[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.


THURSDAY, April 11th, 1895.

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

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Reverend R. G. McNiece, of the First Presbyterian Church.

The President called Mr. Eichnor to the chair.

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

Petitions and memorials.

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

File No. 246, signed by J. H. Brown and 36 others, from Salt Lake, by Hill, of Salt Lake.

File No. 247, signed by S. H. Lynch and 32 others, from Salt Lake, by Mackintosh, of Salt Lake.

File No. 248, signed by Albert Stevens and 9 others, of Holden, by Crane, of Millard.

File No. 249, signed by Richard Williams and 52 others, of Park City, by Kearns, of Summit.

File No, 250, signed by Wm. D. Smith and 125 others, of Coalville, by Kearns, of Summit.

File No. 251, signed by Thos. D. Pitt and 77 others, of Corinne, by Roberts, of Davis.

File No. 252, signed by Ripley S. Lyon and 181 others, of Logan, by Roberts, of Davis.

File No. 253, from citizens of Ogden in mass meeting assembled_434 for separate submission and 28 against, by Kiesel, of Weber.

Ordered filed.

The following petitions were presented {889 - LEGISLATIVE} asking that an equal suffrage clause be placed in the Constitution:

File No. 254, signed by Sarah M. Dell and 272 others, of Beaver City, by Murdock, of Beaver.

File No. 255, signed by Ann E. Webster and 443 others, of Ceder City, by Heybourne, of Iron.

File No. 256, signed by I. O. Wall and 104 others, of Wallsburg, by Murdock, of Wasatch.

File No. 257, signed by Hyrum Defries and 141 others, of Fairview, by Peterson, of Sanpete.

File No. 258, signed by H. E. Desaules and 32 others, of Piute County, by Allen, of Piute.

File No. 259, containing 1,313 names from Salt Lake City; 121 names from Grand County; 229 names from Emery County; 266 names from Juab County; 85 names from Tooele; 248 names from Grantsville; 1,110 names from Utah County; 128 names from Pleasant Green; 159 names from Iron County; and 25 names from various points in the Territory, by Chidester, of Garfield.

Ordered filed.

Mr. Raleigh, of Salt Lake, presented file No. 260, signed by 30 ministers of the the different denominations of Salt Lake City, asking that the question of prohibition be submitted as a separate article to a vote of the people.

Referred to committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

The committee on education and school lands reported as follows:

Constitutional Convention Hall,

April 11, 1895.


Your committee on education and school lands present herewith an article upon the subject of education and recommend that it be put upon its passage.    



Ordered printed and referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I move we resolve ourselves into committee of the whole and take up the regular order.

The motion was agreed to and the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Squires in the chair.


The article on legislative was then considered as follows:

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the section reported by the minority of the committee be read.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say in regard to this section, in behalf of the minority of the committee, that the purport of the section of course is apparent and must be to the members of the Convention. In the opinion of the minority of this committee, it is no part of the duty of the government to engage in business or private enterprises. In their opinion the public funds that are derived from the taxes of the people ought to be devoted strictly to governmental purposes, and it is with a view to accomplish that that this section is proposed. The minority of the committee think that this provision should be inserted in the Constitution. As I understand it, the duty of this Convention in relation to this particular article is to provide for the legislative department of the government, and to provide such restrictions upon the legislative department as should properly be imposed. We think that this is one of the restrictions that ought to be imposed, that the State ought not to be authorized to engage in any business enterprises, construction and operation of railroads, or the building of manufactories of any kind or the giving of support by public money to any such enterprises, or for any purpose except strictly governmental purposes, and that is why this section is proposed.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you desire to insert that?

Mr. RICHARDS. We desire to have {890} this follow the sections that have already been passed upon by the committee. It would be section 35, I think. I am not sure but what some sections may have been stricken out, but we desire to have it the next section after those that have been passed

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, if there is no motion before the house in regard to this, I move that we adopt the report of the legislative committee as we have passed it.

Mr. RICHARDS. I supposed that the report of the minority committee placed this in the attitude of being in the nature of a motion to put this in the article without a special motion to that effect. If such a motion, however, is required, I make the motion that this section be added to the article.

The question being taken on the motion to adopt the section, the committee divided, and by a vote of 43 ayes to 50 noes, the motion was rejected.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move that this section be added to the legislative article, and I desire to say in explanation of this section that it is intended to prohibit the State from subscribing to the capital stock of any association, corporation, or company. It is intended to prevent the pledging of the credit of the State for any private enterprise whatever. The reasons that I have already assigned as to the first section will apply as reasons why the committee think this should be incorporated in the legislative article. A great deal has been said during the session of this Convention as to the financial condition of the Territory and the embarrassments that the new State will be under in supporting its government. And yesterday a great deal of time was consumed over the compensation that should be paid to the members of the Legislature. A great deal of discussion as to whether the Legislature should be permitted to pay four dollars a day or whether they should be restricted to the payment of two and a half, for the legislators. Now, it seems to us that if that is a matter of such importance as some gentlemen on the floor of this

Convention seem to think, that here is an excellent opportunity to interpose some restrictions in the way of the Legislature that will be beneficial and substantial and not go to a few dollars_a dollar and a half or two dollars a day, on the question of legislation which would amount to but a few hundred dollars. This restriction would perhaps prevent tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars being given in the way of bonuses to railway companies and manufacturing institutions. We think that this section ought to be added to the article.

The question being taken on the motion to adopt the section, the committee divided, and by a vote of 45 ayes to 52 noes, the motion was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 3, just read, be added to the article on legislative. It will be observed that the purport of the prior section was to prevent the State from lending its credit. The object of this section is to prevent the Legislature from empowering any city, town, township, county or other political subdivision of the State from lending its credit or aid in any of these private enterprises.

The question being taken on the adoption of the section, the committee divided, and by a vote of 44 ayes to 52 noes, the section was rejected.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 4 be added to the legislative article. I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, to the gentlemen of the committee that this section does not in my opinion partake of a partisan character, and perhaps there may be gentlemen enough on this floor, who would be willing to support it. The object of this will be clear to gentlemen who will {891} stop and consider it for a moment. It is to prevent people who are in power in any department of the State occupying public positions from letting contracts, at low figures and then afterwards in. creasing the amount of compensation in this way: A man who is a favorite with a county court or a city council or with any other public officer, who might have it in his power to let public contracts, might come in and underbid all bona fide bidders for this work and get the contract, with the understanding afterwards that if the work cost him more, he would be reimbursed by the county or by the city as the case might be. This is an evil that has occurred a great many times in different places as you are all aware if you have given this matter any consideration, and the object of this is to prevent that sort of thing and to compel bona fide transactions in the letting of public contracts. Also if any unauthorized agreement is made, as for example, to prevent an officer of a city or a county or of the State who has no authority in law from going out and letting contracts to some favorite, when if the contract was let in the regular way the public would have an opportunity to bid_declaring that such contracts would not be valid and could not be enforced. And I say, I do not see, and I do not believe that there is anything in this section of a partisan character. Whether it is such a section as you gentlemen approve of, or not, of course remains to be seen by the vote, but it seemed to the minority of the committee that it would be a proper provision to insert in the Constitution. It appears in the constitutions of other States. I think that. this particular provision is taken from the constitution of the state of Missouri.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). Mr. Chairman, I move to amend that section by striking out, beginning with the word “and” in line 11, and ending with the last word in the section. I do that for this reason, that I think all contracts that are made without authority of law are null and void without repeating it in here.

Mr. RICHARDS. I agree with the gentleman on that proposition.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that there is nothing particularly partisan in this provision that is proposed to be introduced here, I think, however, there are some things that are very objectionable in it. In the first place it is a limitation on the power of the Legislature that seems to me unnecessary and out of line with the proper construction of the Constitution. In the second, it does not provide any way in which an un-contracted service one that is done without a contract being made for it, could be paid for. In the third case, that suggests itself at once, it seems to me, to every one in the exercise of the power of the State, to repel invasion or suppress rebellion, that a great many things are done by a state, under a stress of such an emergency as that, that are without authority of law. The United States government recognizes that in its court of claims. The claims for Indian depredations and matters of that sort, the claims for material furnished in time of war_under such a provision as this, there could be no payment by the State of the claim And altogether with those facts being so it seems to me that it is unnecessary, that we are just simply trying to do something here that we might fairly trust to the Legislature. I do not believe in the limitation.

Mr. RICHARDS. I would like to ask the gentleman from Salt Lake a question. Does not your objection only relate to the latter part of this section? That is, the objection that you have stated?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Part of it.

Mr. RICHARDS. As to unauthorized contracts?
Mr. VAN HORNE. Suppose an extra service_    

Mr. RICHARDS. After the word “pay” in the seventh line_that is the part that relates to the objection, but the other part, as to the increase of compensation and the paying of an additional amount beyond the contract_what is the objection to that?

Mr. VAN HORNE. The objection I had to that, Mr. Richards, was this: Suppose a public officer, whose duties are defined, in case of a public emergency of some sort, performs duties at a loss to himself, that are wholly outside of the ordinary scope of his office, why should he not be paid for that? If the State or the municipality says that his services are worth pay and that he rendered them at a disadvantage to himself, why should they not recognize them?

Mr. RICHARDS. The answer I make to that is, that when a public officer assumes the office, he takes all these contingencies, and he ought to be made to bear these burdens, if they are burdens.

Mr. VAN HORNE. He takes it in the scope of his ordinary duties?

Mr. RICHARDS. He takes the emoluments and honors attaching to the office and also the burdens that will follow, and it seems to me it would be a very bad thing for the Legislature to have the power to increase salaries under those circumstances or under any circumstances. That is exactly the reason why the minority desire to see this thing.

MR. VAN HORNE. You seem to be directing your argument towards an extra salary for the officers.

Mr. RICHARDS. Extra compensation of any kind, I care not whether it is salary or what.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Do I understand you as saying that a public officer, who accepts a public office, accepts it with the understanding that he performs all services for the State, regardless of whether they are within the line of his duty or not, without compensation?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; I did not say that.

Mr. VAN HORNE, Would not that be the effect of this amendment?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Why not?

Mr. RICHARDS. I do not see how it is possible to give it that construction. The language does not seem to me susceptible of it.

Mr. BUTTON. I would like to ask a question. Under this clause, last year, when the governor ordered the deputy sheriffs out here when the commonweal army came through, could the sheriff collect pay for those deputies he swore in under this clause?

Mr. RICHARDS. I think so; I do not think this has any reference to that at all. There was service that he was performing that he would be entitled to pay for; but this is intended to cover a case where a person has undertaken to do a certain thing, either as a public officer, in the performance of his public duty, or as a contractor, under contract; he has undertaken to do a certain thing, and do it for a certain sum. Now, this is intended to prevent the granting of any additional sum afterwards, and the reason for it is just as stated in the illustration I made. If men would always bid honestly they would probably all get a fair compensation for their work.

Mr. BUTTON. So far as that goes, I think it is right.

Mr. RICHARDS. Why should not the same thing apply to a public officer? For example, should the county court or city council appoint a man to perform a certain public duty_that is, the office is created by ordinance or by statute, the duties of the office are defined, the man is elected or appointed to that position. He enters upon the duties of the office, he agrees to perform his duties,

and after his term has expired or after a certain period has expired and the work {893} has been done, they come in and pay him more than his salary or than was provided by law for him to receive for this service. That is not right, and it is just to prevent those things that this section is proposed. Now, if the section is not properly worded, if the gentlemen can suggest amendments that will make it any clearer and more specific upon these points, there would be no objection on my part to receiving any such amendment, but those are the objects and purposes for which this section is introduced, and it seems to me that every member of this Convention ought to be willing to support that kind of a proposition.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to move a further amendment to that section by striking out all of the section as it now stands after the word part, in line 7.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an objection to this section. We are anticipating in advance that the Legislature of the future would be composed of rogues or idiots. We have been talking several years about the vassalage of the territorial rule and we are putting a provision for vassalage in the Constitution. There will be a code of criminal laws to punish dishonest contractors. We are discounting the good faith of the Legislatures in advance.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, on the last proposition of Mr. Kimball's amendment, it seems to me that part of it any way ought to go out. I believe it is pernicious. If I understand that correctly, it would, for instance, prohibit any officer working for the county court_we will say, a road supervisor_from buying a shovel. If he bought a shovel, he could not come back and have the county court authorize that under this section, because the authority has not first been given by the county court, so that it seems to me that every idea of it should cause it to be stricken out.

Mr. RICHARDS. Does the gentleman hold that the road supervisor would not have authority to buy a shovel without an express order from the county court?
Mr. PIERCE. I simply use that for illustration. If he was an officer of the county court he would not have if they appointed him. If he was elected by law, he would.

Mr. RICHARDS. My understanding is that all of these officers have certain powers that attach to their office, and this of course would not interfere with the exercise of any of those powers to where an officer went clearly outside of his authority, then it might.

Mr. PIERCE. It would be an agreement or contract made without authority of law, if they bought the shovel and they had not the proper authority to buy it. To carry the illustration a little further, suppose a man that was working on the street bought a shovel that he thought was in the interests of the city and it was actually in the interest of the city, or in the interests of the county, the county court could not authorize payment for that shovel, neither could the city authorize it if he was working for the city.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have another thing in mind, that I remember transpired in one of the southern counties. A man took a job of building a bridge for the county, and he entered into the contract and he was building the bridge according to contract. When he got partly done, he

found that if he built it according to contract, the bridge would be worthless or nearly so. Therefore, he went to work and made additional expense_put on additional work and afterwards brought in an extra bill and the court was glad that he had done it, because the bridge would have been useless without it, and was glad to pay him an extra amount, which was considerable, therefore, I think under this they could not have done so; therefore, I would {894} motion that this ought to be stricken out.

Mr. RICHARDS. May I ask the gentleman a question? Could not the same result have been accomplished, even if such a provision prevailed, by his reporting that fact to the county court and making an additional contract for the extra work, and would not that be the proper way to do it, instead of allowing the contractor to exercise his own judgment and discretion as to when he should vary from the contract?

Mr. ALLEN. That might be true. It might work in that way or it might not I am not prepared to say.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with Mr. Richards' position regarding this particular part of this section. But there seems to be such a difference of opinion among the legal gentlemen, that I believe the safe thing for this Convention to do is to reject the whole section. Allow it to go to the Legislature where they can legislate specifically, where they will know what they are doing, and that understandingly, and then we will make no mistake. This is a legislative matter that we should let alone and refer to our Legislature.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I should favor striking out the words intended in the amendment of the gentleman from Weber, but I would favor the retaining the remainder of the section. There certainly can no harm come to us by retaining the first part of the section. I should favor the striking out the latter part of that, because there might occasions arise in which the power that is sought to be limited there, ought to be used. That far I go, as to the other, I do not care to say anything now.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Kimball, of Weber, the committee divided, and by a vote of 47 ayes to 51 noes, the amendment was rejected.

