; because the section states, “also at the session next following the enumeration made by the authority of the United States.” Now, the United States will make an enumeration in 1900, and after that enumeration the next Legislature following that shall enumerate and make a new apportionment, but under the enumeration of the State, no apportionment will be made until 1905. It seems to be very clear and I think there can be no misunderstanding about it.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, as I stated in the first place, I had no hope of changing a single word or striking out a comma or period in this article when I made the motion.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I suggest that the mere fact that our friends and colleagues, members of this Convention, differ as to the construction that should be placed on this section indicates that there is an ambiguity there. One of them understands that we would have an apportionment in 1900, the other, that the apportionment would not come until after 1905; and it seems to me that we could easily fix this by adding the letter “y” to “an,” just before the word enumeration, so that it would read “any enumeration by the United States,” and that would cover it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). According to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Squires, it would require the State to make an enumeration in the same year that the United States makes its enumeration. It would be a useless expense.

Mr. SQUIRES. I do not understand that. I would like to have my amendment read, if the gentleman has got that impression of it. It don't call for any such thing.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I would like to ask what the effect of Mr. Squires' motion was_whether the order in which the provision for re-apportionment was put here, did not make the first apportionment follow the census taken by the State in 1905, and exclude the re-apportionment on the United States census of 1900? For that purpose, he makes this amendment, that following the United States census in 1900, and the State census in 1905, the apportionment shall be made. It seems to me that the word “an” there, changed to “any,” will cover the whole question.

Mr. SQUIRES. That would be in effect exactly what my amendment calls for. That will leave it

open to the Legislature after the enumeration of 1900 by the United States, to make a re- apportionment. The way it stands, I believe it to be ambiguous, and if my amendment cannot prevail, the amendment by Mr. Van Horne certainly should.

The amendment of Mr. Squires was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of Mr. Van Horne.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, of course it is usual for the United States to make an enumeration every ten years, but suppose the United States under that amendment should make an enumeration at some other time, for some other purpose, if the word “any” be written in there, then the State Legislature would be required {862} to make a re-apportionment. There might be an enumeration for something entirely different from that which is regularly made every decade; I think it would be dangerous even to add the letter “y.”

Mr. SQUIRES. I think so, too.

The amendment offered by Mr. Van Horne was rejected.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I move that the article on congressional and legislative apportionment do now pass.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, before that motion is put, I would like to make a slight amendment in section 3.

Mr. SQUIRES. It won't go.

Mr. WHITEY. In line 7, changing the word “greater” to “more.” So that it shall read, “shall never be less than twice, nor more than three times the number of senators.” “More” is a better word than “greater.”

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I would suggest if that is simply dressing up the article, that that would be done by the committee on compilation and arrangement.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Whitney, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 45 ayes to 35 noes, the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I would like to move a vote of confidence in the committee on apportionment and boundaries.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, the delegates of Sanpete County feel as though they have hardly been dealt fairly with in the representation that they will have in the Legislature. In looking up statistics and the registered voters of 1894, we find that Cache County has 16 more votes registered than Sanpete County, and they have three representatives to Sanpete County's two representatives. I wish to make a motion that we have another representative conceded to us.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move we take him from Salt Lake.

Mr. THURMAN. I second the motion to take it off Salt Lake.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, before that motion is put, I would like to say a few words. In the county of Cache there are 2,967 voters. In the county of Sanpete there are 2,951 voters_a difference of only 16 voters. Our school census shows that we have more children on the way to citizenship (laughter) than Cache has. And gentlemen, I do not think that for the simple reason that Cache has 16 more voters than Sanpete that they should have one representative more. If you think it is fair_Sanpete is not a majority here, but it does not occur to us that it ought to be done. There is only a difference of 16, gentlemen_16.

Mr. HART. I would like to ask the gentleman the difference in population. I understand that this was to be based upon population; 16,500 is about the population given for Cache. I will ask the gentleman if he knows what the population of Sanpete County was? I am of the impression that there are some two or three thousand difference in population between Cache and Sanpete County.

Mr. CRANE. 13,369.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Three thousand in round numbers.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. As I understand it, there is no motion to amend this proposition in any particular. It is simply a suggestion. The suggestion ought to be incorporated and a motion made, designating just what they propose to strike out and what to insert, it seems to me.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I understood that Mr. Squires moved that one representative be taken from Salt Lake and given to Sanpete, and that was seconded.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I would like to go straight on the record. I understood {863} that Mr. Jolley moved that Sanpete be accorded one representative. I seconded his motion and suggested that it might be taken from Salt Lake in order to even the thing up and make it square.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If that comes from Salt Lake, let it go by unanimous consent.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I have tried to deal fairly with the outside counties and also with my own county, but this has got down to child's play. I think it is ridiculous_a suggestion of that kind; if Sanpete County_

The PRESIDENT. There is no motion before the house

Mr. EICHNOR. There is a motion.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, a gentleman has made a motion here. I think he has a right to designate the exact motion in writing.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I make the point of order that it is not in order to make a motion to amend this; the only thing we can do is to discuss the question of the adoption or not adopting it, as a whole. It is not open for amendment in any particular, because there is a motion here to adopt it as a whole. The argument should be confined to either against that proposition or for that proposition.

Mr. VARIAN. I arise for information. I thought I got it before when the president ruled, but it seems not. Is it not true that when a proposition or a bill is upon its third reading, it is open to amendment until the roll call is ordered in any part of the bill or proposition? And is it not also true that no motion that a bill pass is necessary or permissible? When the house is ready for a vote they call for a vote and the roll call is ordered?

The PRESIDENT. I think the gentleman's statement of the proposition is correct.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, it seems to me this motion of Mr. Lund or Mr. Jolley cannot be put as it is. He asks that Sanpete be given another delegate. Until a way is provided to supply that delegate from the other counties, under this article that we are passing it cannot be done. He will have to couple with his motion the further proviso, where this other senator is to come from. There is another question of morals concerned in this. Mr. Lund made an open confession the other day here that he was not a married man and he is talking about his children_      [Laughter.]

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I do not understand that this is a finished article yet, and that no way can be provided by which another representative can be given to one county. I would move that in the article on representative districts, page 3, line 48, the word “two” be stricken out and “three” inserted.

Mr. JOLLEY. I second that motion.

Mr. MURDOCK (Wasatch). Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion, from the fact that this apportionment was based upon the population of each county, and representatives were given one for each five thousand people, and now to change the rule and give Sanpete County one representative for about 4,300 people and give no other county in the Territory the same representation, it seems to me would be unjust and unfair. Some system has to be adopted upon which the representatives shall be based, and the plan that was adopted by the committee on apportionment was one representative for each county and an additional representative for every 6,000 people. At any rate there is no other county that has a representative, outside of the smaller counties, for a less number than 5,000 people, and I do not see why Sanpete County should have an additional representative when no other county has it. If we are going to increase their number, then I say, let {864 - MILITIA} us increase it all around and give Salt Lake and other

counties with a similar population additional representatives, or in other words, let us stick to what we started in with_not less than five thousand.

The motion of Mr. Lund was rejected.

The roll was then called on the adoption of the article with the following result:

AYES_90.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Farr
Francis
Gibbs
Green
Hammond
Hart
Haynes
Halliday
Heybourne
Hill
Howard

NOES_7.
Jolley Lowe, Wm.
Pierce
Stover
Van Horne
Varian
Wells.

ABSENT_9.
Adams
Goodwin
Kiesel
Kimball, Weber
Larsen, C. P.
Mackintosh
Nebeker
Strevell
Thatcher.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to say, in explanation of my vote, that I could not be present yesterday during the discussion of this question, and while I do not approve of this apportionment, as a whole, I do not feel that I would be justified in attempting, or have not felt that I would be justified in attempting to re-open the discussion of this question, believing that it had been discussed to that extent that the Convention had agreed upon it and to re-open it would have no effect. I vote for the article although it is not as I would like to have had it.

