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

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

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Delegate Christiansen, of Sanpete.

Journal of the forty-fifth day's session was read and approved.

Mr. Lewis and Mr. Richards were excused.

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

File No. 329, signed by J. H. Borememort and 128 others, from Kaysville precinct, by Roberts, of Davis.

File No. 330, signed by Myron D. Higbee and 29 others, from Iron County, by Heybourne, of Iron, by request.

File No. 331, signed by W. J. Loftus {1143} and 695 others, from Salt Lake County, by Kearns, of Summit.

File No. 332, signed by E. H. Stout and 367 others, from Salt Lake, by Eichnor, of Salt Lake.

File No. 333, signed by David W. Evans and 266 others, from Ogden, by Kiesel, of Weber.

File No. 334, signed by E. S. Pratt and 485 others, from Salt Lake, by Keith, of Summit.

File No. 335, signed by Andrew Cahoon and 30 others, from Murray, by Haynes, of Salt Lake.

File No. 336, signed by N. Hansen and 33 others, from Pleasant View, by Green, of Salt Lake.

File No. 337, signed by P. F. Peterson and 68 others, from Redmond, by Ricks, of Sevier, by request.

File No. 338, signed by R. W. Nicol and 87 others, from Salt Lake, by Haynes, of Salt Lake.

File No. 339, signed by Mrs. M. Loveless and 396 others, from Provo, by Sharp, of Emery.

File No. 340, signed by E. L. Butterfield and 100 others, from Salt Lake, by James, of Salt Lake.

File No. 341, signed by A. H. Earl and 27 others, of Scofield, by Sharp, of Emery.

File No. 343, signed by G. L. Savage and 864, from Salt Lake, by Mackintosh, of Salt Lake.

File No. 344, signed by M. E. Kaighn and 21 others, from Salt Lake, by Van Horne, of Salt Lake.

File No. 345, signed by A. E. Beveridge and 408 others, from Salt Lake, by Squires, of Salt Lake.

File No. 346, signed by Joel Shomaker and 30 others, by L. Larsen, of Sanpete.

File No. 347, signed by E. H. Stout and 140 others, from Salt Lake, by Squires, of Salt Lake.

File No. 348, signed by O. P. Connor and 384 others, from Salt Lake, by James, of Salt Lake.

File No. 349, signed by A. S. Bradley and 612 others, from Salt Lake, by Hill, of Salt Lake.

Ordered filed.

The following petitions were presented asking that an equal suffrage clause be placed in the Constitution:

File No. 350, signed by B. Evans and 162 others, from Weber county, by Chidester, of Garfield.

File No. 351, signed by Robt. Davidson and 124 others, from Logan, by Kerr, of Cache.

File No. 352, signed by Elijah Seamons and 112 others, from Hyde Park, by Low, of Cache.

File No. 353, signed by F. A. Little and 97 others, from Morgan County, by Francis, of Morgan.

File No. 354, signed by E. A. Bagley and 24 others, from Piute County, by Allen, of Piute.

File No. 355, signed by James Z. Stewart and 110 others, from Logan, by Warrum, of Cache.

File No. 356, signed by Bertha Thiede and 153 others, from Logan, by Hart, of Cache.

File No. 357, signed by Uriah T. Jones and 10 others, from Iron County, by Heybourne, of Iron.

File No. 358, signed by Mary H. Anderson and 142 others, from Logan, by Hart, of Cache.

File No. 359, signed by Alma Montgomery and 134 others, from North Ogden, by Chidester, of Garfield.

File No. 360, signed by M. Ballard and 89 others, from Logan, by Kerr, of Cache.

File No. 361, signed by Ellen Reese and 83 others, from Logan, by Warrum, of Cache.

File No. 363, containing 119 names, from Summit County; 959 names, from Cache County; 211 names, from Davis {1144 - ELECTIONS AND SUFFRAGE} County; 108 names, from Iron County; 56 names, from Wasatch County; 30 names, from Utah County, 31 names, from Gunnison; 601 names, from Millard County; 136 names, from Carbon County: 188 names, from Washington County; 271 names, from Rich County; 52 names, from Emery County; 554 names, from Salt Lake County; 162 names, from Weber County, by Chidester, of Garfield.

Ordered filed.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President. I make a motion that we take the report of the expense committee from the table and consider it.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, I move the previous question upon the report.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary will read the report.

The report was read by the secretary.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I arise to a question of personal privilege. I do not think it is quite fair before one word of debate has been made upon this subject to move the previous question.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will withhold the motion for the purpose of giving the chairman of the committee an opportunity to make a statement. My purpose was to cut off debate upon this matter, with a desire to hasten business.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I shall try to be as short as our fund is. We have as a Convention servants_our officers. We are the servants of the people. We wanted to be very economical and we made a resolution a little while back that if the fund did not hold out we did not want it to cost the people of the new State a cent. Something to that effect. Now our officers_our servants have not said that to us. We were a dignified body when we hired them, and I think it is only just that we pay them what we agreed to pay them and if our per diem should go down to three dollars from the forty-fourth day, until the end; we can stand it better than we can ask them to go without their pay.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, as I understand the situation now, the vote recurs upon my motion that the report be filed and that the recommendations be not adopted.