The question being taken on the adoption of the section, the committee divided, and by a vote of 51 ayes to 46 noes, the section was adopted.

Mr. Roberts offered the following as a section to be added to the legislative article:

Neither the State of Utah nor any political subdivision thereof shall become a stockholder in or loan its credit to nor make any appropriation for the benefit of any person, company, association, or corporation, unless two-thirds of the qualified voters at a regular election to be held shall assent thereto.

Mr. ROBERTS. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I look for the fate which has be-fallen the amendments offered or rather sections offered by the minority, for the reason that it involves a question of difference in regard, to the policy of government, and as the majority on the floor of this house are not in favor of placing any limit upon the Legislature, in regard to the exercise of

the taxing power, naturally they would be expected to vote against every proposition which would look to establishing such a limit. But if they refuse to place the limits upon the Legislature suggested by the minority of the committee on legislative, I think, sir, that at least there ought to be required in the exercise of so great powers such a majority behind the Legislature as to make two-thirds of the qualified voters interested in such proceedings necessary. The majority on this floor, I can very well understand will be satisfied to leave the Constitution silent upon this subject of taxation, for the reason that by that very silence they have what is equivalent to an affirmative of the right of the Legislature to loan its credit, to grant bounties, and to authorize subdivisions of the State to loan their credit and to pay bounties in the encouragement of enterprise.

Therefore, silence in the Constitution is to them equivalent to affirming that power in the Legislature, while the only {895} way that we who are in the minority could get an assertion in the Constitution of the principle in which we believe, is to place a limit in the Constitution on this subject. The taxing power of government, it is conceded by all, is the very highest expression of sovereign power. In the exercise of that authority is best seen the sovereign power of the State. It has always been by that means that tyranny and oppression have been expressed. In the days when arbitrary kings ruled that power was exercised without any control what-ever, even the consent of those taxed not being expressed, and the whole fight for liberty has been along the lines of demanding modification of this taxing power in governments. It first came up upon the question that there should be no taxation without the consent of those taxed, and when our ancestors at last obtained that advantage, then the oppressive government still in existence sought to evade the direct issue by compelling the subjects of the government to grant loans and benevolences to the crown. This power in government was afterwards stricken down and the principle that there could be no just taxation without representation was asserted and this principle too was eventually won, its final victory being obtained on our own soil in this land of America. Since the settlement of that question, the war has been waged on the lines of the purposes for taxation; the doctrine and belief gradually becoming firmly established that there can be no just taxation, but for public governmental purposes.

The majority of the members of this Convention, however, are of the opinion that the taxing power of the government may be justly exercised in the promotion of private enterprises and to build up private fortunes, a doctrine to which, for one, I never can assent, for the reason that it involves the prosperity of the whole community. It makes it possible for the powers of government to be so exercised that one class of the community may be made rich at the expense of another portion of the community. And in proof of these doctrines that I have laid down, I propose to read a brief extract or two from one of the highest authorities in the United States. I read from the opinion of Chief Justice Miller of the United States Supreme Court, in the celebrated Topeka bond case, where he says:

Of all the powers conferred upon government, that of taxation is most liable to abuse. Given a purpose or object for which taxation may be lawfully used and the extent of its exercise is in its very nature unlimited. It is true that expressed limitation on the amount of tax to be levied or things to be taxed may be imposed by constitution or statute, but in most instances for which taxes are levied, as the support of government, prosecution of war, national defense, any limitation is unsafe. The entire resources of the people should in some instances be at the disposal of government. The power to tax is, therefore, the

strongest, the most prevading of all the powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. The power to tax is the power to destroy. A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the national banks drove out of existence every state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage. This power can as readily be employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation on the uses for which the power may-be exercised.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. According to amendment of rule 20, no member can speak more than five minutes.

Mr. SNOW. The gentleman can have my time.

Mr. HART. I give the gentleman my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would rule that as long as the gentleman can secure time from his associates he should be allowed to speak.
Mr. RICKS. I appeal from the decision of the chair on that point.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly am in favor of sustaining the chair. I think the gentleman has the right to speak as long as he chooses, where his colleagues have offered him their time. I do not think that the rule where it says he shall not speak at any one time more than five minutes means that he must speak five minutes, sit down, get up again and speak another five minutes and sit down. It would be ridiculous to put that construction upon it; and the rule is as the chairman has interpreted it.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, the rule reported by the committee on rules covers this matter. Its terms are so definite, I do not think there will be any misunderstanding about it.

Mr. JAMES. While he is hunting that, I wish to say that I think there is no doubt about the position of the chair on this, but I think there is one matter that has been overlooked, and that is when one man rises to grant his time his name should be given and taken down.

(Mr. Hart reads rule 20.)

The decision of the chair was sustained.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I trust the gentlemen have not forgotten the remarks of Chief Justice Miller, relative to the very great power of the government in the matter of taxing its people. It is a power that I grant you should be unlimited when it comes to be exercised in the preservation of the government. The amendment or section that I submit and ask to have made part of the legislative article does not undertake to limit the power of government when the question is as to the preservation of government. It is only to limit its powers in regard to the purposes for which it shall limit the exercise of that authority. Since this high authority has said

that this taxing power is the one most liable to abuse, certainly every guard that can be placed about it ought to be provided for in the fundamental law of the land.

The following doctrine has taken a firm hold on my convictions, and with that great authority upon the subject of government, now that we are laying the foundation of a commonwealth, I should say let us make laws or provide for the making of laws where there shall be no governmental partnership with favored classes. Let us protect all in life, liberty, and property and then say to every American citizen:

With the gifts which God has given you, your brain, and brawn, and energy, work out your own fortunes under a just government and equal laws.

Whenever government accomplishes that purpose it answers the end for which it is created. Gentlemen will remember very readily those immortal words in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

There you have the great doctrine laid down as to what the purpose of government is. It is to secure men in their inalienable rights of life, of liberty, of freedom to pursue happiness, of securing domestic tranquility and preserving society or the nation from invasion of foreign foes, and to secure men in these rights and the enjoyment thereof; and whenever government accomplishes that end, why that completes its mission. There is nothing in the mission of government, as understood by our American statesmen, that permits it of right to enter into co- partnership with any part of the citizens, looking to their enrichment, directly, and trusting to compensation to come {897} from the masses upon whom the few feed.

I wish to can attention to some disastrous calamities, which have overtaken at least some parts of our country, in departing from these fundamental principles. I select for an example of the mischievous effects from departing from these doctrines, the state of Tennessee, for the reasons, sir, that from 1880 to 1886, P spent the greater part of my time in that state and became somewhat interested in its political affairs, and had an opportunity in the city of Nashville of attending the meetings of the legislature when involved in one of the most interesting discussions that ever occurred in that state. About 1851, the internal improvement act was passed by which it was made possible to use the credit of the state for such internal improvements, and the counties and towns could do the same. No sooner was this internal improvement act passed and the credit of the state was at the disposal of those engaged in internal improvements, than the legislature was besieged, companies were organized, railroad building almost became a mania in that state, and, sir, there was no letting up on the part of enterprising companies in their petitions for state aid, in furthering their enterprises, until the state of Tennessee was plunged into debt from forty to forty-two millions of dollars.

In 1870 the state constitutional convention of Tennessee met and adopted this amendment which I have proposed. In 1870 that was incorporated into the state constitution of Tennessee, and it had the tendency to check the evil of plunging the state further and still further into debt,

because, sir, it was extremely difficult to get two-thirds of the inhabitants of the state or any political subdivision thereof, to vote to lend its credit in the furtherance of private enterprise, but the evil had been done. The debt of over forty millions of dollars had been contracted, and I very well remember the message which the governor of the state sent to the legislature in 1883, in which he called attention to the fact that notwithstanding all the splendid resources of the grand old commonwealth of Tennessee, notwithstanding its salubrious climate, notwithstanding its immense forests, notwithstanding its fertile fields, its industrious inhabitants, that state was being outstripped by neighboring commonwealths and that for the reason that the whole state was helplessly and hopelessly in debt, and proposed some new adjustment of the debt of the state
In other words, sir, the state was confronted with repudiation of its debts. The discussion to which I listened was long and bitter, and finally, in 1883, the debt settlement act was passed, by which the debt of the state was scaled down from forty-two millions to twenty-one millions. The bonds were refunded at an interest of three per cent. per annum and up to this time, of that old debt there still remains unpaid some eighteen millions of dollars, a burden with which the people of that commonwealth are still struggling. Now, sir, I have selected the evil effects of this principle of loaning the credit of the state in aid of private enterprises_I have selected the state of Tennessee, because of my personal acquaintance with the question as it appeared there, but other states have had similar experiences. Missouri is a notable instance. Kentucky, while it prohibited the state from. loaning its credit in aid of individuals enterprises, still permitted the subdivisions of the state to loan their credit_the counties and the cities. One county in that state_Muehlenberg county_voted bonds to a railroad and that county became bankrupt, absolutely, and I am informed that for twenty years the county has had no regular steady county government. Counties and cities of the great state of Illinois were also permitted for some {898} time previous to the late revision of its constitution to loan their credit in aid of individual enterprises, and the result has been followed with disaster, showing, sir, that this doctrine is vicious in its results, as it is vicious in its principle. These examples, as I take it, are a warning to the State of Utah, just about to start upon its career_a career that I believe will be magnificent and of which we shall be proud, especially if at this particular time, when forming the fundamental law of the land, we shall take care to lay its foundation upon such principles that shall secure to the people equality before the law and make it impossible to exercise the powers of the government in aid of private enterprises and to the building up of private fortunes.

I wish to state further, that the propositions that have been offered here by the minority of the committee on legislative, which are in the line of prohibiting the State from taxing its citizens in the interests of private industries and which have been voted down_to discard these doctrines is to lay the foundation for future mischief in the State and inequality, and I wish to say that these doctrines offered by the minority and voted down by you and now brought before you under a modified form are in line with the great constitutional doctrine as announced by the courts of this country. In proof of which I will read to you still further from the decision of Chief Justice Miller, in the case before cited. The circumstances of this case are these: The city of Topeka, under the general law of the state of Kansas incorporating cities, issued bonds of the denomination of one thousand dollars, one hundred in number, in aid of a bridge manufacturing company_in aid of establishing a home industry, which it was thought would greatly benefit the city of Topeka and bring to that city more prosperity by reason of the establishment of this industry, within their borders. Some of these bonds found their way into the hands of the loan

association of Cleveland, Ohio, and suit was brought before the courts in trying to collect the interest due on those bonds. The learned judge, in the discussion of the principles involved, gave a wider range to his decision than the mere case before him, and in the course of that opinion, he says:

To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and to build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is under the forms of law, and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms. Nor is it taxation. A tax, says Webster's dictionary, is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of the citizen by a government for the use of the nation or state, Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes. We have established, we think beyond cavil, that there can be no lawful tax which is not laid for public purpose, It may not be easy to draw the line in all cases, so as to decide what is a public purpose in this sense, and what is not, but it is undoubtedly the duty of the legislature which imposes or authorizes municipalities to impose a tax to see that it is not to be used for purposes of private interest instead of public use, and the courts can only be justified in interposing when a violation of this principle is clear and the reason for interference is cogent. If it be said that a benefit results to the local public of a town by establishing manufactories, the same may be said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital or labor; the merchant, the mechanic, the innkeeper, the banker, the builder, the steamboat owner, are equally promoters of the public good and equally deserving the aid of the citizens by forced contributions. No line can be drawn in favor of the manufacturer, which would not open the coffers of the public treasury to the importunities of two-thirds of the business men of the town.

That, sir, is the doctrine laid down by the courts on this subject. Nor is that the only case in point. There are several others. The notes, however, giving reference, I have mislaid, but that is the doctrine in regard to this question. {899} There can be no just taxation, but for a public purpose. Yet, by your votes this morning, you have rejected, gentlemen, this restriction to the Legislature and now, sir, the proposed article that I submit to you is that if you are determined that governments shall vote public money in aid of private enterprises, I ask you at least that you get the consent of two-thirds of the people whenever such a proposition or such a use of public moneys is to be made. The true doctrine to be observed in this matter is that which is laid down in the principles here announced. Let us form a government which shall prevent men from interfering with each other and leave them otherwise free to pursue what course they may choose in their industries. It is not the business of government to aid in the establishment of private interests or to build up private fortunes. I take it that the only safe course to pursue in this instance is to leave every individual in the new State free and equal before the law, and you cannot do that if it is your purpose and intent to use the great taxing power of the new State in the interest of any class or association of individuals. There is no equality in that. I think, sir, that I may illustrate my own views on this subject by reference to the course that the founders of this great government of the United States pursued in regard to religion. There were men in those days who would have been delighted as they termed it to have put God into the Constitution of the country and make an establishment of religion, but there had been such an exodus of men of the various faiths from the old world to this land that it was impossible for the founders of the new commonwealth to single out any one of them and make that the state religion, because the moment that one was selected to be supported by the state there was a discrimination made against all the rest, and when confronted with these facts our fathers of this country acted wisely and well when they refused to enter into governmental partnerships with any one of the many

sects which had sprung up in existence and declared that the government should make no provision for the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

So I say, now that we stand upon the threshold of the new State of Utah, make all the people in regard to their industrial pursuits equal before the law by proclaiming that the powers of the State shall not be exercised in favor of one class or division of the citizens. Declare divorce between the State and the industrial pursuits of the people. Say to all the people: “The government shall protect you in your rights, in your liberties, in the pursuit of happiness, and it will leave you free in every other particular to carve out your own fortunes.”