The PRESIDENT. The article has been passed, gentlemen, and will go to the committee on compilation and arrangement, under the rule.

The Convention then, at 12 o'clock m., took a recess until 2 o'clock.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The article on militia was read a third time and the roll being called on the question of its adoption the result was as follows:

AYES_81.
Allen Anderson Barnes Bowdle Brandley Button Buys

NOES_0.

ABSENT_25.
Adams
Boyer
Driver
Evans, Weber
Goodwin
Hammond
Haynes
Hill
Hughes
Johnson
Kiesel

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I wish to suggest something in regard to that. I am sorry I did not get back in time. I want to change the word “citizens,” as in the first bill reported, to “inhabitants,” and cover the amendment that was made.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). It cannot be done now.

The President announced the proposed article adopted and referred to the committee on compilation and arrangememt [*note*].

On motion the Convention then, at 2:12 p. m., resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Ivins in the chair.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The article on legislative was then considered as follows:

Sections 1 and 2 were read by the secretary.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, in lines 6 and 7 of section 2, this clause: “But the governor may convene the Legislature in special session by proclamation.” That is provided for in the executive article.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Has the executive article been passed yet?

Mr. CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Then I prefer that this should remain and it should be left to the committee on compilation. If they conflict in any way, they can reconcile it.

Mr. EICHNOR. The executive department was passed on partly by a committee of the whole and

we passed that section which empowers the governor to convene the Legislature in special session. I think this is superfluous and hence I make the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I think, Mr. Chairman, that probably the words “after the first election” are not necessary. This only provides for election after the adoption of this Constitution, and it seems to me those words are superfluous. It occurred to me in reading it over at this time. I move that the {866} words “after the first election” come out in line 2 of section 3.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am not so clear about that matter. It seems to me if we strike that out there may be some question as to whether we are to have an election before the election that is to take place in 1896. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is necessary to retain that in order to make that matter clear.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask the chairman of the legislative committee a question, if he has no objection. I see that in section 4, lines 6, 7, 8 and 9, you provide that senators elected at the first session of the Legislature shall be divided by lot into two classes, as nearly equal as may be. Did the committee consider the question of numbering the senatorial districts and dividing them by odd and even numbers?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Yes, sir; that was considered before the committee. This is a unanimous report of the committee.

Mr. EICHNOR. I do not like the proposition of gambling.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, there is one matter about this that I am not clear upon; and that is, in regard to the first election. It says here, in lines 6, 7, 8, “provided, however, that the senators- elect at the first session of the Legislature shall be divided by lot,” etc. Now, the first election of the Legislature, as I understand it, will be in the present year, 1895, and section 3 provides for an election also in 1896. Now, the question is, at which of these elections, in 1895 or 1896, is this division of the senators going to be made, and the four and the two year terms started from?
if it is going to be the first election, which it really says here_the one in 1895, then, we will have senators elected in the odd numbered years, 1897, etc. I think that is a matter that should be cleared up in some way. It certainly seems uncertain.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I moved to strike out “after the first election” in section 3, was that I presumed the committee on schedule would arrange for an election of the house of representatives and senate_the election that precedes Utah becoming a State, but this

Constitution would only go in effect for the State itself, and would regulate the elections occurring under the Constitution, and if that is so, this only goes to the first election after the Constitution shall have been adopted, and it is clear the way it is.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, that will not help it, because the words “the first session” are used, and it is conceded that there will be an election in 1895. It would still remain indefinite. That thing should be made certain, it seems to me. I move, therefore, that the word “first,” in line 7, be stricken out, and the words “elected in 1896,” be inserted after the word “session.”

Mr. VAN HORNE. I do not think that will do.

Mr. HART. It should be amended in another part. That is the idea, however, that this thing should be made certain in one form or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the gentleman withdraws the motion that he made.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Cache, but I think that he did not strike out enough words. I will offer as an amendment to his motion, that the words, “at the first session of the Legislature,” in lines 7 and 8, be struck out, the word “elect” changed to “elected,” and insert 1896 in its place. Then it will read, “the senators elected in 1896 shall be,” etc.

Mr. HART. I accept that amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.
{867}
Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, commencing in the 12th line, after the word “years,” as follows: “So that one-half, as nearly as possible, shall be chosen biennially thereafter.” I think it is useless repetition of what the forepart of the section contains.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that that suggestion was made in the committee. I made it myself, but the committee decided that it was clearer and more definite and less chance for a mistake if it was left in, and decided to leave it in.

The motion was rejected.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to insert in the first blank the number 18, in accordance with the adoption by this Convention of the article on apportionment, and in the second blank, 45.

The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't it be better to put those amendments separately?

Mr. VAN HORNE. I move that in line 1, section 5, the blank shall be filled by inserting the word

18.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment that the section be stricken out. Section 3 of the congressional and legislative apportionment article covers substantially the same ground. It is not necessary to have it in both.

The motion of Mr. Snow was agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 were read.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman. I move that the words “twenty-one years of age,” in line 3 of section 7, be stricken out, for the reason that persons cannot become citizens of the United States before they are twenty-one years of age, and this statement, therefore, is superfluous.
The motion was rejected.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the words “twenty-one” be stricken out and the words “twenty-five” be inserted.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. L. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, I make a motion that the words “twenty-five” be stricken out in section 6, line 3, and insert the word “thirty” in lieu thereof.

Mr. HALLIDAY. Oh, don't keep the young men back all their lives.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair hears no second to this motion.

Section 8 was read.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the words “or of this State,” in line 3, be stricken out.

The amendment was rejected.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 were read.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and line 7, ending with the word “ability,” of section 11.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I move that all the balance of the section be stricken out also.

Mr. EICHNOR. I accept the amendment.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Weber why he wants to strike out the last

provision of this section?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There are a good many reasons why the Legislature ought to retain that power, and another thing, it is very difficult to ascertain just how you will convict a person under this section. I think it ought to be left to the Legislature.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that motion to strike out section 11 will not prevail. I think it is only proper that we should provide that members of the Legislature be put under oath to faithfully discharge their duties; to be true to the Constitution of the United States and the State of Utah, and if this section is stricken out, I do not know where there is a provision that would require the members of the Legislature to take an oath of office. I think it ought not to be stricken out.
{868}
Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the motion to strike out. The article on elections, in section 15, provides that all officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution, or by the laws made in pursuance thereof, shall, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, take or subscribe the following oath or affirmation, etc. That covers every conceivable office of the State. I think it ought to be provided for once for all, just as it is here. Now, as far as that goes, that answers one objection raised by the gentleman from Davis County. Were it not for this provision I would agree with him that that part of the section ought not to go out. Now, as far as the latter part of the section is concerned, I think it ought to go out, for the reason suggested by Mr. Evans, but not elaborated upon, and that is this, you say the only thing you are required to do, you swear that you will discharge the duties of your office with fidelity. Now, suppose a man does not do that. Suppose a man neglects his duty, can you convict him of perjury? There has never been a case known in the books. That is all he swears to do, that he will discharge the office with fidelity. If he fails to do that, there is no way of reaching it and convicting a man for perjury. It ought to go out for the reasons suggested.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I hope this section will remain. It is a very respectable section. It looks very well. I hope it will remain there.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to make it conform with our article on elections. The term “he” is used here some seven times, and to make it consistent with our article on elections, there should be a feminine pronoun_she or her.

Mr. FARR. I have read somewhere that “she” means “he” and “he” means “she.”

Mr. SMITH. I would like the privilege of asking Mr. Van Horne where this section comes from_is it gotten up in the committee or taken from some other constitution?