The motion of Mr. Evans of Utah was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. As the chair understands it, the special order for to-day is the motion to reconsider section 1 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I presume it will be necessary for a motion to be made before it can be voted upon, and I am ready to make it now, if the time has arrived to consider it. In accordance, then, with notice heretofore given, I move to reconsider the vote by which the article on suffrages and elections was passed upon its third reading upon a previous day.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I object to the consideration of that question.

Mr. VARIAN. In my judgment, Mr. President, there is little if anything to be gained by a further consideration of this question. I am of the opinion that every member upon this floor has determined for himself at this time how he shall vote upon this question. In moving for a reconsideration, of course, as it is generally understood, I do so, for the purpose, in the event of the reconsideration being had, of presenting to the Convention a proposition whereby the matter comprehended in the first section I think of the article shall be submitted to the people of this Territory as a separate article, to be passed upon by them at the same election when they shall determine whether this Constitution shall be adopted.
{1145}
Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. Under Roberts' rules of order, when an objection is made to a consideration of the question, it must be put without debate or any remarks whatever. And I want a ruling of the chair on that.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has not been recognized.

Mr. CORAY. The question can be put while another member has the floor, as I understand it.

Mr. VARIAN. I think the chair is in the same situation that I am. It does not quite understand the purpose or point, if there is any point. If I am called to order, I will sit down until I hear the point of order.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, there is an objection made to the consideration of this question. The Convention passed some time ago that they would permit a motion to be made that a reconsideration might be had. The time has now arrived when that motion was to be made, and on it being made there has been an objection raised by a member upon this floor to the reconsideration. If the president will turn to rule 15, he will find that that objection may be made although a member has the floor, and if it shall be made before debate is begun upon the question, the chair must proceed to put that question, and if two-thirds vote in favor of not hearing that question, then it ceases.

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

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question

Mr. VARIAN. The chair has heard the argument of the gentleman who supported this proposition, I presume the chair is willing, before it makes a ruling, to consider the matter and determine in which way it will make a ruling.

The PRESIDENT. It cannot be debated. As the chair understands it, it can only be voted down.

Mr. VARIAN. I arise to a point of order, that that motion is absolutely out of order at this time. Now, let me state my point of order. In the first place that rule. relates to original questions that may come before any legislative body, and which are of such a nature that they do not desire to consider them at all. This is not an original question. It has been debated here for weeks. It has been determined upon two or three different occasions. Tinder the rules of this house a motion to reconsider is recognized. It may be made on the same day as it was made here and it was postponed for the hearing of it without any objection being made at the time. This objection is not applicable.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, another point of order is that the question was already being debated. The debate had commenced before this motion was made.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I arise in this connection_    

The PRESIDENT. This is all out of order.

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to call attention to the fact that this question was made a special arrangement to have this motion of reconsideration come up and technicalities aside, this house agreed that this motion should be made and it carried with it the idea that considerations connected with it_why it should be reconsidered was also made.

Mr. JAMES. I want to inquire of the chair if it was not made a special order for to-day and did not this Convention agree to bring this question up? Now, I ask, is this not an attempt at snap judgment to refuse a hearing upon what this Convention has agreed to do?
The question being taken on the objection the objection was not sustained.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I was intending to say that there is a grave {1146} question which ought to be considered thoroughly in connection with this reconsideration, not only the effect that the action may have upon our own people; how far-reaching that effect may be, no man can tell at this time. It involves a risk, however pronounced the convictions of gentlemen may be as to the understanding and purpose of the people of this Territory. But there is something other than that_the effect it will have in other quarters. If it shall have the effect to array in opposition to the admission of this Territory as I state a large proportion of the people of the United States, the effect of that opposition should be well considered. I confess that I, for one, want to see Utah become a State. I do not want to go backward one step. We have entered upon the struggle and I want to see the journey completed and it does seem to me that it would be the part of wisdom and prudence to run as few risks in this matter as we shall have to. I believe that all party pledges can

and will be faithfully fulfilled in the way indicated. There can be no question about that. Let it be remembered that upon the assumption of our friends who believe in putting this particular section in the Constitution_namely, that the Constitution will carry under any and all circumstances_still let it be remembered that if that be true and granting it, here is a proposition which involves a fundamental principle in State policy, affecting large masses of people which shall have become a part of the organic law simply by the determination and votes of say fifty or sixty of the delegates of this Convention. If I remember correctly the article was passed in committee of the whole by a vote of some fifty-three, and I submit to the Convention in all fairness that this matter ought to be considered in this light, that you will have nothing to lose by submitting the question to the people. Therefore, I submit this motion.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I think we ought to be fair in this matter. I understand that Mr. Roberts, who is opposed to the question of putting woman's suffrage in the Constitution, wants to make a statement of only about five minutes. He has so informed me, and I think Mr. Thurman ought to withhold his motion until he makes it. Let him make it anyway. He can do it anyway.

The roll being called on the motion of Mr. Thurman, the result was as follows

AYES_65.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Brand ley
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Driver
Evans, Utah
Farr
Francis
Hammond
Hart
Halliday
Heybourne

ABSENT_4.
Kimball, Weber    
Lewis            
Miller
Wells.

PAIRED_2.
Eichnor    
Richards.