I grant you that in the past our Legislatures have been free from bribery, and remarkably so, from corruption. Perhaps it is due to the fact that whatever the Legislature should do might be reversed by the Congress, because in our territorial capacity, the enactments of our Legislatures were subject to revision by the Congress of the United States, but now, sir, there will be increased powers given to the State, and if the Legislature is left free to grant the credit of the State or to give its public moneys in aid of private enterprises, do you suppose that the corridors and ante- rooms where the Legislature meets will not be filled by men begging public aid to build up their private enterprises and to launch out their various schemes? I believe, sir, that that will be the condition that will confront the Legislature, and that we ought to guard against this temptation to corruption. I have confidence in the men of Utah. I admire the men of Utah in the past. I have confidence in the great majority of them in the future, but we all know that in almost {900} every legislative assembly in the land there are men who find their way that are corruptible and it may be that the corruption of just a few will be sufficient to draw to the aid of individual enterprises public funds and the credit of the State. We to-day are living in the midst of conditions which did not confront the early legislatures of this country. There have risen in the past few years corporate powers, trusts and combines, which are a menace to free government. They secure such legislation as they need to aid them in their several enterprises, and they are sufficiently strong to contend with the government itself, not only the state governments, but even the great government of the United States; in proof of which you need go back no further in the history of legislation in this country than the past two years, where gigantic monopolies have written into the enactments of Congress the very clauses that they required to benefit them in their particular line of business, and while they have been able to hold the people afar off and to defy their influence, with the other hand they have been able to clutch government by the throat and compel it to yield to their demands. We are living in a country rich in its resources. Combinations that are foreign to us_that is, I mean companies organized outside of the new State will send their agents here with means to corrupt all who can be corrupted, and they will seek to lay their hands upon every resource of our commonwealth, and the great danger is that while for a few brief years there may be a stimulation in our industries, in the end it will prove that the wealth has fallen to the hands of the few while the masses are bereft of opportunities to make themselves comfortable in the midst of rich resources until, sir, the few shall be enriched and the masses shall be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. I am not content with this mushroom growth of prosperity.
I would prefer to follow means where the growth and the development would be slower, but when it does come, that the wealth might be in the hands of the masses and have, if not millionaires in our midst, as least a people who shall have attained an independence so that they

can be masters of their own time, so that they may feel the blessings which come from an enjoyment of the blessings of this earth. I offer this amendment, sir, in the interest of the people of Utah, that the government shall not favor classes, and if you are determined to exercise the powers of government for the enrichment of any class I at least ask you that those powers shall not be exercised unless two-thirds of the people shall favor it.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is a little unfair for a gentleman to load up a cannon when we thought that all he had about him was a revolver and fire a shell into this committee which is calculated if it does not knock anyone down, to at least stun them. The understanding was when we began here that we should have nothing partisan. At least that was the understanding on the other side. They told us that all the summer through and all the winter. I object to this amendment for this reason, that it is contrary to the principles of the government of the United States. It took the world six thousand years to get up to the point where they could form a perfect republic in which the majority was to rule. The gentleman from Davis County goes the world one better and insists upon a two-thirds majority. The fathers did not think of that when they organized this government. He very shrewdly said that the gentlemen of the opposition were content to leave this sort of legislation out, because it amounted to an affirmative for them, and I suppose he thought that in the happy way in which he spoke it, he would conceal the fact that if he could get through this amendment, {901} he would accomplish all that had been voted down this morning, because there are no two-thirds majorities in this country. I believe in the bill of rights and that no voter shall vote upon any proposition to tax the property of his neighbor unless he is a tax-payer himself, and the qualified voters referred to by the argument we have just heard are the property owners, and if this amendment were to pass it would require two-thirds of them to carry any measure. It amounts to inhibition. It is just as good as a clause in the Constitution declaring that the State should never through its Legislature give up anything in the way of bounties or subsidies and should never permit any city or county in the State to do the same thing. That is, it takes from the people the liberty to do with their own what they may want. I do not wish to meet any further his argument, except in a few general words. He has referred to the state of Tennessee, that got into debt by voting subsidies to railroads. Probably it did, but there was very much more the matter with Tennessee. At the time the property in Tennessee through another cause was falling two per cent per annum. At the time too there was an idea running in the minds of the people of Tennessee that the most important thing in the world was not to create and increase their industries, but it was to vote solidly the democratic ticket. That was what was the matter between 1880 and 1886; in a great many places in that state at that time, gentlemen could not express their real sentiments without being insulted, if not mobbed_on political questions I mean. The gentleman has cited other places that have been unfortunate through the carrying out of this principle. Some of them have some pertinency, but not very much, and it would be easy enough to cite on the other side innumerable cases where, by the very carrying out of this principle, such prosperity has come as the people never dreamed of before. For instance, he spoke of the city of Topeka, that voted a hundred thousand dollars for a certain purpose. Very well, I stand that off by the city of Joliet, in Illinois, that wanted *to give seventy-five thousand dollars in bonds to have steel works established. They went to the legislature. It was passed. The governor vetoed the bill. The legislature carried it over his head. The bonds were voted and the city advanced from four thousand to twenty-five thousand people in four years. It made a city of it. It is a great place yet and is steadily growing. Again, the state of

Illinois had voted a large tract of land to the Illinois Central railroad. There was a fight that lasted for weeks on the proposition. At that time, in the spring of the year, through Illinois it was the habit that a man who rode in a stage had to carry a rail, because the stage went down every little while. There was no way to carry products to market. The result is that that land which was worth very little at the time when it was given to the railroad, produces something which gives every man throughout the whole length of Illinois a near market for what he produces. Further, that road pays the expenses of the state. Take the city of Washington for instance. You remember when Boss Shepherd was banished and execrated by the democratic press of the United States as a monster, because he insisted on transforming Washington from a swamp to a fit place to reside in. He went back a few years later and they received him with an ovation. Why? Because, through his work and his foresight, Washington had been transformed from a mud hole to the most beautiful city in America, and the landed values of that city had advanced five hundred per cent. I do not wish to discuss the tariff principles. The newspapers can do that, or it can be done on the stump, but I do wish to {902} say that this Convention has no business to put its hand on the free thought of this people. The gentleman tells us about the fathers declaring for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe particularly in that part of it called liberty. I believe the men of this Territory, when they come to be a State, will increase in wisdom, increase in judgment, and that they should not have a shackle on their wrists to prevent the majority from doing any legitimate thing that it pleases them to. Of course this argument can be continued here six days. We had one last week or week before last that lasted six days. Some gentlemen made great reputations on it, but when they got through the matter stood exactly where it did when they started and the vote was just the same. It will be so with this. There is no end to it. They tell the people that there is no power to tax the people to benefit a certain individual or a certain class. I grant that, but when the people find that by benefiting a certain class they can benefit themselves, they ought to have the right to do it. That is behind all questions of taxation, is the right of the American people to do what they please to do so that they are within the laws and so that there is no injustice to any man, or any class of men. We need not go to Tennessee. We need no go to Illinois.

You know, Mr. Chairman, that if this city had had the right and the power three years ago to have mortgaged itself for five hundred thousand dollars to build a road west the result would have been that every property holder's property in this city would have been worth fifty per cent more_yes, one hundred per cent more to-day than it is worth. They cried out that territorial rule inhibited all that, and that was true. And would you have that continued through the State? There is a point where I would agree with the gentleman. I would agree that this Convention should say that no city, no county, nor the State itself should ever negotiate a loan or vote any subsidy or bounty above a certain small percentage of the actual property value of the State. That is true. This other is simply taking the people by the throat and saying, “you will probably have corrupt legislatures. We know that great corporations will come here and try and corrupt you.” And there is where all the trouble comes in, Mr. Chairman. People do not realize the power of money. If I have a hundred dollars and you have a thousand, you would not only have ten times the chances to increase your fortune, but if with that thousand you can get a dumb machine that works without food and without sleep to multiply your forces three or four or five hundred times, it would not be fair to say ten years later that when you began life you had but ten times as much as I, whereas, now you own everything and I have nothing. And other causes are working. This is

the metallic age and money is what counts and money has opportunities. It is a rolling snowball and to say that to vote for the substitute starts a snowball of that kind does; not prove the fact. These snowballs are rolling all the time and they are drawing to them the wealth of the country. A limitation must be upon the corporations themselves and on the powers that hold these moneys and not on the free thought of the people to do what they want to do.

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


The CHAIRMAN. The matter before the committee is the amendment offered by Mr. Roberts.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not expected to make any remarks whatever upon the important question now under discussion and I have never taken the time to prepare a single word, {903} but as a native son of the old volunteer state of Tennessee, I am not going to sit by and allow my native state to be assaulted and its good name traduced by the gentlemen upon this floor, without resenting it and stating the truth in regard to the matter. What the gentleman from Salt Lake does not know about the state of Tennessee and her people and her financial ability will fill a large library, beside of which the congressional library at Washington would sink into insignificance. He talks about in 1880 and 1886, a white man could not utter his sentiments in the state of Tennessee. Why, Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Salt Lake, who made the statement, know that during that time the state of Tennessee had three republicans in Congress and part of the time four and part of the time the governor of the state was a republican? If there is one place on this earth where a man can speak his sentiments, that place is in the state of Tennessee. So the gentleman who gave utterance to such sentiments does not know anything about what he is talking about. The state of Tennessee has had three constitutions. The first was formed and adopted in June, 1796. The second in 1834. Under the constitution of 1834, there was nothing in that constitution by which the Legislature was prevented from lending aid to state institutions or corporations or associations. In 1851 and 1852, when Andrew Johnson was governor, something took hold of the people of Tennessee by which the idea was to issue bonds in aid of railroad companies and turn-pike companies and for the purpose of opening the waterways in the state. About forty-seven millions of dollars in bonds were issued by these corporations and upon the back of each one of those bonds was the faith of the state of Tennesee pledged for the payment of those bonds. The state of Tennessee by its secretary, its treasurer, and its governor, guaranteed the payment of every one of those bonds and the interest. What was the result? Mr. Roberts has told you the truth in regard to that matter; but not the whole truth, The state of Tennessee was compelled to force a settlement with her bondholders at about fifty cents on the dollar. I say it is a shame and a disgrace to the great state of Tennessee, but we were compelled to do that. Thus, the period about which Mr. Roberts speaks. Now, I want to tell you that in 1864, 1866 and on down to 1870, the republicans had control of that state. I think Parson Brownlow was our governor. During that time and prior to the constitution of 1870, from which Mr. Roberts has read, there was nothing to abridge the governor and the state legislature from issuing bonds, or rather endorsing and guaranteeing the payment of bonds for railroad companies and turnpike companies. During that time I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee, that they guaranteed the payment of bonds issued in behalf of railroad

companies, which began nowhere on earth and ended at the same place. Now, then, that indebtedness was piled up million upon million until it aggregated in round numbers forty-seven millions of dollars, and we were compelled to scale the indebtedness in 1883 at the rate of fifty cents on the dollar. So, then, Mr. Chairman_

Mr. BUTTON. I arise to a point of order. I would like to know if this has anything to do with the question before the house?

The CHAIRMAN. I think the gentleman is in order.

Mr. BUTTON. I do not think it has anything to do with it.

Mr. MALONEY. I think it has. My friend from Salt Lake brought the question up and he gave utterance to a sentiment which was not true, that a white man could not give utterance to his sentiments in Tennessee. I deny it. If there ever was a stalwart party that {904} gave utterance to its sentiments, it is the republicans of Tennessee.

The CHAIRMAN. Especially east Tennessee.

Mr. MALONEY. Especially east Tennessee. It furnished 33,000 soldiers for the army. Speaking of Tennessee, I do not approve of everything the democratic party in Tennessee has done. Far from it. The democratic party in Tennessee to-day is doing that which from my standpoint is wrong, The republican governor was elected and the democrats insisted on counting him out. I believe in honesty in politics. I do not say that I object to a provision preventing the Legislature from giving bounties. This Convention is republican. They were elected upon that, but I want to caution the gentlemen of this committee that there was nothing in the republican platform by which they are pledged to see that nothing shall go into this Constitution preventing the Legislature from endorsing or guaranteeing the payments of bonds issued by individuals, corporations, or associations. Suppose the great Utah corporation should ask the State of Utah to guarantee the payment of its bonds, so that they could float them. I tell you now, I want to give you notice in time, not only that corporation or any other corporation, may in time get State aid to float their bonds and in the end the people of this State may have these bonds to pay. I do not speak of the Utah corporation more than I do any other corporation_any railroad corporation. Why, in Tennessee, when the question came up before the legislature in 1851 and 1852, the finest hotels in Nashville were filled with lobbyists. They set up there private bars. The members of the legislature were treated. They got all the state aid they desired, and to day the state of Tennessee is almost bankrupt, by reason of having to pay those obligations. I appeal to republican members in this house whether it is not the right thing to do to prevent any future Legislature of this State from succumbing to the lobbyists and voting State aid and guaranteeing the payment of any such bonds.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I voice the sentiment of republican members of this Convention when I say that so far as they were concerned, they did not desire to consume time in debating the question that is presented to them. It is not, Mr. Chairman, either, with a desire to avoid a debate upon this question that they desired to pass upon the matter without debate, but it

is because of the fact that we have a great many matters of importance before us upon which there is an honest difference of opinion and which possibly may be changed by the debate. There cannot be any very great change upon the subject that we have before us to-day. Our democratic friends declared time and again that they believed in making the organic law of the State free from partisanship. That they desired to make it one that the people of Utah could endorse and not interject into it that which is of a partisan nature. I am sorry that they have departed from this declaration, for while I did not believe it at the time that it was made, so far as I am concerned, I would myself oppose inserting in the Constitution anything that I believed to be of a partisan character. The amendment which has been offered on this section which is proposed by the gentleman from Davis County is only in another form the same principle that has been advocated by the democrats in different places and at different times. In the Confederate constitution they provided that no bounty should be given, and provided that tariff should be for revenue only and not for the purpose of protection. In various states they have made similar provisions. In the proposition that was voted down this morning, you have it only in a little stronger dose than is presented by the gentleman {905} from Davis County. He presents it to us as it were in the homoepathic form and expects us to swallow it just the same in that way. The people of Utah, I believe, settled this question so far as that is concerned, in returning to this Convention a majority of members who are republicans. They believed that it is right to leave it to the Legislature and our friends_many of our democratic friends have said from time to time that they did not believe in legislating; but in leaving the Legislature as free as possible. I trust that the result of the vote which shall be taken upon this section will show that they are earnest in that which they have said. The gentleman this morning, speaking upon the subject, declared that government must be limited to protection of life and to the protection of the rights to pursue happiness and to exercise liberty.

I claim, Mr, Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, that there is no great government to-day upon the face of the earth, but that aids its citizens in various forms, in the establishment of the different industries that may be established in those various countries. I claim that the people of Utah will be benefitted by an application of the principles believed in by the republican party, but so far as I am concerned, I am willing to leave the whole matter to the people of Utah and to their representatives in the Legislature. We do not seek to place here in the Constitution a proposition that it shall be compulsory with the Legislature to foster and promote different industries, and on the other hand, I believe that it is a firm doctrine of the republican members to see to it that nothing is placed in this Constitution which shall prohibit the fostering care and the aid of the State of Utah being given to such industries as the people may desire to have established from time to time. I claim that from the beginning_from the time Utah was settled her people have believed emphatically in establishing home industries and in building them up_in extending to them such aid as may be necessary, and that they have done it by enactment as well as by private practice, as was noted by the gentleman from San Juan the other day. I do not desire_because I know it to be the express feeling of republicans_to take up the time of this Convention with a lengthy address upon this subject, but I desire to call your attention for two or three minutes to the case which is most prominent before the people of Utah on this branch of the question. That is, to the sugar question in Utah Territory.