Mr. VAN HORNE. I think it is compiled from a number of constitutions. There are one or two constitutions which have provisions for an oath very much more stringent than provided for here. That was cut out by the committee, I will say to the gentlemen. Of course, the draft of the legislative committee had to be complete in itself, without regard to what would be accomplished by the Convention before the consideration of this article, and there are a good many things in the

article that probably have already been covered in the articles on elections and apportionment. So far as I am personally concerned, I was opposed to the latter portion of the section going in, in the committee, but the committee, in their wisdom, overruled me on that proposition, and it was inserted and finally assented to by the unanimous vote of the committee on legislative.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the whole section. It seems to me there is a chance for entanglement. It may produce unpleasantness and there is doubt and uncertainty in the whole section, in my judgment. I shall vote against it.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to striking it out. It seems to me that there would be one object attained anyway by keeping the matter there, that is, in the section following you find it provides who shall administer the oath.

Mr. BOYER. Strike that out, too.

Mr. CHEER. I think it is proper; there should be some person who shall administer the oath to the Legislature.

Mr. EICHNOR. Does not the latter part read like a section_     

Mr. CREER. I am in favor of striking out the latter part after the word “ability,” on the 7th line, but I would retain the balance of it, and also retain the following section. Then there is {869} some proper person to administer the oath to the Legislature.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to make one further suggestion? Section 12, when we reach it, may be amended in the first line by saying that the official oaths of members of the Legislature shall be administered by the judges of the supreme court. We have an official oath elsewhere, which I have read.

Mr. CREER. I will accept that.

The motion to strike out section 11 was agreed to.

Section 12 was read.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 12.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I hope that that motion will not prevail. If it does not, I would move to amend by saying, “the official oath of officers and members of the Legislature shall be administered,” and go on with the provision as to how this oath shall be administered.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I can not see any necessity of prescribing in the Constitution who shall administer the oath. It is not necessary at all. I notice that it is not in many of the other constitutions.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 13 was read.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 13 in line 2, by striking out the words “four dollars” and putting in “two dollars and a half.”

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend that by making it “three dollars and a half.”

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, favor the first motion and would like the gentleman to withdraw the section and make it three.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not in order.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all these amendments. I think that four dollars a day is merely a nominal sum anyway for services in the Legislature. It will not any more than pay expenses, and if we put it at anything less than that, a poor man will not be able to serve in the Legislature. They cannot pay their expenses there. It would simply result in selecting men who had means, by which their expenses could be paid. If you look over the constitutions of the various states everywhere, you will find that four dollars is below the average sum. I do not believe that a member of the Legislature ought to make any money out of his office, but I do think that he ought to have enough so that a poor man can pay his expenses while he is in the service of the State, and I shall, therefore, vote against all the amendments and vote for the section as the committee has reported it.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest as a reason for retaining this amount stated in the section that without it no member of a labor union can be a member of the Legislature.

Mr. RALEIGH. Did you ever know a poor man to get to the Legislature anywhere?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes; I think I have known a good many of them in Utah. In fact more poor men than rich men. That has been my experience at least. I remember that Mr. Thurman has been in the Legislature a good many times and he is an extremely poor man. [Laughter.] He will probably be poorer the longer he serves in business of this kind.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to both amendments, and favor the original proposition of four {870} dollars per day. The amount to be expended ordinarily would be in the per diem of members, $15,120, and while this is a pretty large sum, at the same time, it has been agreed upon as the number that would at present constitute the Legislature_63, and I do not think it would be just to men who are poor and who have to leave their homes in different parts of the

Territory, and neglect their business and their affairs, and spend their time in public business, to make the compensation less than four dollars. I certainly favor the original article.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am in favor of the amendment to this section, for this reason: The office of legislator is a very honorable office, and to which any man in the commonwealth may properly and justly aspire. We have increased, under the apportionment bill, our number of legislators. This will place a very heavy burden upon our people, and inasmuch as it is a proposition that we run an economical government, and I have been assured that unless we do provide for an economical government in this Constitution, there may be some barriers in the way of it, and looking upon this matter as a holiday for six weeks during the winter, upon the part of most of the members, desiring to have a good time away from home, I certainly favor the proposition to insert two dollars and a half. The members from the country receive their mileage, which pays their way here. This will provide for their wants and necessities. They can serve the commonwealth with honor and go home satisfied that they did it because they loved their country.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, you cannot have a good time on two dollars and a half a day. [Laughter.] Gentlemen from Salt Lake, who live at home, and do not feel the expenses of members who come from a distance, may get along on an amount like this. While I am in favor of economy, I am not in favor of parsimony. Four dollars a day, Mr. Chairman, will barely pay the expense of a member in attendance upon the Legislature, and as it now stands, it actually requires patriotism upon the part of any business man to accept a position in the Legislature. He cannot afford to leave his business and sacrifice his business interests and go to the Legislature, and then be out of pocket besides, while he is there, not having his expenses paid. I think that four dollars is the very lowest we could place it at. I am in favor of the four dollar limit.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, economy is all right when it is properly administered. The other day the Convention proper adopted a section that we would have a separate election for judicial, school, and municipal officers. That will entail an expense of from six to ten thousand dollars every year. Gentlemen, you voted for that with the facts right before you. You rushed right into it. Now, when it comes right down to the Legislature, I think that four dollars is small enough. I suppose this motion was made to find out how many were in favor of four dollars_to find out how many were candidates for the Legislature. I am not a candidate, I state frankly.

Mr. THURMAN. You are talking in behalf of your friends, though, are you not?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir. Four dollars is little enough for a man that lives in Salt Lake City. This time I want it distinctly understood that I favor the outside.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of these amendments, particularly the one of two dollars and a half a day. It is nowhere written in the scriptures, I believe, that a man shall serve without purse or scrip. I think they ought to be put on a level at least with ministers of the gospel, and four dollars a day is just about as little as {871} they get_not many of them much more, and it seems to me that that ought to remain. It is about all we can afford to pay, I know.

I can go on and enumerate but it is not necessary. Everything that we used was at least four times as much. Well, now, if we cannot live on three dollars a day or even two dollars and a half, I should be sorry. I know if we lived on three dollars a day then, when everything was high_four times as high as it is now_we got along first rate. Now, I want to ask this intelligent body of men why they want to pay four dollars a day or to pay high salaries? The people are taxed to-day, some of them are so in debt they can hardly live, between nine and ten hundred persons sold out in Weber County for taxes this winter. They could not get the money, and if they ever redeem their property they have got to pay the expense of advertising and selling it and then one and one- half per cent. per month for that money. Now, for us to pile up expenses, I am opposed to it. I know that my constituents are and I have heard from different ones in different parts of the Territory. They are utterly opposed to the high salaries. It is the general feeling throughout the Territory that they are opposed to these high salaries from the fact that they do not know where the money is coming from. The argument is if you get a man of ability, you have got to pay for them. I tell you if you have got a man of ability he is able to get a living without taxing the poor man, and if we do not cut down our expenses we are going to follow the example of most
of the other states of the Union; they are nearly all insolvent, and cannot pay their debts, and I say we had better begin to pay our debts, and I always maintained that a man able to fill an honorable office of legislator or any office of the Territory is able to get a living without taxing the poor man to do that, and if we do not cut down these salaries, there will always be quarreling and wrangling to get office and electioneering to get what? To get the salaries. I tell you the honor of it is worth something, and why should we put our hands in the pockets of the poor and tax them to do that_to pay salaries? I tell you that the man that is capable of filling the position is able to get a living without that. I served as mayor for twenty years and I only earned sixty dollars for the whole twenty years. I got fat on it. [Laughter.] I tell you a man of ability is able to get a living without taxing the poor man to death, and I say two dollars and a half a day will pay a man's board, and he can live well on it with the present prices of food and clothing and so on.

Mr: THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the section as it stands and am not entirely in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake. I do not think that the Legislature ought to be tied up to {872} give its members four dollars a day and ten cents a mile each way, when the day may come that mileage in this Territory will not cost over two or three cents a mile. I do not think we ought to be everlastingly bound. I will ask the chair if an amendment is in order?