Motion carried.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move you that this matter we have just laid upon the table be now taken from the table. I do not want it hanging over our head everlastingly.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I now move you that the debate cease upon this question at 12 o'clock, if the determination of the question shall not be reached sooner.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I amend that motion by saying that it shall cease in five minutes.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move an amendment to the amendment, that the debate cease in fifteen minutes.

The amendment of Mr. Evans, of Weber, was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it has not been my intention to re-open the debate on the general proposition involved this question. I think I can get through the course of two or three minutes with what I have to say. In the course of the discussion of this subject, those who were in favor of im-diately putting or providing for woman's suffrage in the Constitution, when some objection was made to that proposition, wanted to know what demand there was from the people contrary to that, where were the petitions asking that suffrage be not granted or asking that suffrage be submitted as a separate proposition, and at that time there were no petitions or memorials upon that subject. Since that, however it is the fact that there have been laid before this Convention petitions signed by 15,366 people asking that this proposition be submitted as a separate article, to be voted upon by the people. I do not care what the number may be upon the other side. I take it that this Convention cannot blindly ignore the petition of so many American citizens asking, not that woman's suffrage shall be kept out of the Constitution, but asking that they have the privilege of voting against that proposition without being subjected to the necessity of voting against the Constitution itself in order to express their views upon that subject. This question carries with it the consideration as to whether there shall be thousands of votes made by your action against the Constitution in this Territory. And it is a question of sufficient gravity, because this Convention should pause and ask itself the question, if, for the mere purpose of putting this woman's suffrage clause directly in the Constitution, instead of submitting it as a separate article to be voted on separately by the people, they can afford to array against the Constitution thousands of votes.
{1148}
Now, it is useless to say that the votes against the Constitution will not be cast in consequence of this clause going into the Constitution, because we have heard too many emphatic voices saying that they will vote against the instrument if woman's suffrage goes in. I am of the opinion that if the question of woman's suffrage is submitted to the people that the people will vote against it.

Gentlemen of the majority are of the opinion that if submitted separately it would be voted into the Constitution by the people. I do not believe it will. Let it go to the people. Let the question be discussed. Let us see if it is a foregone conclusion that the majority of the people are so overwhelmingly in favor of woman's suffrage as gentlemen suppose. Now, here is an opportunity to save thousands of votes to this Constitution and if you vote this Constitution to submit it separately down, the result will be as I told you, and I shall not fear the guess that I make on that subject. To-day, I shall not vote in favor of taking the course on this proposition that will array thousands against the Constitution.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, a great deal of stress seems to be laid upon the proposition that if it is placed in the Constitution we are going to lose thousand of votes. Now, sir, my opinion is that we lose thousands of votes if we do not keep it where it is to-day, in the Constitution. That is my judgment. I want statehood I believe as much as any citizen of this Territory, but I have no fears that either party, republicans or democrats, will turn a cold shoulder to Utah to-day. She is no spring chicken like she was, clamoring for recognition. She is a full grown maiden or matron and they will bow and scrape and break their backs to get her into the Union.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I will be as brief as possible. I want to add a little to what my friend from Davis County has said. We were accused at the time when we asked that this matter might be submitted to the people so that they could decide upon it for themselves and by themselves, that nobody was asking for that opportunity. That went out before the public and you have before you to-day 15,500 people petitioning you to permit them next November to go to the polls and cast their votes according to that free right that is given to every American citizen to vote as he pleases and to vote as his dictation may say to him is proper and right. These petitions, Mr. President, come in here from all parts of this Territory. They come from Salt Lake City, from the working associations, from the chamber of commerce, from the city of Ogden, from Park City, from Provo, Mercur, Spanish Fork, Mount Pleasant, Cache County, Logan, Millville, Paradise, Morgan, Coalville, Summit County, Box Elder, Brigham City, Hooper, Corinne, Manti, Millard, Iron County, Moab, Ephraim, Holden, Silver City, Sanpete, Taylorville[*note*], Farmer's Ward, Santaquin, Emery County, Centerville, Wellington, Elsinore, Payson, Eureka, Juab, Lehi, P. V. Junction, Salina, Stockton, Ophir, Richfield, Parowan, Piute, Washington, Beaver, Carr Fork, Murray, Rockport, Center, Silver Reef, Frisco, Spring City, East Mill Creek, Rockville, Springville_I suppose this is repetition; I will not read any more.

Mr. HAMMOND. How many from San Juan.

Mr. JAMES. Well, San Juan was forgotten. The representatives seem to be largely of Salt Lake City at the present time.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. These petitions come without being backed up by an organization, do they not?

Mr. JAMES, They do, sir, so far as I know.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is, are they not the spontaneous expression of the people?

Mr. THURMAN. May I ask the gentleman a question? Were not all your petitions headed by a line or two appearing to have been written upon the same instrument and by the same individual?

Mr. JAMES. I have not had time, Mr. Thurman, to examine them; I do not know whether it is true or not.

Mr. KIESEL. May I ask a question?