By the Legislature which provided for the payment of a bounty upon sugar before the division

upon national party lines, men who afterwards went out as democrats and men who afterwards went out as republicans, voted to provide a certain amount of bounty for the establishment of this industry. The result was a factory was built in Utah Territory, and I claim that it was a fact that cannot be disputed honestly by any man, that, but for the bounty, that factory would never have been built, and that the men who engaged in that enterprise, both democrats and republicans, refused to have anything to do with it until they were assured of the bounty that had been proposed. I claim that that is the fact and I claim in addition to that, that the people of Utah have in dollars and cents received more money back than was expended from the public treasury. I claim that it can be shown by actual figures that the benefit the people derived was greater directly than the amount that was taken from them, and that, in addition to that, they have the benefit which came from the circumstance of a large amount of money being expended and the large amount of means being retained in Utah Territory. If we take the year in which the factory was built and every year following that, you will find that {906} every time that Utah sugar was placed upon the market, there is a drop in the price of sugar; you will find that every time Utah sugar retires from the market, there is an advance in the price of sugar, and that the amount that is thus affected has ranged from a quarter of a cent to one and three-quarters cents a pound. What is the benefit that came from the establishment of this factory? You are all familiar with it. It would not pay to take up your time here explaining to you members of the different localities in the Territory the benefit that came to the people of Utah from the establishment of this factory. It is simply an illustration of that which can be done, and when we refer to it we follow in granting bounties and in doing that which has been done the course of the most enlightened nations upon the face of the earth. When first the bounty was proposed, the beet sugar industry in the United States amounted to practically nothing. It grew at a most marvelous rate. We find that in 1880 beet sugar produced in the United States amounted to only 357 tons. In 1890 it was only increased to 2,800 tons. At that time the McKinley bill went into effect, providing for a a bounty, and in one year the amount was increased from twenty-eight hundred tons to fifty-four hundred tons. The succeeding year, under the stimulating effect of that bounty the product increased to twelve thousand three hundred and fifty-five tons, with a corresponding increase in the year 1893 and the year 1894. Factories had been established and they produced the desired results.

We find that other countries are not without this aid. You go back to Germany and you will find that while Germany to-day controls the beet sugar market, we find that Germany paid on an average of twenty million dollars per year in bounties to her citizens on beet sugar. We will find that from the year 1876 to 1890, she paid the enormous sum of $220,652,647. This is the manner in which Germany built up her industries, and I claim it is a fundamental principle that no civilized government exists upon the face of the earth to-day that does not assist its people in establishing its industries and promoting thereby their welfare.

I trust that this substitute or section will not prevail for another reason, a reason referred to by Judge Goodwin this morning. Instead of leaving it to a majority of the people, it provides that you must have after the Legislature has enacted a law a two-thirds vote of the people before the bill can go into effect. How would that be in connection with other measures? Why not apply that to other principles of legislation? Why should we single out one which tends to build up the industries of the country and center an attack upon that, and leave all others so that when passed by the Legislature they become a law? I claim that it is wrong in principle. I claim that when the

people elect their representatives and they are elected upon party platforms which pledge them to build up home industry in the form of bounties or to oppose that principle, that the people know what they are doing and that their representatives in the Legislature should have power, free from any restraint of the Constitution, to pass such laws as they see fit.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment upon the ground that we are, as I regard it, taking the agency away from the intelligent men that are chosen by the people at large throughout the State to come here and transact business, and prevents them from entering into anything that would be in the way of advancement. It is all right_it is a principle that I thoroughly endorse to throw certain protections, certain guards around the interests of the people. And that is what I am here or. And I am not here to carry out {907} any particular system of the party. That is, that is net a general interest, that does not equally apply to every individual. I am not here to look after simply the republican part of the business, but I am here to look after the general interests. Now, what kind of a fix would you place the Legislature in to trammel them and to throw a prohibition around them that they cannot enter into anything that would promise the well being of the people? I think it would be certainly a very grand mistake that we should make here upon this floor.

I take it, Mr. Chairman, that we will be able to send a legislative body here that are men of experience, men of intelligence, men who are looking after their own interests, and when they are looking after their own interests they are looking after the interest of the general whole. Of course, we cannot be responsible for men that use their power in recklessness and carelessness and in a way that would bring harm to the people. We cannot help that. We have many instances of men that have made bad use of their power, that has been placed in their hands. We also find men that make bad use of their money_of their means that is placed in their hands, but I take it, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that we shall send a body of men here that will know when to protect the rights of the people and how to do that, that will promote their welfare. We know of instances_we can quote many instances where the governments, or the legislatures, and even Congress have had the power to do some things that have greatly enhanced the interests of the people of the nation_also of legislatures of states. While there are others perhaps that have made a grand mistake. No doubt of that. But we find individuals, that have entered into business, that have also made mistakes from time to time, and of course, we want to throw safeguards around the people; but I do not feel that it would be competent for us to, as it were, tie the hands and the feet of the Legislature, and send them here to do business for us. I think it would be entirely out of character of such a body of men as are here. We should leave it to the Legislature to conduct this matter and not throw any embargo upon them. Hence, I am entirely opposed to the amendment that is introduced by my friend from Davis County. We might quote many things. Of course we see it in print_the rulings of judges, but that does not signify that we are compelled to follow these channels that have been laid down and have been participated in by individuals or by companies. Failures frequently prove a benefit to individuals_failures, because one legislature makes a failure, we will understand how to steer around that, as you may when you see your neighbor make a mistake in his business transaction. When you come to that place where he began to make a mistake, why you are enabled to benefit yourself. I have always made the experience of other men be of some use to me when I could adopt the principle, and it is so in these matters and I think it would be perfectly out of character for us to trammel or hedge up the

way for a Legislature to perform that that they thought would be best for the common weal.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I consider it a waste of time for me to arise here, or any other gentleman, and discuss this question. This question was discussed from St. George to Logan on the stump last fall. It is the issue that the campaign was upon, and it is the issue that buried the democratic party from California to Maine. Consequently, I believe it should be kept out of this Convention, and I was in hopes that the honorable gentleman from Provo would do so and that the broad and generous provision in the platform would be adhered to and nothing of a partisan nature would be brought up in this {908} Convention, and I regret to say that this is the first action that has been taken that was distinctly of a partisan nature since we have come together in this Convention.

Mr. THURMAN. Let me ask the gentleman a question. Why do you say this is of a partisan nature?

Mr. JAMES. Why, simply because it was made an issue last fall; it was on the stump; it was discussed and it is the issue to-day in the United States between the two great parties.

Mr. THURMAN. It was in the platform too, was it not?

Mr. JAMES. What platform?

Mr. THURMAN. Your platform.

Mr. JAMES. I believe it was in every platform in the United States.

Mr. THURMAN. That was just put in to catch votes, was it?

Mr. JAMES. No, sir.

Mr. THURMAN. Oh, there was a meaning to that?

Mr. JAMES. Because the republican party stood upon that issue. That is why it was put in. Now, I want to say to my distinguished friend from Davis County, that his position is not tenable, nor does he stand upon the position that he took upon this floor here to-day. He will not maintain that he is not in favor of taxing the public in the interests of the individual, because he has voted to do it ever since he became an American citizen, and he will continue to do it so long as he remains one if he votes at all. I ask him is he opposed to taxing the public for the purpose of educating the poor? Is not that for individual interests that the public is taxed, and is not it for the good of the public that it is done? That is the proposition.

Mr. CREER. Is that the strongest argument the republicans have?

Mr. JAMES. That may not please you, you can sneer as much as you have a mind to, but you cannot-_

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. James, I must insist on the rules of order that require gentlemen to keep still when the gentleman is addressing the house, and refrain from talking.

Mr. JAMES. I ask the gentleman again, is he opposed to educating the individual in the arts, as France has done, which is the secret of her greatness as a nation to-day? Did not France establish schools? Did not she educate her people to manufacture the finest article to be found in any of the markets of the world, and is not that the secret of her success everywhere all over this broad world, of commanding a price above the brands of all other nations as a rule? Now, I want to call the gentleman's attention, who made the speech upon the proposition that there was corruption, and that this policy of the republican party of advancement and of enlightenment in this nation was responsible for it, Now, I disclaim that that is true. I ask the gentleman why were there not laws enacted that prevented the shameful and disgraceful corruption of the Tammany ring, in New York, exposed by the Lexow commission last winter? Was the republican party responsible for the class of legislation that caused the disgraceful doings in the state of New York last winter? Why not get up here and on the stump and preach to everybody that it was democratic principles? Now, I do not claim anything of that kind. It was the corruption of mankind. That was the secret of that wrongdoing down there, just the same as it was the corruption of mankind that did the wrongdoing in my friend's state of Tennessee, it was not republican principles or republican policy that was the secret or the cause of that wrongdoing. I ask the gentleman again, has not France enacted laws to prevent corruption? Where has there been any other so gigantic a. swindle in the history of the world as that of the Panama canal? Was it owing to republican laws or republican principles that the great DeLesseps, the {909} greatest engineer of the age, fell and disgraced himself? No, sir, it was the weakness of mankind; and I say to you gentlemen assembled in this Convention here, there is no grander thing that you can do, nothing that will go more to your credit or the credit of this Territory, than for you to use your public funds where they will build up the industry, the prosperity, and the resources of this Territory. I am just as much opposed to bounties, unless it is for public good, as any man upon this floor, and I will be just as shy, if ever I have a chance to vote against them, I think as any other.

I say to you, as an example, you have it right before your eyes; many of you do not appreciate it, but it is a fact, you have the opportunity of making the greatest State out of this State that there is to-day between the Missouri river and California. Your resources, or our resources, are greater than any other state in the Union and more diversified, but you cannot do it by pursuing a policy of obstructionists, you must pursue a policy of advancement, you must establish a school in this Territory that will be the grandest and greatest of schools there is anywhere between Maine and California; you must go to work and educate your young men; you must lay a foundation for a school that will cost a million dollars or more, you must make of your young men, competent men to go up into these mountains and take charge of the wealth that Providence has placed in those hills for you, and unless you do it, it will remain there until after you are dead and gone and a more enterprising class will come along and establish a school that will turn out practical young men, men that have knowledge of mining engineering, mechanical engineering, assaying, and superintending and managing of mines; such mines as the great Ontario will soon be exhausted; then the resources of the Territory will be the small mines that will last for generations to come, and they have got to be managed by men that have all of the faculties of managing every branch of the mine. You cannot have a staff of officers. You cannot have an assayer, a mechanical

engineer, a blacksmith and a carpenter. All those forces cannot be there. It has got to be confined in one man, and if you will establish a school here, you will lay the foundation of that school in this Convention and put it under way that will turn out a class of that kind of men; and you will then be accomplishing a great deal more good than you will if you are here simply to make capital for political parties next fall. But I say to you, gentlemen, ii you want to go to your second Waterloo next fall on this issue, I welcome you, and I invite you to be found there.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move that we now rise and report progress, and for this reason: that there is not a republican on the floor of this house that is afraid of this question, and we will meet them on the stump next fall, but it is not the time here to spend the money of the United States discussing the issues of the two great parties. [Applause.]

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask what is the advantage of rising? Why not vote upon the question?

Mr. EICHNOR. When we get back in the Convention we can take up some other article.

The CHAIRMAN. You can take it up in committee of the whole.

Mr. EICHNOR. I say right here, I am not afraid of this question. I say to the democrats next fall, “Lay on, MacDuff, and damned be he that first cries hold, enough.”

The motion was rejected.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I have just received a very polite note from a very dear friend, a member of this Convention, not to consume too much time. If he knew me as well as I do myself, he would not have made that {910} request, for I do not think I ever made a speech that was as long as five minutes, but I have a few words to say on this matter. I am opposed to the gentleman's motion that is now pending before this body. While I have great respect and regard for my distinguished friends on the other side, I have to part roads with them at this junction. I do not intend to go down to Tennessee or east here for statistics, but I am laboring for the interest of Utah Territory_presumably for the new State of Utah. And I am, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in favor of leaving the Legislature o the State of Utah untrammelled. am sorry that this matter has been introduced here, because it smacks considerably of partisan feeling. As has been remarked, these issues were made fairly and squarely upon the stump during the last campaign and the voice of the people of this Territory as it occurs to my mind has been such_

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Was it at all a party issue in the last campaign, as to whether the credit of this State should be loaned in aid of private enterprises?

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I think not.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is the question that is involved in my article, and not the question of bounties.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I understood that your article provided that the Legislature should be prohibited from extending any aid or assistance to institutions either public or private, without two-thirds majority of the people.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir_will not lend its credit.

(The section offered by Mr. Roberts was read.)

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I do not think that I am mistaken in the object or the wording of the proposition, as I understand it.

Mr. ROBERTS. It does involve the loaning of the credit of the State.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Yes, that is one.

Mr. ROBERTS. That was not a party issue.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. That was not a party issue as I understand it. I am in favor of encouraging the industries of our country. I have the honor of representing upon the floor of this Convention one of the greatest counties in matter of resources that I guess there is in the Territory of Utah, I wish to state, sir, that we have mountains of iron, and we have, I may say, thousands of acres of coal, both of which are required to make a great country, and this wealth is lying, you might say, dormant, for the want of some assistance, some encouragement, something that will develop and bring out these hidden resources of our lands, and I am in favor of giving the Legislature of our Territory a free scope in these matters that whenever it is thought wise and necessary and will be productive of good to the general community, that they might have it in their power to assist either by way of bounty or exemption from taxation or in whatever way they may think proper and just. In so doing I am of the opinion that it will be wealth or means wisely expended. Allusion has been made to an industry that has been established a little south of us here, that has produced very good and beneficial results. It has not only been a blessing to the people generally, but it has afforded labor for those who are immediately associated, who reside in the vicinity. It has enabled men to procure employment. It has been a benefit to the Territory generally, and it has assisted in furnishing the revenue that was necessary for the governmental force of our Territory. And in looking upon this matter from this standpoint, gentlemen, I am of the opinion that other industries that might be established in our midst_that there is room for plenty of them_that it would bring about the same happy results and would make of the State of {911} Utah what she is destined to become, one of the brightest stars in the constellation. I am opposed to the gentleman's motion from the fact that I hold that it will embarrass our lawmakers in the future, and where they might see proper to extend some assistance in this regard that they will be prohibited from so doing, therefore, I shall oppose the amendment.
Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up the time of the committee by attempting to make a speech, but I think it is due to the party to which I belong to correct what I believe to be a misapprehension, if I may judge from the remarks of some of the speakers. There seems to be a complaint that a partisan question has been brought into the proceedings of this

Convention by the democrats on this floor. I take it that the gentlemen who stand upon that position are either very unfair (and I do not wish to accuse them of that, because from what I know of the gentlemen personally they are always fair) or else they are not aware of the fact that the republicans here stand by their principles upon this question in a way that by saying nothing or doing nothing upon this question they are thereby maintaining a position of extreme partisanship. Because, it is a fundamental principle of constitutional government of the states which has been declared here time and time again in one form or another, that unless the Constitution prohibits, the Legislature has power to act, so that the theory of the republican party as to state government is fully maintained and exemplified when they say, “We will do nothing; we will say nothing; we will place no limitations whatever upon the Legislature.” In fact, it is suggested by my very esteemed friend on the right from Beaver and others, “Leave all these questions to the Legislature.”