Mr. THURMAN. Then I shall read as a part of my argument the amendment that I shall propose when I can offer it:

The members of the Legislature shall receive such per diem and mileage as the Legislature may provide, not exceeding the sum of four dollars per day and ten cents per mile for the distance necessarily traveled going to and returning from the place of meeting on the most usual route, and they shall receive no other pay or perquisite.

Mr. THURMAN. That I shall offer when it comes and I think it ought to meet all the objections raised.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, there is a good deal in what Mr. Farr of Weber has said on this matter. Now, the young people of this Convention have been born and bred in different times to a certain extent. It does not follow that simply because we have flush times now that we always shall have, and I am in favor of the amendment to the motion. I would, however, vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Provo (Mr. Thurman), if he would say not to exceed three dollars per day and ten cents a mile. I would vote for that, if he makes that motion, but we have got to retrench. We have gone ahead too far in high priced salaries and it permeates all through the community in labor, even down to common laborers, and I am satisfied that we never can hold up to that standard of prices, and we may as well commence now to retrench in salaries and per diems and in labor just as well as to be forced to it. We shall necessarily have to do it and we might as well commence right here on this floor according to my understanding. I do not wish to reiterate what Mr. Farr has stated, but I passed through this same routine he has passed through, except that I have not been a legislator all that time, but I have been in the government of the Territory and the city all the while and I have never known any such salaries as prevail to- day in any department of the government of our Territory and I do not expect to see it continue as it is to-day. I know that it cannot. And hence I hope the motion to amend will prevail.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything under heaven that the good people throughout the Territory wish it is to have salaries cut down, and they do not want to pay more than two dollars and a half a day to have a good time. But we think they could have a good time here on a dollar a day, because they have a good time working on a ditch all day at a dollar and lots of times cannot get that much. Now, while I know that it would not suit this Convention to cut it down to two dollars and a half or three dollars a day, I want to try and make a compromise and make the people feel a little better. Put it down to three dollars and a half, that will make it about two thousand dollars less that each Legislature would get, and that would help two thousand dollars. Therefore, I propose to vote for three dollars and a half.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, if it ever comes to the time, I shall support the amendment read by the gentleman from Utah County. I am not in favor of these amendments. I am not in favor of

the section just as it stands. I believe that it ought to be left to the Legislature, but I am not in favor of putting it down to two and a half a day or three dollars a day. We do not {873} want to publish to the world that we are so tremendously poor here that we are going to make everything come down to the last penny. I am not in favor of high salaries, but if you want to have a Legislature in the future that will be composed of the kind of men that you desire, you must at least give them enough that they can live upon it while they are here, and if they are in some kind of employment that they need a substitute, this in a measure supplies for the substitute while they are away. The men who will seek the place as a matter of honor simply to lose money while they are here are not the men that will lose money by the job. They will have one hand out behind all the time ready for some fellow that has a bill, to tickle them with a little retainer. I have seen a little bit of that back in some of the states, and I know that that is the tendency. That does not necessitate that we should make a high salary, but we should make it so that a man with integrity that is not hunting for those perquisites, should be able to live here while he is serving his constituents and go back and not lose money by acting honestly.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Bowdle a question? Were you ever in the legislature in one of the eastern states?

Mr. BOWDLE. No, sir; but I have lived in the capital in the eastern states and seen it.

Mr. L. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this question. I am in favor of low salaries and if there is enough in this house that will say three dollars, I am going with them. If there is not enough to say three dollars, then I will say three and a half, and if I cannot do any better, of course, I will come to four. [Laughter.] And I hope there are enough in this house to say three dollars, and then the question as to mileage, I am in for fifteen cents and no more, for mileage one way only. That is more than what it costs us to-day to travel anywhere in this Territory.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Would you be in favor of making your proposition to apply to members of the Convention too?

Mr. LARSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, there is a little conflict here that I wish to call your attention to. We are told that this is a very honorable place. At the same time we are told that the salary sufficient for a man to attend a Legislature and to pay him well and maintain his honorable place is not what either one of these economical gentlemen pay their confidential clerks. I like economy first rate, but the laborer according to the old rule is worthy of his hire. Any man that is fit to come to the Legislature is worth four dollars. If he is not fit, then the State gets the worst of it, and the man who will go to the Legislature for less than that, if he is a poor man, will have one hand behind him sure or he would never take the place, and corporations will want all that class of men. I am speaking in the interests of corporations now. I have in my mind's eye two or three gentlemen who expect to buy their places to the United States senate and other places. I want to make it just as favorable for them as possible, and the lower you reduce the salary of the Legislature the more they will have to pay. Some of them live outside of town and a good many

in town. Let us be decent. If we are going to have a Legislature at all, pay them a fair salary. If you want to put a limit, limit the time they shall hold their session. Make it forty days, but give them enough to buy a suit of clothes and be respectable while they are here. I am opposed to all the amendments, but I will support Mr. Thurman's substitute.

Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely trust this motion will not prevail_that is neither of the amendments before the {874} committee. It seem to me it is hardly the proper thing. There is no economy in selecting men to accept the position for that remuneration in my opinion. I think it is rather too much parsimony that we are showing. Besides, it seems to me, it is taking an unfair advantage of a great many delegates on the floor of this Convention who have so strenuously advocated woman's suffrage. They will no doubt be returned continually to our future Legislature until life will be a burden to them.

The motion of Mr. Allen was rejected.

The motion of Mr. Smith was rejected.

Mr. Thurman offered the following substitute for section 12:

Members of the Legislature shall receive such per diem and mileage as the Legislature may provide, not exceeding the sum of four dollars per day and ten cents per mile for the distance necessarily traveled going to and returning from the place of meeting on the most usual route, and they shall receive no other pay or perquisite.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment that it be not to exceed three dollars per day.

Mr. FARR. I second that motion.
Mr. CANNON. I arise to a point of order. The committee has just refused to consider both three and a half and two and a half; and three dollars being a mean between them amounts to the same thing.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair rules the point of order not well taken.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am one that favors the three dollars in the place of either two and a half or three and a half, and I want to say, gentlemen_you were saying it is worth four dollars to come here and perform the work in the Legislature. How much is it worth to tend the farm and run the plow and go in the canyon and do all of the other work that the majority of the people of Utah have to perform, and how much per day do you suppose they get out of the three hundred and sixty-five days for their labor? I will venture to say here to-day that the farmer of Utah_if his wages were figured up_it would not amount to six-bits a day.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Were you present the other day when the proposition of the elections and suffrage passed.

Mr. EICHNOR. Did you vote for that special election after the general election?

Mr. JOLLEY. I voted for the passage of the entire article. I was not here the day the first section passed.

Mr. EICHNOR. You were aware when you voted for the proposition that it was running the people of the Territory of Utah into an unnecessary expense of ten or fifteen thousand dollars, were you not?

Mr. JOLLEY. Well, we were doing that to accommodate the ladies of Utah.

Mr. EICHNOR. No, it was not for ladies. The special election of municipal officers, school officers, and judicial officers_it entails an additional expense on the people of the Territory of Utah of from ten to fifteen thousand dollars.