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I cannot yield any more. I will be shut off in a half a minute or two more. I want to say to this Convention now, I do not care if you come in here with fifty thousand signers of petitions on the other side and say that they want this to go into the Constitution, I say you have no right to do it. Minorities in this country have a right_and if it was simply a question of selection who should be the choice of the people to an office, then you would have a right to say that the majority controlled, but when it comes to a question of dictating to an American citizen how he shall cast his vote or else compel him to vote against an honest conviction of his heart, you have no right to do it, and that is the reason I arise, Mr. President, in the interest of fifteen thousand honest people in this Territory who want to vote for a Constitution to give us statehood, but say, “we want the privilege of voting as we please upon woman's suffrage.” They do not say that we do not want woman's suffrage, they say that if the majority want woman's suffrage, it is right and proper and they should have it and we will consent, but if the majority do not say so, we do not want it choked down our throats.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I believe that a separate submission would bring up all the embitterments of the past_the discussion of this matter in the campaign. I believe the underlying principle or reasons which govern those who desire to vote for separate submission are to defeat woman's suffrage if they can. That would simply bring up all the embitterments of the past, that we have fought over once.

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to ask if those who are opposed to woman's suffrage have not the right to try to defeat it if they can?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is right, they have a perfect right to do it if they can, but sir, it would bring up the bitter feelings that we have once buried and which never ought to be resurrected.

Mr. KIESEL. You have them now.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No, we will not have them, gentlemen. You will be loyal American citizens and support the Constitution of the new State. I will ask Mr. James a question. Suppose, as he states, that the people of the minority, however small, have a right to an expression of an opinion, would he vote to submit the question of prohibition to the people here in a separate article? He knows that he would not. I would not do it, because I do not believe that it is

practicable. That simply shows the fallacy of these arguments. Gentlemen, we would teach the people of this Territory a political lesson, which would be sufficient to forever condemn us if we do not stand by our party pledges and our honor.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I do not wish to say anything upon this matter, but simply to answer a question that was asked by the gentleman from Davis County. He said have not these petitions all been sent out without solicitation?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. IVINS. I hold in my hand a poster which I took from_
{1150}
Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman is certainly wrong, my statement was without an organization behind it, such as the suffrage organization.

Mr. IVINS. I simply wanted to say that there was somebody behind it. I hold in my hand a poster which I took from a petition that came from a precinct in my county and was signed by every man and woman in it that I was acquainted with, asking for separate submission of this question. It reads; “Get this filled with signatures and mail it to your delegate at the Constitutional Convention. Don't delay.” There was no other communication with it. Now, I hold in my hand a letter that comes from some people_

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that there was something else with it and that was the petition asking the-_

Mr. IVINS. I do not wish to be interrupted.

Mr. ROBERTS._separate submission.

Mr. IVINS. I hold in my hand a letter from one of my constituents in that very precinct which says that the people that signed that petition did not know what they were doing and this letter has come to me without any solicitation. I have never had a word of correspondence with any of them.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Cannon has the floor.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order, that the time has now expired.

The PRESIDENT. There is one minute.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Chidester has one minute.

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, no; we do not.

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

Mr. CHIDESTER. That is not_    
Mr. JAMES. I want to be corrected. I do not want to be misquoted upon this floor.

Mr. CHIDESTER. You must not make such assertions if you do not want to be corrected.

Mr. JAMES. I did not say I didn't want to be corrected.

Mr. CHIDESTER. He cries every time he opens his mouth and so has every other one_    

Mr. BUTTON. Order.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time has expired. [Laughter.]

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I claim Mr. Chidester was not permitted to occupy his time.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I arise to a point of order and personal privilege. According to the rules I have a right to close this debate.

The PRESIDENT. Well, your minute is up.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I want to say that there is no petitions against it. Now_    

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, keep your seats.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I want to say that it is largely children who were recorded on the minority petitions asking for a separate submission.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT. The debate has closed, gentlemen.

The roll being called on the motion of Mr. Varian, the result was as follows:

AYES_32.
Adams    
Bowdle    

NOES_69.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Brandley
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Coray
Corfman

ABSENT_3.
Kimball, Weber    
Lewis
Miller.

PAIRED_2.
Eichnor    
Richards.

Motion lost.

The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled executive.

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were read.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words after “convene,” in line 7, down to and including the word “session,” in line 9. I just want to call attention to the reason for offering the motion and that is in the few lines here where it states “and the Legislature shall transact no legislative business except that for which they were especially convened,” and then the words I move to strikeout are “or such other legislative business as the governor may call to the attention of the Legislature while in session.”

There seems to me to be an incongruity in that language and the only correction that comes to my mind is now to strike that out.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, that was fully discussed for probably half or three quarters of an hour in the committee of the whole and the answer to the objection was that it did not make any difference; if the governor wanted to introduce other business; if any emergency should arise after he had called a special session requiring the submission of other business, that he would simply go through the form of making a proclamation and reconvening the legislative body. That I believe was the idea of my friend from Weber.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think that clause should go out for the reason that I think that the Legislature should be notified in advance of the purpose for which they were called together and it is only the barest kind of a possibility_it is not at all probable that having called the Legislature together {1152} for one purpose that in a few days or a week after some other extraordinary occasion would require them to act upon some other matter. It is only once in a great while an extra session would be called at all. I think the governor should be limited in this matter and be required to designate in this manner the purpose for which the extra session is called.

The motion of Mr. Roberts was rejected.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I notice that the secretary in reading on the fourth line, read “which the Legislature has.” Is that correct?