What are we here for, Mr. Chairman? What is the purpose of this Convention? Its only purpose is to place limitations upon the power we the State government, because if we leave everything to the Legislature we might just as well have stayed at home. And my friend over on the right (Mr. Eichnor) would not have to get up on this floor and appeal to this Convention to protect the treasury of the United States against the raid that we are making upon it daily. We could all go home_go about our business. But the very purpose for which this Convention has assembled is to form the outlines of a State government and place in the Constitution a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature and other departments of the government. Now, the democrats went into the campaign and they fought against the Legislature having certain powers. The republicans went into the field and in their campaign have contended that the Legislature should have these powers. Now, because republicans who are in the majority here have not seen fit to place in the Constitution anything upon that subject, where does it leave them? It leaves them in an extremely partisan position in this Convention. By saying nothing, by doing nothing, they accomplish their partisan purposes. In order for the democrats to show their constituents who sent them here that they have not forgotten the reasons why they were elected last fall_in order for me to show the people of Utah County who sent twelve democrats to this Convention (and that is the place where the sugar factory is built) that we have not forgotten the rock from whence we were hewn and the character of the voice that sent us to represent them in this Convention, we have got to ask you to consider for a few brief moments a proposition such as that submitted here by the gentleman from Davis County.

I do not believe in acrimony. I do not believe in bitterness and abuse. Was he abusive? Was there anything {912} bitter, rancorous or partisan in his remarks beyond the mere statement of the proposition and the doctrine that he believed in? I think not. Now, gentlemen, we are in this position. Men throw out their challenges, they throw out their banters about “We will meet you next fall, we will meet you to-morrow, we will meet you anywhere else, but we are so anxious to protect the government of the United States against the ravages of this body, who day by day are taking money out of the treasury, that we want to shut off debate and discussion.” Now, we have got nothing to say about what we are going to do next fall. We have no insinuations to throw out, but we say this, Mr. Chairman, we do not want some future Legislature we do not want the republican party in the future to be able to say that this entire Constitutional Convention, democrats and republicans, were all in favor of bounties, for the reason that they framed a

Constitution, they sat for days and weeks and months, and there was not a man in it who dared to ask that an inhibition be placed in the Constitution against it. The democrats believe to-day, as they did last fail, that the principle of bounties is wrong and that it is a danger to the commonwealth.

We want to put ourselves on record as to that, without any lengthy speeches or remarks, without saying anything which will tend to irritate or stir up the feelings of our republican friends, but we simply want to put ourselves on record as believing as we did last fall that the public money ought not to be expended in the interest of private enterprise. I am in favor of the motion of my friend. That is to say, it is not what I desire. In fact, I know it is not what he desires. He believes that it is wrong, even with the voice of two-thirds of the people, to expend the public money for private enterprise. That is the doctrine that I believe in, but I would rather have half a loaf than no loaf at all, and consequently, I would rather vote for his motion than to have nothing in the Constitution.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Thurman a question. Is the object of this debate for the democratic party to place itself on record here, or to convert the republicans to your ideas?

Mr. THURMAN. Well, I am not presumptuous enough, Brother Eichnor, to believe that you are capable of being converted to anything that is right in a political sense.

Mr. C. P. LARSON. Would you consider the sugar factory in Lehi as a private enterprise?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir, I do; most emphatically.

Mr. C. P. LARSON. Did you not, in the Legislature, vote for a bounty to establish that?

Mr. THURMAN. I did, sir. I did, sir. I will tell you why I did it. The same reason that the republican party voted to demonetize silver in 1873. I did not know what I was doing at the time.

Mr. C. P. LARSON. Mr. Thurman, the republicans are sorry for that. Don't you think in the future that sometime you would change?

Mr. THURMAN. They have not shown much sorrow yet. Whenever they show enough sorrow to undo the wrong they have done this country will be better off.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Thurman another question. When silver was demonetized, who moved the previous question in the United States senate?

Mr. THURMAN. I do not know. I shouldn't wonder if it was some republican who moved it in order to cut off debate.
Mr. EICHNOR. Thomas Benton, the great democratic senator.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain you long, but at the risk of being regarded as

an obstructionist, {913} I want to say a few words on the subject. I regard this as an important matter. I understand that we are here to form the fundamental law for this new State. I would like to refer to some fundamental principles as we go along. Of course, I understand that we have been notified that there is no hope of conversion of our republican friends. Unlike my friend, Brother Thurman, I was presumptuous enough to believe that it was possible for them to see the right if it was made clear enough to them, but I may be mistaken about that. However, there is only one thing for us to do and that is to point out that which is right and if they choose to see it, well and good, if not, the responsibility does not rest with us. Now, this proposition, as has been said, is not such a proposition as I would like to see go into this Constitution, and I think that before it is submitted I shall propose an amendment to it, because I should dislike to see it go in even as it is. If it goes at all, I should want to see it limited to public institutions_that money could not be voted even by a vote of the people unless it was to some institution for some public purpose and public use. Now, a good deal has been said during this discussion about what the government might do. One of my colleagues from Salt Lake talked about establishing educational institutions and all that. I do not understand that this amendment has anything to do with the establishment of educational institutions.

Mr. JAMES. May I ask the gentleman a question? Can you establish educational institutions without funds, and have not you got to tax the people in order to get them?

Mr. RICHARDS. I presume not. But I understand and have faith to believe that this State will have one of the best educational systems in the whole country and it will be supported by taxation, of course, and this amendment would not interfere in any way with
providing for the support of educational systems.

Mr. JAMES. Was not the argument made this morning that taxes could not be used for building up any institution except_some private privileges here or something of that kind_would not that have something to do with educating children?

Mr. RICHARDS. I did not get the gentlemen's question, if it is a question, so I am not able to answer it. I do not. understand that this amendment hag anything to do with those educational matters. We proposed to establish a system of public education and have free instruction in this Territory, and that to be provided for out of the public funds. Properly it should be. That is all right, but this is intended to prohibit the State or any political subdivision of the State from going into any business or from becoming partners with anybody else in any business, or lending its credit to any private institution for the purpose of carrying on any business. That is what it is intended for, and I say it is right_it is fundamentally right, and anything in conflict with it would not be in harmony with the institutions of our free government, and upon that point I want to read to you a few words from gentlemen of eminence on these questions. I will first read from Mr. Cooley, a man who stands as high as any living man on the question of constitutional law, and see what he says about collecting taxes and using them for such purposes.

Mr. Cooley says:

The right to exercise the power of taxation in aid of manufacturing enterprises or of private persons or

corporations has seldom been asserted, and whenever asserted, has been most emphatically denied.

Now, if you pledge the credit of the State or of any political subdivision of the State, that credit has got to be backed by funds and those funds have got to be collected from the people by {914} taxation, if ever collected at all. He says:

It has been well and forcibly said that individuals and corporations embark in manufactories for the purpose of personal and corporate gain. Their purposes and objects are precisely the same as those of the farmer, the mechanic, or the day laborer. They engage in the selected branch of manufactories for the purpose and with the hope and expectation not of loss, but of profits. The general benefit of the community resulting from every description of well regulated labor is of the same character, whatever may be the branch of industry upon which it may be expended. All useful labors, no matter what the field of labor, serve the state by increasing the aggregate of its profit, its wealth. There is nothing of a public nature.

Now, I cite this to the point that has been suggested by the question that was asked but recently upon this floor, in regard to a private institution:

There is nothing of a public nature any more entitling the manufacturer to public gifts than the sailor, the mechanic, the lumberman, or the farmer.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. Assuming that to be good law, it applies just as much to a two-thirds majority as it does to a majority. The gentleman cannot urge that a two-thirds majority may be given under that law, while a plain majority would be insufficient,

The CHAIRMAN. I think the gentleman is in order to proceed.

Mr. GOODWIN. If he is going to move for a substitute altogether, that would be in order. Under this it is not.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed.

Mr. RICHARDS. “Our government is based upon equality of rights. All honest employments are honorable. The state cannot rightfully discriminate among occupations, for a discrimination in favor of one branch of industry is a discrimination adverse to all other branches. The state is equally to protect all, giving no undue advantage or special or exclusive preference to any.” That is what I say. That is the doctrine that I am advocating here to-day, and I say that the state has no right, no political subdivision of the state has a right to pledge its credit or to give public money for any private enterprise, no matter what it may be. Again, I quote the language of Mr. Justice Dickinson; in a case reported in the 58th Maine, in which he characterized taxation in aid of private enterprises as being to load the tables of the few with bounty, that the many may partake of the crumbs that fall therefrom. Now, the supreme court of the United States has spoken on this subject. It has referred to the theory of our government, and I desire to read a few words from the supreme court decision in relation to this matter:

It must be conceded that there are rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognizes no such rights, but which wholly leaves the liberty and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power is after all but a despotism.

It is true. It is a despotism of the many_of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is none the less a despotism. I do not want to apply such a term as that to a majority in this Convention. I hope you will not insist upon assuming an attitude that will make such an application proper.

It may well be doubted if a man is to hold all that he is accustomed to call his own, all in which he has placed his happiness, and the security of which is essential to that happiness, under the unlimited dominion of others, whether it is not wiser that this power should be exercised by one man than by many. The theory of our government, state and national, is all opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers.

And we are here to-day, and it is the {915} duty that is enjoined upon us, as the representatives of the people, not as the representatives of corporations_I do not stand here representing a wealthy company or any kind of a corporation, I stand here as the representative of the sovereign people of this State of this Territory, hoping soon to be a State, to place upon this legislative power the limitations and restrictions referred to in this language that I am reading from the supreme court. There are limitations on such powers, which grow out of the essential nature of free government. This is one of the limitations, gentlemen, that grow out of the essential nature of free government. That money that has been taken from the people for governmental purposes, that has been contributed, not voluntarily as a bonus, to any public enterprise, but that has been extorted and coerced by the force and power of the government for governmental purposes_that that money and those funds shall not be taken from the poor man and poured into the coffers of the rich to assist him in any sort of an enterprise, no matter what guise it may be done under. It is not to be done at all, and it is contrary to the theory and the nature of free government, says the supreme court of the United States.

Now, then, a word or two in answer to my distinguished friend who called me to order just now. In his speech this morning, he referred to the unfortunate fact that this city had not the power three or four years ago to issue half a million dollars in bonds to construct a railway from here to some other point, and he says that if that railway had been constructed, if the city had had the power to issue the bonds, it would have done so, and if it had done so, and the road had been constructed, property here would have been worth from fifty to a hundred per cent. more than it is worth now. How does the gentleman know that? I am willing to give him credit for great wisdom and foresight, but that is a point that I do not think even his great wisdom and foresight enables him to answer with certainty. If that road had been built, in my judgment, we would have been here to-day in the same stagnant condition that we are in, and that the whole country is in, so far as business is concerned, and we would have had half a million dollars more of debt and burden upon our shoulders than we have today, and the Lord knows we have enough now.

We have an illustration of this thing right here in this city of what men will do. I do not need to refer to the corruption of men. I do not need to assume and I do not assume that men will be

corrupt in the new State. I do not say and I insist that it is not discrediting those men or the characters of those men who are to come after us as legislators to place these restrictions in the Constitution, but I say that men may be misguided, men may be honest, men may be sincere, but they may be mistaken, just as the city council of this city was mistaken a few years ago when they undertook to give twenty-five thousand dollars to an institution here within the limits of this city, that was going to erect a large copper plant, going to employ hundreds and possibly thousands of men. It was going to cause Salt Lake City to rise at once to great prominence and become a great metropolis in the tops of the mountains. Where is the copper plant and where are all these men that were coming here? The city council, I believe acted in good faith. I believe they were sincere and honest in their purpose, but that they were mistaken there is no doubt, and it is for the purpose of preventing just such mistakes as that that these restrictions should be placed in the Constitution. I do not ask to have them placed there that they may prevent corruption, because I believe if men are determined to be corrupt, they will find some way of accomplishing their {916} purpose, but men who are honest, men who are sincere, men who want to do right, would be guided and controlled by such restrictions, and so I say, gentlemen of the committee, in conclusion, that in my opinion a provision should be inserted in this Constitution_the provision that is now under discussion is not what I desire and I do not care to vote for it, unless it can be limited so that even when submitted to the people they cannot authorize the investment of money unless it be for some public purpose. But I say that such a restriction should be placed there and that it should not be left with every legislature that comes along to be carried on as people are in the excitement of booms and prosperity, and looking ahead and anticipating great things to go on and plunge the State or the county or the city into debt and then when the bubble bursts, as it did with us, let this load come down in crushing weight upon the taxpayers and upon the poor people.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as has been stated here by the gentlemen upon this floor, that they did not expect to convert any of our republican friends to our idea, I perhaps may be in the same condition, but my position is now and it always has been that it makes no difference to me whether I am converted or not, if I think that my position is right. I desire to make a few remarks upon this question. The gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Cannon), told this committee of some of the history of the Utah sugar factory, which I believe was not true. I am very sorry to have to enter into that question. I avoided it last fall as much as I could in the campaign, but I am on record in my own town and in my own county as against bounties in every shape and form, because I believe it is wrong. Mr. Cannon says that if it had not been for the bounty the Utah Sugar Company would not have been established. I would like to call the attention of this committee to the fact that before the bounty was ever passed by the Utah Legislature, and that was passed before the bounty was passed by the United States, that the Utah Sugar Company had incorporated, and I want to suggest here that before any company can incorporate under the laws of the Territory of Utah, they have to subscribe an oath that they have begun or it is their bona fide intention to begin, that ten per cent of the capital stock has actually been paid in and that they verily believe that each subscriber is sufficiently able to pay in the balance of the stock subscribed. Now, when a gentleman takes the position, if my statement be true, that that company was incorporated before the bounty was passed_

Mr. CANNON. May I ask the gentleman a, question? I would like to have you give me the date

on which the sugar company was incorporated.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I think it was in 1889.

Mr. CANNON. Do you know the date?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). No, I do not.

Mr. CANNON. Would you kindly give me the date on which the taw was passed providing for a bounty?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I think it was in 1891_in 1890. It was incorporated in 1889, and the factory begun in 1890, as I remember it.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask the gentleman if he makes his statement from his own knowledge?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I make my statement from my own knowledge, that it was before the bounty was given.

Mr. CANNON. I ask the gentleman if he has compared the dates and knows that to be a fact?