Mr. JOLLEY. I will just say that I voted against the proposition that he has just mentioned. We have had in the past here in Utah a small tax, and that is the greatest fear the people have of this Constitution throughout the length and breadth of this Territory, is the high taxation, if Utah becomes a State. On the east of us we have our neighbor state, between two and three cents on the dollar_about three times what we have to pay to-day. On the south, we have the same. On the west, I am not so well posted, but I would not think it was much less by the de-population of that state since it became a state. And it is for us to look after this one particular item, as much as any other one thing, and it will have as great an impression in encouraging the {875} people to vote for the Constitution of the coming State, if we will have the taxes down low, more than anything else that has been sprung upon this floor. It is something we have got to watch. We have not only got to watch it in this respect, but every other that comes up. I, therefore, support the amendment to the motion, that they should have three dollars a day.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of that proposed amendment. I do believe in economy in public expenditures, but I do not believe that it is wise to cut down below four dollars, at least, the compensation of men who are to legislate for the State. I am reminded of something that happened in the city where I lived for fifteen years, which bears directly upon a proposition of this sort. We had a common council in the city of Brooklyn that were paid a salary of two thousand dollars a year, and in a fit of economy on a certain occasion in the passage of a new municipal charter, it was thought wise and prudent to cut off those salaries entirely and make the members of the city council serve without compensation. That goes a step farther than anybody has attempted to go here to-day on this proposition, and I want to say to you, gentlemen, that the result of that was anything but satisfactory to the city of Brooklyn. There was more stealing and thieving and bribery and corruption in the next two years than the city had ever known in all its existence, and the result of it was that the proposition had to be repealed. Now, I do not see how gentlemen can argue from the line that Mr. Jolley argued. Because a certain class of our citizens are unable to make three dollars a day is no reason why we should advertise to the world that we are too poor to pay our legislators at least four dollars a day, and I do not believe it

would be wise to make any such change. Four dollars day, it seems to me, is small enough. I do not expect to be in the next Legislature, gentlemen. I am not talking for myself, but I believe it ought to prevail at four dollars a day.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thurman has made his motion. I am satisfied to leave it to the Legislature, but I do feel as though I want to put myself on record that my views may be known, and I want to state right here that I would like to have it put on record, if anybody thinks enough of it to put it on record, that those that are in for high prices, above what they think the people can afford to pay, I will warn you the next election that comes in their supporters will be hunting men that have pledged themselves to cut down salaries and men that won't do it won't be elected. You will find that to be the consequence, for I know what I am talking about in regard to the condition of the people and getting in pretty tight corners to pay taxes. We might as well commence here and let it go abroad among our sister states. I would like to have them point to Utah as a State that is out of debt. They pay their officers and they are not extravagant in their salaries. I would like that to go abroad that Utah is free from debt, because they are economical.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, if I thought what the gentleman says, I should not favor this proposition of the gentleman from Utah County, because at the next session of the Legislature it might be possible they would cut the salary down to two dollars and a half. I do not believe it is so and consequently I am in favor of this amendment.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I had occasion, with the aid of Uncle Sam and my good friends, to get a suit of new clothes since I came in here in Salt Lake. I called on the Cutler Brothers_home-made. Democrats believe in home industry, and I inquired of the journeyman tailor what the wages were, whether they worked by the piece or how they work. “Well,” says he, “we {876} work by the day.” “How much per day?” “Four dollars.” Now, I say to my farmer friends if they cannot make $1.50 or six-bits a day, let us go into the tailor business.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, there has been a good deal of talk on this proposition and about corruption that is likely to accrue if men receive small wages in connection with it. I presume if this matter was examined it would be found that more men who receive large salaries were corrupt than men who receive small ones. It is a matter of fact well known that the British parliament serves for nothing, and I presume there has been less stealing in human souls_in their purchases and barter among that body of men, probably, than any body of men in the world. I am decidedly and firmly in favor of a low limit being fixed on this matter. And it is a grave question in my mind whether the proposed State Legislature would not serve us with better fidelity, with more honesty, and more uprightness if they received not one farthing for their services. I trust that the suggestions in regard to men being so readily bought and bartered and traded about in these propositions will have no effect upon the gentlemen in voting upon this matter. I shall certainly vote for the substitute of Mr. Thurman, with the proposed amendment fixing that rate of three dollars, because I can see that if we start in on this proposition those that may be ambitious to go to the Legislature, being now the legislators of the people, in one sense, starting with ourselves, on economical grounds, it is possible to reach this question as we proceed in the salaries of other gentlemen which shall come up for our consideration, and I want to go on record so far as I can, in favor of voting the lowest salaries in the proposed new State that the ambitions

of men shall not be excited to secure public office on the ground of securing the emoluments of those offices and taxing the people therefor. Therefore, I made the motion that I did and I shall stand by the lowest amount on these propositions as they present themselves if they are proper and right.

Mr. HART. I will ask the gentleman whether he considers that four dollars a day would excite the ambition of any of our citizens to run for the Legislature?

Mr. SMITH. From the statement of some of the gentlemen, I think it would.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, we will bear in mind, gentlemen, that we are starting out on a new era from a territorial government to a state, and the people feel very sensitive upon the point of trying the new experiment, and that is one of the features that they very much are distrustful of, and that is in regard to salaries. It is very true that four dollars a day is not much for many men perhaps on this floor. Perhaps many men throughout the country would regard that as a very small remuneration for their valuable time, but you must recollect that we have certain classes of men in our counties_in the majority of the counties, and they would regard it as being worth their time for the amount that they would receive and the honor, and you cannot change the quality of men_such men as are in the county, that are sought for by the people, are men that people have the most confidence in as being equal to the calling of a legislator, and I don't think that any man would object to going at the price that has been stipulated; that is the lowest prices_say at two and a half or three dollars a day, compared with what other men are receiving from their labors. And these men in the common avocations of life, they have to pay these bills, and there is not one of them_I doubt whether there is a man in the outside counties, at least, but what would think that they were so much honored to be called to the position; and what the people are looking for_what {877} they are looking for from this body of men, is to keep down the prices, for that is what they are most sensitive on, is the prices that will be inaugurated by this Convention, and for that reason I fully approve of the amendment of the gentleman from Utah County_the amendment to his motion, of three dollars a day, and I do not think there is a man that would fail to go that the people would select, and it would show a feature to them that we are certainly doing what we have agreed to do. I have agreed to do it if possible_to keep down prices, and you recollect that the Legislature was increased from one-third to nearly one-half in the most numerous branch_is almost increased to double the number, and in the senate to one-third, and for that reason, that will increase the price, which will make an increase in the price of our Legislature. We may be able to cut down the number of days; I cannot say how that will be, but I know the people are looking for it, and they are distrustful. That is one of the features that they are most distrustful of. And because that other states surrounding us in other parts of the country have gone largely into debt, that is no sign that we should. I say that we should study economy.

I do not want to be found in this state_I do not want to be found in the condition that other states are, and for this reason, I am opposed to high prices, not only in the Legislature, but every other officer that may get a position. I say the honor is worth something. It is worth something to every man, and I do not believe that there is any man that will object to accepting the position if he can even get enough to pay his expenses. He is doing nothing at home particularly of any great importance, although there are men that their time is very precious, and even four dollars or five

dollars a day is no consideration for some men, but we are now providing for the men who will be the representatives from the country_from the different counties.

Mr. RALEIGH. I would like to ask Mr. Thurman if he won't shape his motion so as to say not exceeding three dollars a day?

Mr. THURMAN. The motion is now not to exceed four dollars a day. I am opposed to the amendment.

The amendment to the substitute was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words, “and returning from.”

Mr. THURMAN. I will accept that amendment.