The SECRETARY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SQUIRES. If that is the way the word should be, then the same change should be made in line 6.

Mr. VARIAN. It was not changed: I want to call attention to the fact that the use of the word “has” and the word “have,” in the connection there, is a matter simply of taste and we had better pass this thing for the committee on compilation and arrangement to determine this question. I suggest that in the Convention all these matters be passed to the committee.

Mr. SQUIRES. I agree with the gentleman from Salt Lake, but I wanted it uniform in the section.
Sections 7, 9, and 10 were read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move in section 10 to strike the letter “s” off the word occurs.

Mr. VARIAN. I suggest such slight corrections should be made without taking a vote.
Sections 11 and 12 were read.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer to section 12, to insert at the beginning of the section, “until otherwise provided by law.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I now offer a substitute for the section as amended:

The governor shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, after conviction, for all

offenses, subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be provided by law.

Mr. EMERY. Mr. President, I have no objection particularly to this section, but I think it deals with legislative matters too much. I move to strike out after the word “law,” in the tenth line, all down to the word “state,” in the twenty-first line; also commencing at the beginning of the twenty-seventh line, strike out all to the word “provided,” in the thirtieth line. Again, commencing with the word “when,” in the thirty-fourth line, strike out the balance of the section.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, this whole matter has been gone over on two several days in committee of the whole and was thoroughly discussed. I do not propose to discuss the question. I simply want to call attention to the fact that it is the design of this article to take away from this board of pardons the power of doing anything secret. We want to create a new tribunal in this particular and dignify it by making it a public tribunal of record so that its sittings shall be in the eyes of the people and that there shall be reasons given which may be passed upon by public sentiment for the action taken by this board under this Constitution, and it was for that reason that these matters which may appear to be in some degree legislative were incorporated in here in accordance with the provisions of some other similar article in other constitutions.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I move to strike out the whole section as amended and insert in lieu thereof a substitute which I have here present.

The amendment offered by Mr. Emery was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I suggest the time for offering this substitute would have been when opportunity afforded. The house has refused to strike out this section.
{1153}
The PRESIDENT. The chair is of the opinion that the substitute is in order.

Mr. Low, of Cache, offered the following substitute:

The governor, secretary of state, and attorney general shall constitute a board of pardons and shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons after convictions for all offenses, except treason and cases of impeachment, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law.

The substitute was rejected.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I want to make a motion to strike out section 12, without any substitute at all.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, this is pure legislation. I am in favor of striking the whole thing out and leaving it to the Legislature.

Section 13 was read.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on that section, to add at the beginning of the section, “until otherwise provided by law.”

The amendment was agreed to. Section 14 was read.

Mr. CHEER. Mr. President, I move an amendment to precede this section, similar to the one made to the other, “until otherwise provided by law.” And I may also offer the same amendment to section 15.

The amendments were agreed to. Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 were read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move to strike out, beginning with line 24, of section 20, down to and including the word, “office,” in line 29. It is already provided for in a section of the
legislative article.

Mr. VARIAN. What section of the legislative article?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Section 25, if I remember rightly.

Mr. VARIAN. Section 4 of the legislative article simply is prohibitory against granting extra compensation, fee, or allowance to any public officer after service has been rendered or contract entered into.

The motion of Mr. Van Horne was rejected.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I move that the one thousand dollars be stricken out in line 22 of this section and fifteen hundred dollars be inserted.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. President, I move as an amendment that we strike out the four lines, 19, 20, 21 and 22, and place the sum of two thousand dollars each.

Mr. SNOW. I think, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, that if it is a superintendent of public instruction that we wish to create in this section, we ought to pa compensation somewhere near commensurate with the ability that will be required. If we want an officer such as we have sometimes bad in this Territory, whose principal and chief duty was to apportion the school fund and distribute it to the various county treasurers, then perhaps a compensation of one thousand dollars would be adequate, but I submit that if that is what we conceive to be the duty of a superintendent of public instruction we had better let some other of these State officers exercise these duties ex officio and not create a special officer for those duties; but if we want a man who is educated and who understands the methods of education and who will be in truth and verity a superintendent of public instruction, for heaven's sake, let us give him the salary of an

ordinary school teacher and not put him down on less than one hundred dollars a month. Almost any school teacher can get that in the public schools, of the Territory that has any ability.
{1154}
Mr. THURMAN. Do you know what the superintendent has been getting?

Mr. SNOW. I believe he has been getting one thousand dollars and I believe his principal duties have been to apportion the school fund.

Mr. THURMAN. Would you increase the salary five hundred dollars?