Mr. EVANS (Utah.) I am not positive about the dates, but it was the year preceding the time of the giving of the bounty, which I think was in 1890. That part I assume to say I am positive on. Now, I assume to say that {917} whenever a man takes that position that he charges the incorporators of that company and particularly those honorable gentlemen who went before the probate judge and subscribed an affirmation that it was their bona fide intention to incorporate, with bad motives; and I think it ought to be resented. And if that logic be true, then, sir, I submit to this committee that the fact of passing the territorial bounty, nor the United States bounty, was the immediate cause of the erection of the Utah sugar factory. He stated that that had been growing and continuing to be built since. I would ask the gentleman to point out and name a single one that has been built since the passage of the bounty bill by the United States. I want to say to you, sir, that my opinion is that whenever the time is propitious_whenever the industry and the investment that is to be entered in is profitable or it is believed to be profitable, by those who are to enter into it, that the capital will be furnished and that those industries will be started whenever they think that the end will justify the means.

One gentleman from Iron says that they have plenty of iron_their mountains are teeming with it. They have coal in abundance. Then, I ask if that be the fact, ought they to ask other parts of the Territory which are not teeming with these facilities, to assist in paying to them to establish an industry in their midst? That argument might be used individually. I know of a very beautiful place, not far from where I reside, where great flocks of sheep might be spread over a thousand hills, and, sir, I know of individuals who would be very likely to care for them and make a very profitable investment out of them, if somebody would come to their assistance and their aid, for the purpose of assisting them to start. Now, the objector will say that such an argument as that

confines it down too close, that the great emoluments that accrue to those in the Territory will not be received the same as it would from an industry. I say to you in answer to that, sir, that it does not require the same amount of assistance, and in proportion to the assistance that he receives in starting that individual enterprise, so will the public be benefitted by reason of that just as much as will the public by reason of a corporation being instituted and establishing an industry, therefore, I think the argument is not good and I am opposed to it. We talk about starting in this new State under a heavy taxation. I want to suggest to you, gentlemen of this committee, that I believe we ought to guard the taxing power more than any other one thing that should be instituted in our State government. I say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that if there is one thing that we shall guard in this Constitution_if there is one thing to my mind that will have a tendency to defeat this Constitution_we have heard from gentlemen upon this floor in most eloquent language, in glowing terms, of certain things that were proposed to be put in the Constitution, that would have a design and a tendency to defeat it, but my candid conviction, sir, is, that there is not a thing that will be placed in this Constitution that will have a tendency to defeat it as will the fact that we shall make it possible for the people to be burdened and laden with unjust taxation. I am opposed to it for that reason. I think the power ought not to be granted. I believe that the people of this Territory are sufficiently proud. I believe that they are sufficiently industrious. I believe that they are sufficiently united, that, as each question shall be presented before them, as the necessities shall demand, that they shall join together heart and hand and walk abreast. That they will accomplish the designs of building manufacturing institutions and industries in this {918} Territory by their own frugality and by their own efforts without the aid of any state, and I, as one, shall be more proud in looking upon an industry in which I am interested as an individual where I shall have accomplished with my mite, in connection with those of my fellow citizens in rearing it under the broad canopy of heaven, to shed abroad in the Territory or the new State, as I hope it shall be, its benign influences and emoluments and benefits to those who are less fortunate than perhaps I myself have been. I am opposed to it on principle. Talk about entering into party questions. I say to you, gentlemen, that if I stood here alone upon this floor with the convictions that I have, not as a party_if there was no party in it, I would stand up and declare as I declare this afternoon, that I am opposed to it upon principle, because I believe it is a vicious system.

Mr. L. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to discuss this question, because to me it appears to be a useless question to indulge in upon this floor. This question has been gone over pro and con in the country and I am utterly tired and disgusted about all this talk on this question here to- day, and I appeal now to my republican friends upon this floor to refrain from any further indulgence in the discussion of this question. It takes two to make a quarrel and if one side will refrain and be silent I suppose by the time they have blowed their guns everything will be silent and then we can get to a vote on the question. [Laughter.] I am a republican. I believe in home industry as my friend said from San Juan County, but I will go a little further. I believe also in protection to home industry.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct one idea of some here in regard to the sugar bounty. I think I know something about the sugar factory. I have had a go with it from the beginning. In regard to the incorporation of that company, I will say that there were fifteen men of us joined issue and deposited a hundred dollars apiece to form a company for investigation.

Those committees went upon their own means, for they subscribed in this stock_a portion of the committee was selected out of the fifteen to investigate the sugar factory in the east. That was the cane factory, and the beet sugar factory in California, and we took plenty of time to investigate, and we came to the conclusion that the beet sugar factory could be established with great benefit to these people in Utah. After we had had the soil analyzed we found that this climate and this soil was equal to any for a sugar factory, so it was not jumped in all in a hurry. I will say, before we made a contract for the machinery for the Lehi factory, the McKinley bill had passed, because one prominent member in the company who did not favor bounties questioned very seriously whether that bill had passed, because he had not read it, and we took the pains to send for a copy and have it read to that gentleman before he gave in. Then he gave in. And I will say to the credit of Honorable George Q. Cannon, who deserves the credit of that Lehi mill to-day_the Lehi factory, he says, “I will give in thirty-five thousand dollars to start with, for the sake of finding employment for the people and market for the farmers for their produce.” That inspired the balance of us to join issue in that thing, and I can tell you, gentlemen, that if ever a company was organized with a pure motive for the benefit and the welfare of the country_I should question any outside of the Lehi factory, for we did not expect to get returns and neither have we, but I will say this right here before my friends, the minority, that if it had not been for them misrepresenting in their campaign to kill that enterprise as far as they could, it would have been a grand success_a grand success. But the country was flooded with misrepresentation in regard to this company, {919} that it was a monopoly to make fortunes, and I will say here that we have not received a single dollar in return for our investments, and while they say it was a monopoly, we offered a portion of our stock to them for twenty per cent. less than we gave, after spending the time and starting that company, and I will say further we received thirty thousand dollars bonus from Salt Lake City, but I am safe in saying that they received seventy or ninety thousand back, and when they charge that voted for this company in getting bounty to rob the poor_ask the poor who have been sustained by the sugar factory how they feel about it. [Applause.]

Mr. CREER. May I ask a question? The gentleman states that it is plenty of benefit to the poor. How is it, Mr. Morris, that in the immediate vicinity of the sugar factory_take it in the district where beets are raised, that they have elected members to this Convention who are democrats, and who run ahead of their ticket, even in the town where the sugar factory is located? If it has been such a great benefit to the poor, why is it then that they are not appreciated? Please tell me that, in every district?

Mr. JAMES. I arise to a point of order. What has the voting of the people down in that part of the country got to do with the question before this house?

Mr. CREER. The gentleman cannot crack that nut, that is what is the matter.

Mr. MORRIS. I don't know anything about politics at all. I never interfered. I will say from personal knowledge, and I question any man to contradict it, if Utah County has not received benefits from the Lehi factory, three or four to one, whatever it cost them in bounty. I also state here that for the year 1894, we paid something in the neighborhood of forty-five to fifty thousand dollars in salary alone on that factory. We paid the farmers of Lehi and Utah County to the amount of one hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars for beets, and if they have not been well

paid for the bounty that they gave to establish that factory, I would like to know. But I will say this, gentlemen, if the bounty of two cents and Utah one cent, was not given at the time, I question whether that factory ever would be built. That is all I have got to say now. I oppose the section presented here.

Mr. CANNON, Mr. Chairman, the statement that has been made by me has been questioned on this floor by a gentleman who has stated that I did not tell the truth. I do not know why he should make such a statement. I can prove that which I asserted. It is a fact. It is borne out by the statements of every man to-day connected with the sugar company. The Utah sugar factory would never have been built, and the machinery, as it now is, paid for, had it not been; for the McKinley bill, providing for the bounty that it did, and the aid also which was furnished by the Territory of Utah. I was one of the original incorporators of the company, but the amount of stock that was subscribed by the men who started it out was too small to ever conduct their enterprise to a successful termination. I have examined within the last ten minutes, since the gentleman made his assertion, the articles of incorporation in that company. They are on file in this building and are open for your inspection, if you wish to examine them, and if you will examine them and find the amount subscribed by the gentlemen who did subscribe, if they had paid the full amount in cash, it would not have commenced to pay more than one-thirtieth of the cost of the Utah sugar factory. In order to build that factory and to conduct the enterprise, it was necessary to enlist more capital, and to that end the services of different men were brought into play, and those men {920} refused to take part in the building of that factory or in having anything to do with the stock of that company until assured that the bounty had been provided for by the McKinley bill. In addition to that, one of the most prominent promoters_one of the directors who is a democrat and a very able man, refused to have anything to do with the matter until he had in addition a copy of the McKinley bill and until he had the opinion of an attorney to the effect that it was considered a binding contract, which he did have, and that the United States would, all probability, be compelled to pay it for fifteen years. That was what was done upon that subject.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Is not it a fact that that incorporation took place before the passing of the Territorial bounty_not speaking now of the re-incorporation or the increase of capital stock, but just as I stated, is it or is it not a fact?

Mr. CANNON. I would call attention to this fact, away back when this valley was first settled, a Utah sugar company was organized that brought machinery from France, and built right out here in the ward in which I live_    

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I asked you about 1889.

Mr. CANNON. Permit me to answer the question in my own way. I will answer it if you give me time. They built a factory here and it was a failure and an attempt was made at different times, including one time when five thousand dollars was paid_I think the exact amount was five thousand dollars. Mr. Thurman was a member of the Legislature and can correct me if I am wrong, for four or five thousand pounds of sugar. The gentleman who made the first five thousand pounds of sugar in Utah Territory, I think, was Mr. Arthur Stayner. I believe he received five thousand dollars which was promised. The gentleman from that time to this has

been earnestly seeking to establish sugar factories. He had different men interested with him at different times, but the company which now exists was not on its present basis and the capital could not be induced to go into that until, as I stated, the bounty had been promised by the government and by the Territory of Utah. Those are the facts in the case.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I would like the gentleman to answer that question more direct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cannon's statement this morning, as the stenographer's notes will show, or his first speech this afternoon, was to the effect, that the factory never would have been built. He did not say anything about incorporation.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). My point was_    

The CHAIRMAN. You said that that was not true, and that is what he is controverting.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). My point was that it was incorporated before, and there were certain stipulations that that money was paid in. Now, are we to charge those men with bad faith? If not, then-_

Mr. BUTTON. Which one of those gentlemen is on the stand?

Mr. CANNON. I will state in explanation of that point that a man may not be in bad faith that wants to carry out an enterprise that he may lack funds for. The fact that a man is poor, but is struggling to establish a factory, would not be an evidence of bad faith on his part; but I stated before, and I reiterate it, that without the promise of that bounty, it would not have been possible to have induced the investment of the capital necessary to build the Utah sugar factory. I am surprised at the gentleman posing that he comes from that town, and that he would not be true to himself if he did not speak against bounties and against the principle by which that factory was established. If we go to that town, the fact that the gentleman was elected from it {921} and is a democrat is no evidence to my mind that the sugar factory is not a benefit. I believe he is an honorable gentleman.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I did not make that argument.

Mr. CANNON. I will call attention to this fact, that this year at that place, according to the company's statement published the other day, they paid for beets of 1894, 32,694 tons of beets, a cash amount of $175,539.99; the total amount which was paid out, exclusive of the amount paid for interest was $261,699.79. The amount of sugar manufactured and sold to the people was 5,106,500 pounds, while this estimated the amount of sugar now in process of manufacture, at 438,000 pounds. I would call attention to the fact that in addition to the amount paid directly in this way, they used coal of the coal miners 5,130 tons, they used lime rock furnished by the quarrymen on Pelican Point, 1,768 tons; they used of coke, 220 tons; of Utah sulphur, 11 tons. Then a great many other minor details that were used in the same way. The gentleman may laugh at the idea of that being important in this matter, but I say to-day that if we had more factories and less democratic doctrine the people of Utah would be in a better condition. [Applause.] I say

to-day, that under the democratic rule, and with democratic principles, that, has been one of the things that has alone saved our people from greater financial distress than they have already suffered. While the gentleman this morning said he did not want mushroom prosperity, I claim that mushroom prosperity is better than the kind of democratic prosperity that has been given to us in the last few years.

Mr. CREER May I ask a question? Is there not as much democratic capital invested in home industries in Utah as there is republican capital?

Mr. CANNON. I hope so. Because if there is, I think we will probably have them after awhile apply correct principles to their own industries. The gentleman this morning, in his remarks, declared that the gentlemen believed in taking the money of the poor to build up the rich. That he did not believe in taking that from the masses to confer it upon those who were wealthy and comparatively few in number. I would call the attention to this fact, that in the building of that factory, the amount taken from Utah_from the people of Utah was very trifling indeed. Take a man who had a farm worth two thousand dollars, and in any one year when Utah bounty was in operation he did not pay on that two thousand dollars to exceed nineteen cents. Is that too much? Is there a farmer in Utah with a farm worth two thousand dollars who would not be glad every year to put his hand in his pocket and pay nineteen cents toward the establishment of factories in all parts of this country? I would claim that the most money that is taken for bounties comes from the rich and not from the poor. You take the banks of Salt Lake City alone. They pay more towards the bounty by which that sugar factory was established than the farmers of any county in Utah combined, the wealthiest county that you may select, and the money came principally from the wealthy and not from the poor. The widow who had a home worth five hundred dollars was taxed a little more than four cents, and it was used in establishing an industry that has benefitted the whole people. Not only has it kept money at home, but it has taught the people of Utah a better way of using their land and tilling their soil and has benefitted them vastly in that respect. It is not applied to one class, but it has been to the agriculturist, to the coal miner, to the merchant, for the money kept here has benefitted him and every class throughout the Territory.

Mr. PIERCE. I would like to ask the gentleman if the price of sugar has not {922} been higher in Utah than any similar market in the United States, since the factory was established?

Mr. CANNON. I do not believe that it has. But I can say this, that as I stated this morning, it has been lower in Utah every time when the Utah product was upon the market, than it has at any other time, and that before the Utah product comes in, it is higher, and then drops after it comes in, and after the Utah product goes out of the market, it immediately rises. I have the amount in each year here, if any gentleman desires to hear it. The other day it was stated by Mr. Cutler, in answer to a question, that as soon as the Utah product was off the market, within one week the price of sugar advanced from fifteen to twenty-five cents a sack in this market.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, there was an argument made upon the floor sometime ago, that Utah County was represented in this Convention by democrats, and that was an indication that Utah County was opposed to bounties. The figures do not tell stories, and I have before me the statistics, and I want you to take the analogy of it Take this statement that we have. Utah County

in 1891_the democratic vote was 1,958, the republican was 1,011. The sugar company was established, if I recollect correctly, in 1889, and the bounty first granted by the Legislature of 1890. Ever since that year, 1891, the republican vote has been increasing, and every year the democratic majority is less and less, and because the sugar factory is now in Utah County, I expect to see at the next Legislature, Utah return all republican delegates to the Legislature. [Applause.] That is the argument made by the gentleman of Utah County, and I say that the statistics that we have here area complete answer to his argument. I would like to read the figures:

In 1891, democrats, 1,958, republicans, 1,011.