Mr. L. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that this be amended and insert fifteen instead of ten.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we ought to provide more mileage than it costs. The object of mileage is to cover the cost of travel. I have figured this thing out, on the present ratio it costs about seven cents going and returning_about seven cents a mile, that will leave a little margin of three cents. Some of them have to travel by team. Those who travel by team usually come long distances, and I think that the three cents a mile extra will pay them for the travel that might be necessary by team in reaching the railroads, and I think that we ought not to speculate in that manner, but I am opposed to the substitute in that particular. The prospects are that the railroad fares will come down rather than be higher, and it more than covers it at ten cents a mile, both going and returning. I certainly am in favor of and hope that the amendment will prevail, and I am opposed to fifteen cents, because, while it is not so objectionable as twenty, it would be for the same reason.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I think, sir, that it is a positive conclusion that I shall never attend a Legislature in the Territory, so that can speak impartially {878} on this subject. It is just possible that this large amount of mileage will more than meet the bare expenses of reaching the capital, but it must be understood that a great many of the members of our future Legislatures will be within reach of their homes and their per diem will therefore be more serviceable to them than to members that are a long distance from home and who will have to pay hotel expenses. And for that reason, in order to equalize this thing and make the members who come from a long distance and have to meet hotel expenses somewhat equal with those who are within reach of their homes, I would be willing to see them draw more mileage than will meet the bare expense of reaching here, as it would help, perhaps, bear their expenses while here at the capital. I, therefore, shall be opposed to either of these amendments and shall be in favor of the article as it is written and came from the committee.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman from Davis County

that the fact of a man living ten miles out of Salt Lake City, who comes here, he has to pay the same hotel bill as does the man who lives five hundred miles from here, and you cannot equalize this thing no way you can fix it, so that the burden will rest entirely the same upon each individual.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Toeele [*note*]. I believe the purpose of mileage is to bear the expense, and I think ten cents a mile is sufficient to pay all the expenses.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that with ten cents a mile, a member would receive $33 for traveling from here to Saint George and back. His actual expenses of transportation, without allowing him anything at all for board bills on the road, would be $36 at the present rate of travel; so that you are actually making the rate, if you place it at ten cents a mile, less than it is for a man to travel and board himself under existing circumstances.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I did wish to say a word on this question, as I live a good ways from here and I have just been figuring up the expenses of coming here and returning home, and figuring the mileage at 15 cents a mile, it is exactly the same. Now, while I believe in economy, as much as any ordinary person, I wish to look at it reasonably and use a little judgment in the matter. Now, we are supposed here to get four dollars a day. I want to know if there is a man in this house, outside of those who live here, but what is anxious to lose this four dollars a day from now on and get to go home? If each member here does not consider that his time at home to-day is worth more to him than four dollars is here? What do we each of us clear here each day that we stay, our four dollars a day_the country members, I mean? It is very ordinary wages, gentlemen, my experience tells me after expenses are paid_and we do not have a very good time either. I do not believe we should look at this in such a parsimonious way.

I consider a man that is capable of representing the people, or at least they think he is, at home, when they elect him, ought to have at least enough to hire an ordinary man at home and pay his board bill here. Who of as are satisfied to stay here even if we could pay an ordinary man at home that will go out and do a hard day's work for us, who is willing to give up all of his business at home_the overseeing of it, which amounts to more than the man's wages_who is willing to do this? Now, the honor, so far as that is concerned, we cannot live on it very well. It is very nice I suppose to have, but it is rather a poor quality of food when you take it alone. I am not in favor of cutting down the wages of the legislators {879} until they cannot come here and live like decent men. I do not believe it is right and I do not believe that the people exact it or expect it, and I, for one, think they ought to have twenty cents a mile one way and four dollars a day for the time actually necessary here, and I am opposed to all measures that make it less than that.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, is this subject to any more amendments?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Mr. HAMMOND. I would move to strike out the whole thing and leave it to the Legislature.

The amendment of Mr. L. Larson was rejected.

The substitute of Mr. Thurman was adopted.

Section 14 was read.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 14, by striking out the word “and,” in the second line, and inserting after the word “qualification” the words “and returns,” so that it shall read, “each house shall be the judge of the election, qualification, and returns of its own members,” etc.

The amendment was rejected.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 were read.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 17, by inserting after the word “governor” the words, “or the person exercising the functions of governor.”

No second.

Section 18 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I notice in section 16 we provided that each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Why shall we say that the ayes and nays shall, at the request of five members of any house, be entered upon the journal? I move to strike out section 18.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I think that ought not to prevail. Each house is required to keep a journal of its proceedings. I think in framing a constitution it should be directory and positive in that matter. It seems to me it is proper that that provision should remain there.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I will amend the motion to strike out all after the word “public.”

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I hope this motion will not prevail. There is no conflict between sections 16 and 18. Section 18 is simply a limitation on section 16. That is to say, neither house would have any right to make a rule that would not permit the calling of the yeas and nays upon the request of five members. I think that is a proper matter for insertion in the Constitution. It is usual and there is really no conflict whatever, as I read it. Of course, the house makes its rules, but it could not make a rule doing away with this provision.

Mr. SQUIRES. Why don't we include in there how the previous question shall be taken and whether a motion to lay on the table should be in order? I think we are providing for rules in the

house. We provided for that in section 16.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, there are some things that properly go into a constitution as a matter of limitation on the legislature. The legislative article is the one of all others where legislation, if any at all is permitted, should be allowed, because that is the portion of the Constitution which shall govern the legislative department. Now, the object of such a section as this is manifest, I take it, to every member. We provide that they may make their own rules_all ordinary rules they may make, but suppose they wanted to make a rule that they shall not publish their journal? Suppose {880} they wanted to do something that they were afraid to have the people know by the publication of the journal_

Mr. SQUIRES. We are not discussing that.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I was simply calling attention to the fact that the people who give it a moment's consideration only are attempting to upset the consensus of the opinion of the committee who gave it hours of consideration. The same question is as to the yeas and nays. The Legislature might say, “we are willing to carry this thing through.” Some men might stand up there in defense of the rights of the people, and of the freedom of speech, or something else that the Legislature was attempting to infringe. There might be a wrong contemplated by the majority of a Legislature, perchance, and they might say, “we will establish a rule contemplating that the yeas and nays shall not be called, and nobody shall be put on record as to how you vote on this question.” The purpose of calling the yeas and nays, and fixing it so that the house could not establish a contrary rule, is in the interests of men being able to force the legislators to put themselves on record, in case they are attempting to pass any law that is against the interests of the people, and I think a simple consideration of that should make the members of this Convention loth to strike out that provision.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 19 was read.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 19 by striking out, in lines 2 and 3, the words “except the senate while sitting in executive session.” One of the great objections to the senate of the United States to-day is that they go into executive session and no one knows what is going on there. I think it is a good plan in Utah to have our Legislatures act with open doors; that the senate cannot go into executive session and just transact business in there and open the doors and say “we have done this.” I believe in legislating with open doors, whether it is in the lower house or in the upper house. It is a relic of barbarism for any legislative body to go into secret session.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly take issue with the gentleman. It seems to me it is a prudential proposition in the Constitution. There are cases where it would be impossible and would be altogether wrong that public questions should be thrown open to the public and should

not be considered in private session. Our nation would be in danger. Every nation in the world would be, in its upper branch, in propositions affecting international questions, if they were in a position that they could not retire into secret session.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very proper that the upper house should have the privilege of going into executive session. Supposing that the question of a man's character or ability should be discussed. That is, the appointment to certain offices recommended by the governor, that would have to be confirmed by the senate. It seems to me they should have the privilege of going into executive session and discussing his ability or his private character, in regard to his fitness for that office. That is all they want to go into executive session for.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to remind my colleague from Salt Lake that senates do not legislate in executive session. That was the objection that he made. They ought to legislate publicly. I fully agree with him in relation to that. The object of the executive session, as I understand it, and the practice has been in the senate of the United States and in other senates in this country, is to consider the question of confirmation of officers {881} and in those cases, as has been stated by the gentleman from Utah County, the question of character arises. An investigation is had and free discussion is necessary as to the qualification of the individual for the position, and certainly no good purpose could be served by having those things made public. If a man got up and made inquiry as to the qualification, either morally or otherwise, of a candidate for a position_some one who had been nominated to an office, the answer that might be given and the discussion of the matter certainly would not be profitable to the public. They investigate it in private. They come to a conclusion. If for any reason whatever they conclude that the man is not fit for the position, they simply reject, and that is the end of it. If he is qualified, they can confirm. Now, that is, as I understand it, always done in executive session.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I will say this, that if there is any opportunity to besmirch a man's character, it is by the closed doors. If I am ever an applicant for any office, I would want the senate to sit with open doors. I have never done anything in my life I am ashamed of, and I hope no other man on this floor has, and I believe that behind closed doors is the time you can assassinate a man's character. That is the very gist of this proposition. Just close the doors and then the enemies, whether they be political or otherwise, say, “why he has done this, he has done that.” No one knows anything about it. The man outside has no redress. He does not know how he is killed off behind closed doors. I think it is a star chamber proceeding.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, it is granted commonly, I believe, that the principal duty of a senate sitting in executive session is the question of the confirmation of appointees of the governor or their rejection. That is, in the ordinary affairs of a state. The term itself, “executive session,” bears something further than that weight. It is an executive session, which deals with the co-ordinate branch of the government on matters that pertain to the two alone. In case of invasion or rebellion, we have a provision that our senate is elected for a considerable term. and can be called by the governor. It might be necessary for the governor to do something or propose something to the senate by which a danger might be averted. The executive session would be the action of the senate upon a measure of the executive, with regard to something of public interest that lies for decision between the two, and while there might be in ordinary affairs of the State

only the confirmation of officers, in extraordinary affairs of the State the executive session of the senate might include the senate's advice upon something where the whole object of that advice would be made of no effect at all if it was to be with open doors, and it seems to me the provision is so universal in all the constitutions, including the Constitution of the United States, that I am surprised at an objection being made to it.