Mr. SNOW. I believe that is all.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I understand this has all been provided for. I think the one thousand dollars is plenty until the Legislature meets. If they want, to they can change it. I do not see what is the use of increasing it. I think it is enough anyhow.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I do not know what the work of the attorney general will be sufficiently to say that his salary should be increased from fifteen hundred to two thousand dollars, but I am certainly in favor of that part of the amendment to the amendment which provides that the superintendent of public instruction shall receive two thousand dollars. The gentleman will observe that in section 19 we provide that the superintendent of public instruction shall have general supervision over all matters pertaining to the public schools, and shall perform such other specific duties as shall be provided by law. I submit, Mr. President, that the gentleman who shall be superintendent of public instruction should be a man of learning, he should be a man who has spent years and a great amount of money in preparing for the work of this office. It is not like the work of the office of governor, which requires little or no preparation, [laughter] and can be filled by a man of ordinary ability, and here in this section we have placed the salary of governor at twenty-five hundred dollars, whereas the man who is to have general control of all the schools of the State and who should visit every county and every town in the State, who should attend to the work necessary in order to provide that all the work in the public schools shall be uniform, and be a man of organizing ability_a man who can work with the county superintendents in securing and building up in the State a thorough system of public instruction. Now, I wish to state that the present commissioner of schools receives, I understand, but one thousand dollars a year, and what is the result, gentlemen, of the Convention? In addition to the duties as commissioner of schools, he is engaged as school teacher, with the result that he cannot possibly attend to the work of his office as commissioner of schools. He has time to attend to his work in the school room, and except on an occasional day when it is possible for him to get away from the school and on Saturdays, he is unable to get out into the counties and attend to the work that he should attend to as commissioner of schools. Now, gentlemen of the Convention, the man who occupies this position should be able to give his entire time to the work. The office is worth two thousand dollars. Any man who is not worth that is unworthy the office. Gentlemen, I hope that that part of the amendment will prevail which makes the salary of the superintendent of public instruction two thousand dollars.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I would a great deal rather see this whole thing stricken out and

left to the Legislature than to have it advertised all down the years that this body had so little conception of the duties of a superintendent of public instruction, so little respect for that position, as to fix the salary at a thousand dollars. It is simply shameful. It is not becoming this new State. It is not in line with modern progress, it is not what the ordinary merchant pays his bookkeeper, it is not what any banker would think of paying a competent teller in his bank. To be fit for the duties a man must have spent years of his life in preparation, years of expenses in education, {1155} and for us in this body to say that such a man's wages are worth eighty-three and one-third dollars a month and no more, is a disgrace to us. I would rather see it stricken out, and I hope Mr. Kearns' amendment will prevail just to save a little of our self respect. We are told to-day that the Legislature can fix it. So far we have been fixing the Constitution so that the Legislature will have no say, and if this is a superior body to what the ordinary Legislature of this State is going to be, in God's name, let us fix it so that they cannot rob the man entirely and make him pay his own expenses. I hope the amendment of Mr. Kearns will prevail.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I favor certainly two thousand dollars for the superintendent of public instruction. But I would say that if we must exercise economy this is the place to do it, because he can suit his duties to the amount of pay that he gets. If he only gets five hundred dollars, all that he will do likely will be to distribute the school fund, but if he does what he ought to do he will do at least two thousand dollars' worth of work.

Mr. MAESER. Mr. President, I fully agree with Mr. Kerr and Mr. Goodwin. Why, gentlemen, I have felt terrible when this vote of one thousand dollars was passed as a salary of the superintendent of public instruction. As it has been stated by the speakers before me, if the man is worth anything he is worth that. He ought to devote his whole time for the labor that is required of him to build up a school system throughout our State of Utah, which will be the pride of our State. It is laying the foundation of the foundation of the citizens that are to come the rising generation, and a man cannot give what he has not got himself. We require one of the best teachers that we have in our State to fill that office, a man that can examine the teachers and judge upon the qualifications of teachers, that can go around in the schools and set schools right and show teachers in regard to methods of teaching, labor with the trustees and members of trustees, attend the county teachers' institutes, and in all things be an authority in matters of education. We expect such a man, after he has for a term or two served and has laid the foundation for a good educational system in the State to be fitted for re-election, and continue for many terms to come, so that an educational system may be built up in our State that is a pride of our State and a benefit to the rising generation, and a man of that kind will have to devote all his time to this work. He cannot engage in anything else, as some other of these officers that are here will be able to do. Our superintendent of public instruction must devote his whole time. Now, the present incumbent, as it has already been remarked, must make his living by teaching school besides, and therefore he is prevented from attending to his duties in the way in which he should and in which he desires to do, if he was able to do it. I therefore sustain the motion of two thousand dollars.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. President, I would like to have this motion put separately, not as a whole_to vote on each one separately.

Mr. KEARNS. In order to please the gentleman I will withdraw that motion and move to amend
Mr. Snow's motion of two thousand dollars on that subject.

Mr. SNOW. I would like to remind the gentlemen of the Convention that this section provides that all these officers, while traveling in the exercise or performance of their official duties, will be paid their mileage_their traveling expenses.

Mr. VARIAN. If the Legislature provides for it.

Mr. SNOW. Well, they will do it, no {1156} doubt about it. I want you to take into consideration that these officers of public instruction_most of his duties will be traveling among the schools, if he performs his duties, and if that is not provided for extra, I think gentlemen are going entirely to the other extreme, when they vote for two thousand dollars. I shall not do it.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I am opposed to both of these motions and I will try and give you some of my reasons for it. As has been stated here before, while discussing this question, we are now about to start out under the new era and under our State government, and every salary that we raise will have a tendency to decrease the number of votes in favor of this Constitution, providing that those salaries go beyond what the people feel that they ought to be. Now, we have been paying in the past one thousand dollars and expenses necessarily incurred in the traveling of the superintendent of public instruction. My friend from Cache Valley asked this Convention what the result has been. My answer, sir, upon that question is the result has been that this Territory to-day stands third in this grand Union in the cause of education. This has been the result.