Now, let us look and see in 1894: the vote was, democrats, 2,632; republicans, 2,551; less than one hundred majority. The next time we hear from Utah County upon this bounty question, we will have a solid republican phalanx here.

Mr. THURMAN. Have you got the vote there by precincts?

Mr. PIERCE. I have not the vote by precincts.

Mr. THURMAN. I wish you had. I would like you to compare the vote of Lehi, where the sugar factory is, in 1892 with 1894. You will find a gain of about fifty democratic votes right on the very spot where the factory was built.

Mr. PIERCE. Bring in your statistics. I have the statistics here to back me.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I would like to ask one question of Mr. Thurman. Is not it a fact that you yourself accounted for the local majority of Lehi on an entirely local cause, and separated from the question of the sugar factory there?

Mr. THURMAN. Not that I any aware of. I do not know that I ever made any excuse for it, except that the people over there, when they came to send a man to this Convention, they voted ahead of the ticket to send a democrat herewith a view of putting into the Constitution just such a clause as we are seeking to get now.

Mr. CANNON. Was not that because he was such a troublesome neighbor that they wanted a rest?

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am opposed to this motion. The principles expounded by the members in favor of this motion may sound very well in theory, but according to my experience, they did not result and they have not resulted so happily in practice. The people of Utah do not want this prohibition in the Constitution. And I think they spoke in emphatic tones at the last election.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was a little surprised to hear the question {923} asked in relation to the factory being a blessing to Utah County. If you think it is not a blessing to Utah County,

you people that live in Utah County go out into the adjoining counties on the south and stop there. Some people when they gather in their harvest of wheat and oats and barley, and have to sell it out for about thirty or thirty-five cents a bushel in order to get money to pay their taxes_

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Might I ask the gentleman a question? I would ask if that statement came from the democratic side of the house?

Mr. JOLLEY. The question was asked from the democratic side of the house, if the factory had been a blessing to Utah, why did they send democrats here.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). There was no such question asked.

Mr. JOLLEY. I would like to ask another question. That is about all I have to say, and that is if it is not a blessing and a benefit to the people of Utah, why do they keep putting in thousands of acres more of beets every year from the beginning? When your beet harvest is going on you inquire of the little boy that is going into the field to gather up the beets and he will tell you that he will get from fifty cents to six-bits just for picking up beets and his parents have the money in a few days to pay their taxes, whereas if it was not for that factory, Utah County would be put about to hunt money as other counties have to in order to find a little something to pay their taxes with. I say that the ones that depreciate anything the most are the ones that you make a present to of anything and I think that that is the ungratefulness of Utah County, if there is any. The blessing is dumped down in their laps and in order for them to see and derive the blessings therefrom, they should get off a little distance and look back at those receiving the fifty cents and six-bits for their children daily gathering up the beets and sending them to the factory.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I asked Mr. Thurman of Utah County a little while ago who moved the previous question in the United States senate. The question was an absurdity. The question should have been this, who was the chairman that reported the bill for the demonetization of silver? The answer would have been Senator Bay-yard of Delaware.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Eichnor to be permitted to explain all of his absurdities?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, when we had under discussion on this floor, the question which involves the right of eminent domain and the taking of private property for public uses and the taking of private property for private uses, a very prominent republican upon this floor made this statement, that he was opposed to taking private property for private uses under any circumstances. He believed it to be a vicious principle and that, sir, I take it is the question that underlies the discussion that is now in progress_the taking of private money by the strong arm of government for private uses. That is the principle against which the democrats are contending in this issue. I hold it, sir, for one, to be worse than highway robbery, for the reason that if you are met upon the highway by a man who takes it upon himself to command you to throw up your hands while he goes through your pockets, you have then some chance in the personal encounter to hold onto that which is your own. But when you give unto the government the power to go to every man in this Territory and take from him in the form of taxation money which the hand of the government may confer upon favored classes, engaged in private enterprises, I take it, sir, that

it is an outrage and it is useless for men to tell me that that power will not be {924} abused and in the end bring disaster to the people.

The gentleman from Salt Lake this morning in discussing the power of wealth was certainly correct in his statement that its power had not been properly estimated. I, sir, am not very particular about looking after the rich. They are competent of taking care of themselves, but it is in the interests of the masses, it is in the interests of the people, it is in the interests of the poor, that the strong arm of the government be not allowed to aid those individuals, already strong, in increasing their strength by making them the patrons or giving government patronage. Now, I take it, sir, that this discussion is not altogether unfruitful and that in reality we are making some progress. The gentleman from Iron County conceded that last fall the question of allowing the State to loan its credit in the aid of private enterprises was not an issue in the campaign. We always knew that our republican friends were in favor of giving public moneys in aid of private enterprises, but hereafter, when we reject this amendment that is offered or this section that is offered, we shall forever know that you are not only in favor of giving public moneys in aid of private enterprises, but you are also willing that the credit of the State should be used in the same way and that you would vote upon the people burdens of debt, in order to accomplish the same purpose. We shall know that hereafter, and I freely believe that had this issue been made in the campaign of last fall, we would have had a very different complexion politically to this Convention, because however much you might persuade the people that it was right to use public moneys in aid of private enterprises, I think you would never have brought them up to the point of consenting that you plunge the State into debt for the same thing.

I am exceedingly sorry in one respect that this question of the sugar factory in this Territory has been brought upon the floor of this Convention. Personally, I have a very high regard for that enterprise, and for the gentlemen who launched it, and in answer to the remarks of the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Morris) in which I understood him to accuse the democratic party of having made misrepresentation in regard to that enterprise in the last campaign, I wish for myself at least, to resent the statement that there was any misrepresentation made in regard to that enterprise. I know, sir, that when it became notorious that the great sugar trust of the United States had laid its hands upon that industry, with a determination to choke out its life, from that time on at every democratic meeting that was held, I for one, at least urged the people to stand loyal to that industry and to patronize its product, even if they had to pay a higher price for its sugar than they could purchase it in the general market for. Resolutions were sent to nearly all of the meetings held under the auspices of the democratic party as soon as that became known, and for one, I was willing and am willing in this way to assist that enterprise. But, I am not willing even that this enterprise, laudable as I grant you that it is, should be sustained and supported at the expense of the people of this State, because, however laudable this enterprise might be, it is very likely, sir, that other companies will form and other projects will be innaugurated which will not be so laudable, and gentlemen engaging in them will not be moved by such patriotic sentiments as those that actuated this present company. I do not wish to take up the time of this Convention unprofitably, but, sir, you shall not find another question that will come before this Convention that is more important than the question as to whether there shall be any limitation put upon the power of the Legislature to tax the people.

Nor shall you find a question more important as to what the purposes of taxation shall be, and when gentlemen undertake to tell me that this is a political question and try to side-track it, and to ride on to the accomplishment of their purposes and not listen to the objections of those who have objections to urge against their proposed plan of construction of this government for the new State, I wish to say that I take issue with them, sharp and clear, so that even the minority, however small it might be, has a right to be heard upon this great question of fundamental law. It is a mistake to say that there Is no importance to these questions. They are important, and the minority have just as much right to expound their views upon this question as the majority have, especially when you take into account that the majority, by merely keeping silent, as was pointed out this afternoon, affirm their political doctrines, because if there are no limits put upon the Legislature in the matter of taxation, and if there is no purpose under heaven but what they may exercise that taxation for, by being silent upon it obtain, and I take it that the minority who do not see the question in that light, have a right to be heard in argument upon that issue. I was about to remark, that I regretted that this sugar company had been referred to, that in some respects, I am sorry, in other respects I am not sorry that it has been alluded to for the reason that it gives a very good illustration of the abuses that are apt to arise under the bounty, because of the policy of our republican friends. Gentlemen have stated upon this floor that this factory has affected the price of sugar to the people. That when its product is upon the market sugar is lower. That when its product has been consumed sugar is higher. We learned last year how that came about. It came about, sir, not because of the existence of the sugar factory in this Territory, but it grew out of the fact that the gigantic monopoly, now so strong, that it is able to measure arms with the government itself, was operating here and endeavoring to crush out the life of this home enterprise. It quoted its prices and the factory here in Utah had to cut its prices to meet the reduction, still the home product was left in the hands of dealers and the foreign sugar was being purchased by our merchants. And why? Because that sugar trust was giving a rebate, was cutting under its prices, and our merchants were purchasing the sugar at quoted prices with a rebate, and hence our home product could not find a market here among us and they had to reduce again to meet the cut, and thus the sugar trust of the United States operated against our home industry, until it was compelled to put its product upon the market at the same price that the trust was selling its sugar for, and the effort of the trust was to destroy the life of the home industry.

And, Mr. Chairman, it is yet a question whether they will not succeed in this instance as they have succeeded in other instances. And now, you go on feeding this industry. What assurance have you that instead of aiding our own citizens in an enterprise, it will not finally terminate that you have been feeding bounty not to our home factory here, but to the sugar trust of the United States? It is herein that the viciousness of this principle in part is seen.

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Would a bounty of one cent give the sugar trust the same advantage that a tariff of one cent would?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Is it not a fact that that which we consume in the United States amounts to from eight to ten times that which we produce of sugar?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am not acquainted with that fact.
Mr. CANNON. That is a fact.

Mr. GOODWIN. May I ask Mr. Roberts a question? Is not it true that the sugar trust never attempted to make any inroads on the Utah sugar factory until the bounty was taken away?

Mr. ROBERTS. I cannot say, sir. I am not acquainted with that fact.

Mr. GOODWIN. Well, that is the truth.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, whether bounty or no bounty is given to the home industry, you will find that sugar combine making war upon these enterprises outside of the combine, until they are forced into the trust. That is the purpose of the war made upon the independent factory, and it is true, sir, that the gentleman alluded to by my friend from Salt Lake, Mr. Cannon, who has been engaged in the establishment of sugar factories in this Territory, had a long conversation with me upon that subject and I asked him how it was that he did not establish or seek to establish a factory up here in our county that has a soil and a climate unsurpassed for that industry. He said that he dared not. The enterprise could not be launched for the reason if we undertook to establish too many independent factories the result would be that the trust would make war upon those factories until the life was crushed out of them. The gentleman from Salt Lake made the statement that from the beginning of our history in this Territory this policy of paying bounties had been favored by the people of Utah, but I wish to say that there was at least one prominent_the first governor of this Territory, who has left himself upon record as against the principle involved in this issue. I read from the governor's message to the senators and representatives of the State of Deseret_that is, the prospective State of Deseret, in 1850. He made these remarks:

There is no doubt but that the demand and price consequent upon the distance of any successful competition will prove sufficient inducement for the capitalists to invest their means in whatever will necessarily prove a safe investment and insure an abundant return. Any and all kinds of encouragement by throwing around them an energetic and efficient government should unquestionably be given. It is wisdom to let capital be associated in infant settlements, because there is a necessity for it, for a time, but to lay the foundation for money capitalists to monopolize against labor is no part of my policy, politics, or religion. To engage enterprise in constituting works of magnitude, it may be well to guard the privileges, but they should be so guarded as to be made amenable to the power granting them at all times, for the abuse of the powers granted, or directing them to another object than the one designed.

I take it, sir, that that is one of the “nuggets” that escaped publication. I recommend it to the consideration of my friends in their new additions. The gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. James) believes that I in reality am not against using the taxing power of the government in aid of individual benefits, and he points to our school system_that is, our system of free schools sustained by taxation, and I presume means to infer that by sustaining schools by taxation. which results in the education of individuals, that therefore, since I favor a free school system in that particular, I am in favor of using the taxing power of the government for individual benefit. Such I understood to be his argument.

Now, in answer to that, I have only this to say, that that is not for a private benefit. It is for a public good that the citizens of the State shall be an educated people. It is not for the purpose of securing private gain or building up private fortunes. That is not the question at issue in the argument presented by the gentleman on that particular point. And that is open to the rich and poor alike. My friend from Utah suggests it is altogether a different question. The question involved in the point under consideration is, is {927} it a benefit to the State, is it a benefit to the public that all the people shall be educated? There is but one answer to that question and that answer is in the affirmative. It is the State's security. It is the State's welfare, that is provided for in our public educational system, and not the individual who receives the education. The State is not interested in that issue in looking after the individual, but it is looking to the interest of the entire community, and it is quite a different question to that which involves the building up of private fortunes, by taxing the people to that end, whether they be rich people or poor people. Now, I have, as already expressed, full confidence in the gentlemen who have started this enterprise that has been spoken of, the Utah sugar factory, at Lehi. I am willing, sir, to say with the gentleman from Salt Lake that their motives are pure. But what are corporations largely formed for_nay, what was this company formed for? To benefit the people, we are told, and in this particular instance, since I have a personal acquaintance with many of the founders of that scheme, I am ready to grant that, but that is only part of it. It does not only involve the benefit of the community, but that corporation, however pure its intentions were, also believed that they were engaging in an enterprise that would result in increasing their own wealth, as well as being a benefit to the people. Corporations largely are not formed for the sole and patriotic purpose of giving employment to people, but for amassing wealth to be used by themselves personally and individually.

And I take it, sir, that that will be the purpose in the future, and if you put no limitations either to the amount of taxation or the purpose for which taxes shall be levied, and require only a bare majority to secure the levying of these taxes, then I wish to say that the future experience of Utah Territory will be just what the experience of other states has been, that you will find your Legislature besieged by the agents of corporations, who will come here for the purpose of feeding upon the substance of the people, collected from their hard earnings, by the strong arm of the government, and it will not always be to build up our own citizens either, but foreign companies will be organized, and their agents will be here for the purpose of securing legislative aid. Now, sir, it is to provide against these evils, that the minority have offered the various sections which you have voted down. Now, that you have voted three, as I remember it, of these sections touching this point of political doctrine, we offer you a modification and say, that if the people are to be taxed in aid of private industry, then at least it ought not to be done unless two-thirds of the people are willing that it should be done. Gentlemen have asked, how is it that you single out this particular power of the Legislature and purpose to limit its power in this respect? Why not require a two-thirds majority for the passing of any enactment of legislation? If the gentleman would but pause a moment and reflect upon it, he would not want that question answered.