Mr. EICHNOR. Do you say it is in all the constitutions?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Yes, sir; it is universal.

The motion was rejected.

Section 20 was read.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word sixty, in the third line, and insert the word forty.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word forty and inserting the word fifty.

The amendment and the motion were rejected.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman, I propose as an amendment to section 20, in line 2, strike out the words, “except the first, which may sit ninety days.” I think that sixty days is the length of time that is sufficient for the first session as well as any other, and it should {882} not exceed forty days, but the first session should be not longer than sixty days.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that the committee gave very careful consideration to that question of the first session of the Legislature, and I will call the attention of the members of this committee to the fact that the ordinary Legislature_as a rule a code of laws which have been in operation for some years and which have been found more or less effective certainly for the administration of justice and for supplying the wants of the people_the duty of the first session of the Legislature under a State would be the establishment of a code of laws to govern that State_if ordinarily forty days is sufficient for a Legislature to simply make amendments to the laws as the amendments may suggest themselves during the times between the sittings of Legislatures, certainly twice that amount of time is necessary to leave as the maximum in which the first Legislature may devote their time to the question of settling, revising, and passing a code of laws for the government of the State.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I would offer an amendment to the amendment, by inserting between the word “sit” and “ninety” the words “not to exceed.”

Mr. VAN HORNE. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that this does not say that they shall sit ninety days, but they may sit ninety days.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair hears no second to the amendment.

The motion of Mr. Stover was rejected.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose, just in the line of making the two portions of the section agree with each other, by striking out the word “each,” at the beginning, and say “no,” and strike out the word “not” at the beginning of line 3.
    
The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RICKS. I move to strike out the word “sixty,” in line 3, and insert “forty-five” in lieu thereof. I believe that any ordinary Legislature can transact all necessary business in forty-five days. From what little obversation I have had in that line, it proves to me that a session for sixty days, about the first thirty days is spent about as we spent the first thirty days here, doing nothing excepting to complete the labors in time to adjourn before the sixty days is up, and I believe if the time is less that they will commence to work from the first day, realizing that they have but a short time and they will get the work done just as readily as they do in sixty days.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I trust this amendment will not be made. If the gentleman had ever had any experience in sitting in a legislature, he would find that sixty days is little enough. Besides, the Legislature is not compelled to sit for sixty days. They are not to exceed that. If they can transact the business and get through they will adjourn, if it is in forty-five days, or thirty or twenty-five. The fact is, when we speak of the first thirty days being thrown away, it would be so if we had only forty-five days. It takes just about so long to get to business, and I think we ought to have sixty days. We have had it in the Territory since the foundation of it, and it has always been found necessary, and even then the last day we have had to crowd business through in a way that was exceedingly dangerous.

Mr. RALEIGH. Did you ever know a Legislature not to use the extreme limit?

Mr. THURMAN. No, sir; and that is my point. They needed it all and more too in Utah.

Mr. RALEIGH. I am in favor of curtailing it.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I am not in favor {883} of the amendment. Perhaps it is a matter of economy to cut down the time of the Legislature, but I think if it should prevail it would be a matter of very poor economy. With my observation, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, I find that the limit of sixty days is not any more time than what is really necessary. With that limit, my experience has taught me that there have been very many important measures hurried through. It is true that a few of the opening days of the session are not taken up and the time utilized to the very best advantage, but I fear that if the time is cut down that measures may be passed that will work a hardship and we would be sorry for it after. Therefore, I trust that the amendment does not prevail and that the sixty day limit will succeed.

MR. FARR. My experience in legislating has been that when Congress gave Utah the right to make laws, they gave us forty days, and I am aware that it worked a little hardship, for most of us had to work in the forenoon, from 10 o'clock until 12, and then from 2 until generally about dark, and then after supper get together and work until 10 or 12 o'clock at night. We went through it all right and got through in forty days. And consequently I am in favor of limiting the time. I may be a minority on it, but I am in favor of limiting the time to the lowest time that has been put here.

Mr. PETERS. The gentlemen suggested that during his experience as a legislator, they convened for forty days, but if my recollection serves me right, they met forty days in each year, did they not?

Mr. FARR. No, sir; every two years. At no time only once in two years.

The amendment offered by Mr. Ricks was rejected.

Mr. RICKS. I move to strike out the word “thirty,” in line 6, and insert in lieu thereof the word “twenty.”

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BOYER. I move to amend by striking out, in line 2, the word “ninety,” and inserting “seventy.”

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. PAGE. I move to strike out all the section after the word “days,” in line 5.

The amendment was rejected.

Sections 21 and 22 were read.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, in line 5, the words “or lieutenant governor.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend, on line 5, after “governor,” to insert “or secretary of state.”

No second.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I notice that the word “copy,” in line 3, refers to impeachment. I do not know what a copy of an impeachment is. Impeachment refers to act. It is carried out by specification of the articles. I move to insert after “copy” the words “of the articles.”

Mr. RICKS. I would suggest, would not “notice” answer just as well_insert notice instead of copy?

Mr. VARIAN. I will state why a
simple notice would not be sufficient. The articles of impeachment, as I understand it, are in the nature of an indictment or a bill of particulars. They sometimes include more than one specification, in many instances numbering fifteen or twenty. The articles ought to be served as prepared upon the accused.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I would like to ask you if you would include in your {884} motion the word “service” for the word “notice,” in the fourth line?

Mr. VARIAN. Yes, as this is simply to correct the context, with the permission of the committee and the chair, I will include striking out “notice” in the next line, and inserting “service.” That would make the arrangement proper.

The amendment was agreed to.

Sections 25 and 26 were read.

Mr. FRANCIS. Mr. Chairman, I move that we insert after the word “times,” in the sixth line, before the word “and,” in the seventh line, the words “on three different days,” so that the bill will have to be read on three different days, that they would not be able to pass a bill through both houses in half an hour as has been done sometimes.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that a bill might be returned by the governor toward the close of the session and that there might not be time to cure a defect, and for that reason it was thought best to leave that question to the Legislature, which might pass by their rule something of that sort and then suspend the rule, if necessary.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, as the amendment reads all bills would have to be read nine times_three times on three different days.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, it is almost generally the case, I believe, that necessities arise toward the close of a session when bills must be put through in less than three days. That ought to be left to the discretion of the Legislature, subject to the just public opinions. Many times_in fact, I apprehend in nearly every case where a Legislature convenes_important questions arise at the last hour which require prompt action. I see no reason why we need fear the Legislature

sitting in open session, under those circumstances.