Mr. SNOW. Is that due to the efficiency of the superintendent of public instruction?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I think it partly is, and I see the statement was further made that a man that could be got for one thousand dollars to operate in that honorable position was not worth having. I say, Mr. Chairman, that I stand here to resent such imputation, for I believe to-day that we have an honorable gentleman who holds that position in this Territory and he has operated with credit under the law in the position. I think that one thousand dollars is sufficient, and while it may be a fact that we ought to have a higher system of education, that the superintendent of public instruction perhaps ought to be required to put in more time, thereby receiving more pay, the same question might be involved in every other officer that we are going to have in our new State, and it is a question as to what we can afford to do, and I am opposed to the motion. We provide here that when the Legislature shall meet they may provide some other salaries for these various officers, but now, in starting out in the beginning of this new State, going before the people with those large salaries, I say that it will be a mistake if we do that. I think that we can get along for at least the term for which the first officers will be elected under this new State, under these salaries, as fixed and passed by the committee of the whole, and then if it shall be necessary, and we see that under the operations of the new State we are able to advance and pay more, thereby requiring better service, then I say it is in the power of the Legislature to fix that so

it can be passed upon.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I would like to state upon this subject in reply to the statement of the gentleman from Utah County that I stated awhile ago the present commissioner of schools receives but one thousand dollars, it is necessary for him to perform the duties of another office in order that he may make sufficient to live. It is true that the traveling expenses of a superintendent of public instruction will be paid, but men of the learning and ability required to perform the duties of this office can command at least two thousand dollars in almost any other profession, remaining at home, where there are no traveling expenses. The question of traveling expenses therefore cuts no figure here whatever, and I want to say that it may be true as the gentleman from Utah County stated, that men can be found who would be glad to fill this office for one thousand dollars, but gentlemen of the Convention, I repeat my assertion that no man in Utah who is a competent man in that position {1157} can afford to give his entire time to that work for the paltry sum of one thousand dollars.

It requires a man of ability. It requires a man of learning; it requires a man of experience, and if we want a system of public schools in Utah, let us elect to office men who are competent, and men whose experience and learning fit them for this work. If we want men to do this work, we must pay them what they are worth. It was argued here a few years ago that in the University of Utah and our higher educational institutions, it was unnecessary to pay more than a thousand to twelve hundred dollars a year, but it was soon discovered if we have in our institutions of learning men of learning, men of ability, men who are prepared for their work, we must pay those men what they can get in other states, and if a man can get twenty-five hundred dollars a year in Nebraska, we cannot expect him to come to Utah, gentlemen of the Convention, and work for one thousand dollars a year. As to the present work that is being done in our public schools, referred to by the the gentleman from Utah, I desire merely to say this, considering all the conditions under which we have been working in Utah, I concede that a fairly good work has been done, but that the work is not uniform_that the system is not by ten per cent. what it ought to be, is conceded by every educator in Utah. Gentlemen of the Convention, I speak from experience.

In the University of Utah during the two years I was there, we received students from every county and almost every district in Utah, and hardly a new student would be received in the institution who had received the same preparation. Visit the schools throughout Utah to-day and you will not find the same methods. You will not find the same system prevailing in the various counties, and in order that we may perform the best work, in order thatwe may realize the greatest results from the money expended in our school works, we must have a thorough and uniform system of education, and that I maintain we cannot have except we have a superintendent of public instruction whose learning, whose ability, whose experience, is such as to enable him by devoting his entire time to the work to secure these results. Gentlemen of the Convention, I repeat again, that any man who can afford to give his entire time to this work and who has the ability to do the work is worth two thousand dollars, and I also repeat again that any man who is not worth two thousand dollars in that position, if he gives his entire time to the work, is not worthy of the position, neither is he competent to do the work.

Mr. KERR. Do you not think that it {1158} is not only possible but probable that a competent man as superintendent of public instruction, worth two thousand dollars, giving his entire time to his work, will better accomplish the work and save many times to the State the amount in expenditures in the work in the school system of the additional salary paid?

Mr. FARR. I will answer it in this way, I believe in getting a man that is capable without taxing the people to death.

The roll being called on the motion to fix the salary at two thousand dollars, the result was as follows:

AYES_48.
Adams
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Call
Cannon
Coray
Crane
Cushing
Eichnor
Emery
Francis
Goodwin
Green
Hart
Haynes
Hill
Hughes
James
Kiesel

NOES_49.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Buys
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Creer
Cunningham
Driver
Eldredge
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah

ABSENT_9.
Corfman
Johnson
Kimball, Weber
Lemmon
Lewis
Miller
Richards Ryan
Spencer.

Mr. CREER. I desire to be excused from voting. I would vote no. I am in favor of the gentleman's motion from Washington, of fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. GIBBS. I vote no on this proposition, but I would like to vote yes on Mr. Snow's.

Mr. HAMMOND. I vote no on this, but I would like to see the whole thing stricken out and left to the Legislature.

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

AFTERNOON SESSION.