The reason for requiring a two-thirds majority for loaning the credit of the State to any individual or company or association, or granting its public moneys in aid of private enterprises is of such vital moment and touches so nearly the interests of the people that we are justified in saying that in this particular instance you shall not exercise this power of government unless the majority in

favor of it is so large that it amounts to two-thirds of the voters. Now, Mr. Chairman, I take it, that we have placed our friends upon record. We have placed ourselves upon record in this issue. We have done what we could by argument, by reason, by offering sections to this Constitution {928} limiting the power of the government in this particular, and if in the future disaster, which has overtaken other states which insisted on following the same policy that you now insist upon, when these calamities come, we will have freed ourselves from the responsibility in the case, and it cannot be said in future years that there were men upon the floor of this Constitutional Convention who believed that granting to the Legislature power to use public money in aid of private enterprises and to use the credit of the State in aid of private industries_it cannot be said that we remained silent and allowed you to draw the lines of the fundamental law in such a manner as to grant these powers without our objection. We have, at least, in this issue discharged our duties and we are willing to stand upon the record made here, whether it shall result in a second Waterloo or not.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). May I just ask the gentleman one question? Do we understand that the incentive of the sugar company was the emoluments that they would derive from the investment?

Mr. ROBERTS. I say, Mr. Chairman, that in part that was it. I tried to explain myself that I was willing to accord to those gentlemen patriotic motives, but that was not their whole object. That they considered that they were engaging in an enterprise that would result, not only in benefit to the people, but good for themselves.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Of course that is very true.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment. I desire to have added to the section the following words, “and then only for public purposes.” I understand the gentleman from Davis accepts the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; I accept the amendment.

The question being taken on the adoption of the: section proposed, the committee divided, and by a vote of 36 ayes to 49 noes, the section was rejected.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that when we rise we report the article for adoption.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to paragraph 9, section 31, that was reconsidered on yesterday, in order that it might be examined a little further. I would like to have it considered for a moment in connection with section 24 of the bill of rights. The committee will observe that section 24 of the bill of rights prohibits generally the granting irrevocably of any franchise, privilege, or immunity, while paragraph 9 of section 31 is relative to special laws. The intention is to prohibit the granting to an individual, association, or corporation of any privilege, immunity, or franchise by special law. Inadvertently it seems to me the standing committee have incorporated in there the language, “irrevocable, special or exclusive.”

If it shall stand there, it would seem that by implication the Legislature might grant by special laws to associations general privileges, immunities, r franchises. In order to harmonize it with the general intention of the Constitution, taking the two sections together, the one of the bill of rights and the other here, I submit that the words “irrevocable, special, or exclusive,” should be stricken out, in which event we would have in the bill of rights a general provision against irrevocable grants, and in this article you would have a provision against granting by special law any privilege, immunity, or franchise. I would like to call the attention particularly of some of the lawyers in the house to that question, in order to be certain that I am not making any mistake about it, and I move to strike out from this paragraph the words “irrevocable, special, or exclusive.”

Mr. RICHARDS. Would you have any objection to letting this be reported {929 - EXECUTIVE} with that language in and bring the matter up on third reading, which would give us an opportunity to consider this question.

Mr. VARIAN. Not at all; I prefer to have it that way, if the gentlemen will kindly give it their attention.

Mr. RICHARDS. We will try and be prepared at that time to act upon it.

Mr. VARIAN. There was another matter I wanted to direct attention to in order that I might bring it up on the third reading. I purposed offering this amendment here, but in accordance with the suggestion of my friend from Salt Lake, Mr. Richards, I think it is better to delay it in order that it may be considered a little further. To add at the end of this section:

But nothing in this section shall be construed to deny or restrict the power of the Legislature to establish and regulate the compensation and fees of county and township officers, to establish and regulate the rates of freight, passage, toll, and charges of railroads, toll roads, ditch, flume, and tunnel companies, incorporated under the laws of this State, or doing business therein.

With that informal notice, I would be glad if the gentlemen would bethinking about it.

The motion of Mr. Cannon was agreed to.

The committee of the whole then proceeded to the consideration of the article on executive.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair is informed that we had progressed to the twelfth section of the article on executive and the question is on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. Eichnor.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, that is a substitute for section 12. The substitute I proposed gives the governor the power to pardon for misdemeanors, without the consent of the board of pardons; if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor, if you have a board of pardons, before you would have a hearing before the board of pardons, the man has generally served out his sentence in the county jail or in the city jail, or wherever he may be confined. In cases of felony_that is, an offense of imprisonment in the penitentiary, it ought to go before the board of pardons, and the board of pardons in this substitute consists of the secretary of state, the attorney general, and the

state auditor. In section 12, as it stands, the board of pardons consists of the governor, justices of the supreme court, and the attorney general I believe there are two states in the United States where the justices of the supreme court constitute the board of pardons, or a part of the board of pardons, namely, the state of Nevada and the state of Florida. In many instances cases are appealed to the supreme court of the state. The judges of the supreme court pass on the judgment of the lower court. If they affirm the judgment I think there would be very little show for any man to get a pardon, after they had affirmed the judgment. In other words they would almost stultify themselves if they would grant a pardon after they had affirmed the judgment. And there is another thing. A board of pardons should not be constituted of judges. I look upon a board of pardons somewhat in the light of a jury of mercy. It is true they, examine the evidence, but they examine all the surrounding circumstances. They should not weigh every little technical point, whether the question was material, competent, or relevant, but they should view the whole case through the eyes of human wisdom, not hedged by technicalities. If we place this power in the hands of the judges of the supreme court, you virtually say to the people of the State of Utah, “We will grant no more pardons.” Whether my substitute is perfect or not, I claim that it has this advantage, that it takes the power away from the supreme court, after they have passed upon it, that the governor, in misdemeanors, can pardon the offender, {930} without the offender resorting to the board of pardons.

Mr. MALONEY. Do I understand you to say that the attorney general is on the board of pardons?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. MALONEY. Is he the officer that in all probability will prosecute the offense?

Mr. EICHNOR. In all probability, I presume he is.

Mr. MALONEY. He would invariably think the conviction is right.

Mr. EICHNOR. I have found a prosecuting attorney is more apt to sign a pardon than a judge.

Mr. MALONEY. I do not think the attorney general ought to be on a board of pardons.

Mr. EICHNOR. The attorney general represents the State; I think the State should have one representative on there, that is fully in accord with the judicial machinery of the State.

Mr. MALONEY. I should think the governor would represent the interests of the State in granting pardons.

Mr. EICHNOR. You have good authority on your side. Senator Hill, of New York, does not believe in pardoning boards.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a question of importance, evidently misunderstood. I should infer from the remarks of my friend from Salt Lake, if I understand him correctly, after you have exhausted all of the machinery of the government, provided for the enforcement of the criminal

law, in aid of society, he would constitute another court of appeals, as it were, who are not guided by fixed and settled rules in their judgment, but are to determine these questions in accordance with the shifting views of the different persons who may from time to time compose the board. He fears that the judges who have passed upon the records, if there should have been an :appeal in the individual case taken, might stultify themselves if, when called upon in another and entirely different capacity, they shouid vote in favor of a pardon or a commutation of sentence. My friend on the other hand also fears that the law officer of the State to whom the people have entrusted the administration of the criminal law, would be so committed against a defendant, because he had occasion to discuss and argue the case in the appellate court, and he too might be counted on all the time to throw his weight and his vote in the scale against the application. Now, I do not understand that these objections are founded in principle and in fact. I believe that there are eight or nine states where the system of a board of pardons is in operation. Only two or three, as suggested by Mr. Eichnor, make up the board as this article proposes to make it up. The system has been in operation in your neighboring state ever since it became a state. It operates well. It operates in the administration of the law for the preservation of society as we wish it to operate.

It is founded upon this principle: after a defendant has been indicted by a grand jury and he has been charged by twelve men or such number of men as you may determine shall constitute a trial jury, and the court who tried the case has had an opportunity of passing upon his guilt or innocence and denies his motion for a new trial, and he goes still further to the court provided for the supervision of all these proceedings of the lower court, and the judges there, after careful considerate investigation in the light of the law and the fact, affirm the judgment, I say, sir, under the rules which ought to and must govern society that that fact of that man's guilt, as a general rule ought to be taken to be established, and in the very nature of things you must adopt that principle, that then, after all the methods provided by law have been exhausted in the absence of course of fraud or wilful and wicked wrong doing in an individual case, {931} which you cannot presume and which would correct itself by arresting the attention of the public instantly, you must assume that the man is guilty. Now, when you reach that point in the administration of criminal law, you have reached a point that the good of society requires that he must be punished, not only for his own reformation, but in order that others may be deterred in like circumstances from doing the act which has been adjudged to be an offense against society, and if the question of mercy is presented at all, it must come on other grounds and for other reasons than those connected with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. My belief is, and my position is based on a somewhat extended experience in the administration of the criminal laws, both here and in other places, that a a man ought not to be pardoned unless there is some good or sufficient reason accruing after judgment, as a rule, that it is better for society that its laws should be enforced, and to enforce them it means that the punishment provided by law must be meted out to those who offend against the law.

The design of this article is (and it is in accord with the advanced penalogical thought of the age, the tendency is that way day after day and year after year) to put this question of pardons on a different and broader basis than it has been heretofore. First, constitute a board upon whom shall rest the responsibility. Second, require that the hearing must be had in public, that the State may be represented there as well as the defendant; do away with this whispering, and pulling and

hauling on the streets and on the side by interested persons, where only one side of necessity can be heard. Require notice to be given of an application; that the State and the applicant be represented there, and hearing had and a judgment given practically as in other cases. That in theory and in principle underlies the system in which the governor alone has the power of pardoning or commuting sentence, and in some instances, in some states, this rule is adopted of having a hearing, requiring applications to be filed, requiring notice to be given to the state's attorney, and proceeding in that way. So far as that is concerned, it can be no matter where the power is vested. As a matter of fact, I have never heard yet (and I lived under this system for some seventeen years) any complaint made that the judges or the attorney general permitted themselves to carry into the board of pardons any such feelings, or any such littleness, as Mr. Eichnor, my friend from Salt Lake, fears might be done. It works well, but if you do not like this board, re-arrange it in some other way. I would suggest and submit that the state auditor and the secretary of state should not be the persons to revise and review practically the administration of the criminal law. It requires, and ought to have, trained minds and intellects in those who are called upon to pass upon this great question and prerogative_I mean trained in that particular line relatively, taking into consideration the duties of society to the citizen, and the citizen to society, and the general interest of the entire community as a whole. This I believe is a statement of the ideas of the several members of the committee concerning this subject; further than that, I do not know that the committee is interested in sustaining this report. It is of course a matter of public concern and interest, but we submit that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake does not begin to reach the question. It is conceived in a misapprehension, I think, of the entire subject, and is not at all comprehensive enough to meet the suggestions set forth in this article.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Varian a question. Under section 12, would not it almost be impossible to have a man {932} pardoned who was convicted of a misdemeanor_would not it be the next thing to impossible to get the judges of the supreme court and the attorney general together?

Mr. VARIAN. Not at all; not at all. As a rule these boards meet every quarter; it has a regular calendar, but the gentleman will notice that the governor has the power, pending the sittings of the board, to grant respites or reprieves, to suspend the operation of the sentence until the case can be acted upon at the next sitting of the board of pardons. It is inserted in here with that special purpose. I want to say only one thing more, that my observation has been that gentlemen of my profession, when they are engaged in the defense of a man charged with crime as a rule, want to carry it clear through to the last court permitted them by the law, and when they get through with that they are still not satisfied, and they immediately bend their energies towards securing influence and pressure enough upon the pardoning power to evade the execution of the sentence or getting their man turned loose through the medium of the pardoning power.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I would ask whether you know of a case where that has ever been abused in our Territory_where men of your profession have prevailed on the governor, and it has been abused under the present system?

Mr. VARIAN. There are peculiar instances, with which I have been surrounded and connected, which, under the circumstances, prevent me from answering the question.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, when this matter came up a few days ago, I understood the objection that was made to this article was on the ground that the judges of the supreme court would probably be so biased in a case on which they had passed that they would practically be settled in their opinion. I first thought that there was some trouble with it, in that, but I believe that the practice upon questions of that kind removes the weight of the objection. As I understand it, when you take a case of that kind to the supreme court the court very generally does not look at the facts. They do not weigh the evidence particularly; they have left that for the jury and the trial court. They are more particularly concerned about whether the conviction was had in the manner laid down by law, and whether the legal matter was correct, and not so much the weight of the evidence in the matter, so that I do not believe that the supreme court judges would go into the question of hearing a pardon with minds made up, or prejudices, so that they could not sit there fairly and listen to it, and if it were right to grant it. I do not believe in making pardons an easy matter; I do not think we ought to do it. When a man has wilfully violated the laws of his state, has been convicted of doing that thing, we ought not to make it an easy matter for him to evade the punishment that has been put upon him, and if you leave it to the governor, or if you leave it to men who have not been trained in that particular thing, they are about like a jury_it is simply trying it over again to another jury, where they would not be even tied by the rules of evidence, and would be free to try the case over again without any rules of evidence, practically, binding them, and therefore I am opposed to this amendment; and while I do not know that I am entirely in favor of the section, as a whole, as it stands_upon that part of it, I shall oppose the amendment.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, I have a serious objection to the article in the report of the committee on executive, as well as to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake

The original is too voluminous and contains too much legislation, according to my views, and the form of the {933 - PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS} substitute has serious points of objection, in my estimation. I do not believe that the governor should have the power to grant pardons absolutely as first appears in this substitute. I do not think that he should have this power outside of the regulation that the Legislature may provide for the control of the board of pardons, and in order to give my views concisely upon the section, that I think will cover both the original and the substitute which have been offered, I would prefer the following:

The governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, shall constitute a board of pardons, and shall have power to grant reprieves, limitations, and pardons for all offenses, excepting treason, etc.

You will find in the report that after the third line in that section that which follows is legislation, pure and simple, and of such a nature that the Legislature should have control of it, and they should have the power to change it when the necessities of our government may demand it. You will find, too, by further reference to the thirtieth and thirty-first lines, that in case of conviction for treason, reports have to be made to the Legislature of what has been done. The sanction of the Legislature is given to the acts of the governor before the pardon, and for this to be the case, as the provision remains here, the Legislature must act upon the matter. Why not leave it to the Legislature to make all provisions for it to control the board of pardons? In answer to the complaint or objection offered to the secretary of state becoming one of the board of pardons, or

a member of that board, it was stated that he was not supposed to know anything of the merits of the case. I call attention to the fact that in the eleventh section of this article which we have for consideration, the secretary of state is constituted governor in case of disability to the governor himself, and he would be placed in the position of governor. Therefore, if this be voted down, I shall offer my suggestion as a substitute for the original motion, that the governor, secretary of state, and attorney general shall constitute a board of pardons under the simplest form in which we can put this section. It will relieve us of a great amount of legislation, a tendency which is added in most constitutions of states recently formed, because we have tended in that direction too much. I prefer that we leave some little to the Legislature.

On motion, the committee then rose and reported as follows:

The committee of the whole have had under consideration the legislative article, which they report as amended, and desire to have it placed on the Convention calendar for third reading.

Also report progress upon the article on executive.

On motion, the Convention then, at 5:15 o'clock p. m., adjourned.

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