Mr. FRANCIS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that though occasions may arise when they may have to pass the bill in such a way that it is often likely to be abused, and I will cite for instance the measure that passed our last Legislature with regard to the inspection of meats. I understood from gentlemen who are interested in the business that this measure was brought up three times during our Legislature and each time it was defeated, but during the last hours of the Legislature, without any notice at all being served on those who were connected with the business, that measure was brought up and finally passed and they had no opportunity of objecting to it, so that it looks as if this measure might often be abused without such a provision as this being put in.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to call attention to the fact that however much danger there is the provision might be abused, that if it were inserted here in the Constitution it would be absolutely impossible for the Legislature to suspend the rules and operate otherwise. The great danger and harm that might result from their inability to act in an emergency of that kind it seems to me would overweigh all other considerations. I think the section ought to remain as it is.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 27 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest as a matter of clearness in the phrase of that section that it should begin with the word “except;” it is a mere matter of arrangement. It seems to me if we put the word except at the beginning of the section_     

Mr. THURMAN. Leave it to the committee on arrangement.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the purpose of the last four lines? That is simply a declaration, as I understand it, of constitutional law. Is the rule any other way now? Can the court ever hold any other way? The act is only void as to the parts so expressed. I suggest unless there is some reason that the chairman of the committee desires {885} it in that we strike it out after the word “laws.” I move to strike out all after the word laws, in line 5.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VAN HORNE Do I understand that we have the consent of the Convention to make that change I suggested as a matter of order?

Mr. RICHARDS. I object, Mr. Chairman, I think it is better as it is.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would regard it as a matter that would probably be considered by the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I seem to be very unfortunate this afternoon. It seems strange that out of 106 intelligent men here I can only get one to agree with my ideas.

Mr. BUYS. I wish to amend section 27 by adding to the section the following:

The general appropriation bill shall contain no item or items of appropriation other than such as are required to pay the salaries of State officers, the necessary expense of the government, and of the institutions under the exclusive control and management of the State, and no bill making an appropriation of money except the general appropriation bill shall contain more that one item of appropriation and that for one single and certain purpose to be therein expressed.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask why_what is the objection to it?

Mr. BUYS. Because they are not considered. Very often an appropriation is not considered fully; and another thing, very often many of these items could be defeated if they were put otherwise, but they do not wish to defeat the whole appropriation bill and for that reason it is passed in that form.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 28 was read.

Section 29 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it would be determined to retain the subject matter of this section under the head of the legislative article or under the head of executive. I do not know as it makes any difference, but if it is to be retained here, it seems to me some provisions incorporated in section 8 of the executive article ought to be added to it. For the purpose of informing the committee as to what I have in mind, with your permission I will just read. I think as far as this section has gone it is just as appears in section 8 of the article on executive, but that section includes this further matter:

If any bill presented to the governor contains several sections or items, he may object to one or more sections or items while approving other portions of the bill; in such cases, he shall append to the bill at the time of signing it a statement of the section or sections, item or items, which he declines to approve, together with his reasons therefor, and such sections, item or items shall not take effect unless passed over the governor's objection as in this section herein before provided.

Mr. VAN HORNE. No objection.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as we have passed section 8 of the article on executive in the committee of the whole, I move we strike out all of this section 29.

Mr. VARIAN. To test the sense of the house, I will withdraw my motion for the present.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I hope that motion will not prevail in just that way. I have no particular objection to both of these sections going to the committee on compilation and their choosing therefrom one or two things, perhaps that are better in one than in the other, and they are the same except the matter of arrangement.

Mr. VARIAN. They are just the same. I have compared them.

Mr. VAN HORNE. For instance, with reference to its becoming a law without the signature of the governor. Section 8 says it shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, as I remember the reading, and I think it says without his signature. This is shorter and fully as clear. There are some matters of simple arrangement and wording and it seems to me it might be just as well to let both of these go to the committee and let them choose the wording and the revision.

Mr. VARIAN. I think the reading is exactly the same, except that in one it is five and in the other ten.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, of course we do not want both of these articles in the Constitution, but section 29 as proposed to be amended by Mr. Varian is, I think, what we want, and I understand there is some difference between that and section 8. As to whether it should go in the legislative article or the executive article, I think that is a matter that should be left to the committee.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out this section. It is almost identically the same language contained in section 8 of the executive article. I believe that that section should remain in the executive article, more especially since it refers to the power of the governor, and if for no other reason, I would be in favor of retaining it in that article.

The motion to strike out section 29 was agreed to.

Section 30 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. In answer to the question, I will say that while that was the practice in the Territory of Utah for a considerable time, the power to do so was taken away from the Territory by Congress of the United States. The objection, as I take it, to the Legislature being called upon to do matters of that sort by special act is the question of time. One question is the question of time. To take up the time of sixty-three members elected by the people of the various sections of this country, and coming here at the munificent reward of four dollars a day to serve the people to change somebody's name, when a law can easily be passed that by making certain declarations in a court the name could be changed, would be something of an anomaly in an economical administration of government.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing before the house.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I wish to have read. I do not suppose I can get a second. I got one the first time and two the {887} second and I hope to get three on that one.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Buys was read as follows:

To section 31. By adding after subdivision 11 the following:

12. For the assessment or collection of taxes; 13. For the limitation of civil or criminal actions; 14. Exempting property from taxation; 15. For the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors; 16. Giving effect to invalid deeds, wills, or other instruments; 17. Changing the law of descent or succession; 18. Summoning or empaneling grand or petit juries; 19. Regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace, police magistrates, and constables; 20. Regulating the practice in courts of justice; 21. The opening or conducting of any elections or designating the place of elections; 22. Regulating the interest on money.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out subdivision 9, of section 31. The bill of rights, section 24, covers it. That has been adopted and passed its third reading.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I think there is some misapprehension about that subdivision 9. Unfortunately I did not vote in the affirmative or I would move to reconsider it. I want to call attention to the fact that section 24 of the declaration of rights covers generally the subject. This article is designed to prevent special legislation. It is only relating to private or special laws. Section 9 prevents the granting to any individual, association, or corporation any irrevocable privileges, etc. It means that no special or private law might be passed in that particular. It is the

only prohibition, as I understand it, that you have on the subject. If you strike it out it is not fully covered by section 24 of the bill of rights.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I voted in the affirmative. I move that the vote by which subdivision 9 was stricken out be reconsidered.

Mr. VARIAN. Let us reconsider it, and if we find that my objection is not well founded, it can be corrected at any time on the third reading.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 were read.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 35, as it is covered by section 2 of the apportionment article.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I now propose in the way of amendment to the article a new section which should really follow section 33, but I introduce it as section 35, as follows:

The Legislature shall not pass any law authorizing suits to be brought against the State.

Mr. THURMAN. How is Wyoming on the subject?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Or Washington?

Mr. EICHNOR. The state of Arkansas provides that the state shall never be made defendant in any suit in any of her courts.

Mr. VARIAN. She repudiates her bonds, then.

Mr. EICHNOR. The state of Illinois provides that the state shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.

Mr. VARIAN. What does Washington say?

Mr. EICHNOR. I do not know. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the state of Kentucky has a similar provision. {888 - PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS} I have not examined the late constitution of

the state of Kentucky on that point, but in the constitutional convention of the state of Kentucky, of 1890 and 1891, possibly as much time was spent on this question as on any question before that convention, and they came to the conclusion there, that a state should not be hampered with suits, and that is my idea that the new State of Utah should not be hampered with suits, and that is the reason that I introduced that additional section. I believe the State should not be hampered in any way, shape, or form, with suits.

Mr. VAN HORNE. The government of the United States provides for a court of claims, before which, where there would ordinarily be a defendant in a suit, a man may bring his claim and have it passed upon, and if the claim is allowed, the government pays it. It seems to me, unless we are to provide in our judicial article for a court of claims, there is nothing in the world that would prevent a man that thought he had a just claim against the State, from suing the State in the courts of the State, and if they decided that the claim was just, undoubtedly they would make recompense.

The section offered by Mr. Eichnor was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I move that we now rise and report. The motion was agreed to.

The committee of the whole then rose and reported as follows:

Your committee of the whole have had under consideration the proposed article, legislative department, and report progress.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move we take a recess until 7:30 p. m.

The motion was rejected.

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