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

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house is on the amendment of Mr. Snow, in line 22 of the section, “The superintendent of public instruction shall receive fifteen hundred dollars.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move you that line 17 be amended so that the salary of the governor shall be two thousand dollars per annum instead of twenty-five hundred.
{1159}
The question being taken on the amendment, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 30 ayes to 27 noes, the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to amend in line 20 by striking out the sum of one thousand dollars and inserting lieu thereof the figures 1,250. That is not as high as it should be, but it may meet the approval of the Convention.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to that to make it two thousand dollars. Gentlemen of the Convention, I will say this in regard to that, if you place the salary at a thousand dollars it has a tendency to drive it into the banks of Salt Lake City. No poor man can ever hold the office. He cannot get before the people in the first place for a thousand dollars. The Territory will never know who he is. In the next place, he will not be able to give a bond. You are making by this salary the object of a treasurer to throw it into the hands of capital alone. Therefore, I favor a salary of two thousand dollars.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the bonds of the present treasurer, I am informed, are in the sum of $325,000. In other words, he has to have sureties justify in the sum of $650,000. It was stated on the floor of this house the other day that some two or three months' work would be all that the duties of the office of treasurer would require. I am credibly informed that it consumes fully nine months of the year to perform the duties of treasurer, and, Mr. President, in regard to what the treasurer has received heretofore, previous to the last session of the Legislature, the amount

appropriated for the treasurer for the two years was twenty-five hundred dollars, and eight hundred dollars for stationery and office rent; this would give a total of thirty-three hundred dollars for the two years. Now, as I understand it, under this salary of one thousand dollars per year, he would be obliged to pay out of that the stationery, the office rent, and provide his bonds, in perhaps the sum of not less than half a million dollars. In order to get a man who will not have Canadian inclinations, I think it would be necessary to give him a little higher salary than one thousand dollars a year. I would favor fifteen hundred rather than two thousand, in view of the amounts fixed for the other salaries.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Do I understand the gentleman to say that he expects that the treasurer will pay his own office rent, or that the government should furnish him an office?

Mr. HART. Under this section, I am of the opinion that the one thousand dollars would include stationery. I may be mistaken about that.

Mr. ELDREDGE. And office rent?

Mr. HART. I do not see any provision for office rent. Traveling expenses remain there.

Mr. ELDREDGE. You would infer from this section that he paid his own office rent as well as his own stationery?

Mr. HART. I have not examined it very closely, I will say that, but that is my impression from my remembrance of it.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I would like to ask Mr. Hart, did I understand you to say that they had appropriated twenty-five hundred dollars for the two years for his salary?

Mr. HART. Yes, sir; twenty-five hundred dollars previous to the last session of the Legislature.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Previous to the last?

Mr. HART. Yes, sir; the last session of the Legislature designed for the treasurer to have one thousand dollars per annum, aside from stationery and office expenses, but by a mistake in the enrollment of the bill the part that was stricken out on amendment_that stationery and office rent was by mistake included, so that unless that matter is remedied the treasurer will have to pay {1160} his office rent and stationery out of the one thousand dollars per annum.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I would like to ask the gentleman one more question, whether he knows of such a thing in this Territory of an officer having to go to such a company as you indicated in your argument to get sureties?

Mr. HART. Well, since mentioning the matter the other day I am informed that no surety company will give such a bond.

Mr. HART. Yes, I do; I know that the present treasurer attempted through a period of something like two weeks to get a surety company to give his bond.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). That is not my question at all. I asked if you knew of any person who had paid sureties to go on his bond?

Mr. HART. Oh, no.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Well, then that settles that part of it.

Mr. HART. But he is placed under obligations of course to the men who go upon his bond and it is no slight matter to go around and solicit a six hundred fifty thousand dollar bond from your friends.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I hope that this motion will not prevail. I believe that a thousand dollars is every dollar that we ought to pay. It seems as though we lose sight of the fact that this paragraph as reported by the committee provides that the Legislature may make such changes as they deem proper. It is not being fixed, it is not as the laws of the Medes and Persians, but we are fixing it now upon trial which at most, if the Legislature shall deem advisable to make a change, it will only be for two years.

Mr. FRANCIS. Four years.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Is it four years? I understand it is not to take effect during their term. I would ask whether that is the fact_whether the treasurer is elected for four years.

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir; all the executive officers.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Now, Mr. President, I have taken the position before upon this question and I re-assert my position again, but I am going to make two or three illustrations that have not been referred to here. We must remember in the fixing of these salaries the work to be done; it is true that we must take into account the responsibility by reason of the heavy bonds, but in answer to that I submit that I do not notknow of a single case in this Territory where a bondsman has been put to any inconvenience by reason of going upon the bonds of any of our territorial officers. Now, that presents the fact that by reason of that bondsmen will be more easy to obtain than they would otherwise. So far as the actual labor is concerned of this office, I believe that a thousand dollars will pay and pay them well.

The labor is not a very great deal connected with this. The responsibility is the great part, but now where is this money to come from? Permit me to say to you, sir, that I had the honor of taking the statistics of the city in which I live and also American Fork, which adjoins, and we are confronted with this startling fact that after I had completed that labor, for my own satisfaction I made this investigation, I began and I took the farmers, those owning five acres of land or more. I

did not include in the computation those only owning their homes and their gardens, and I carefully went over that and I find that after I had concluded that, including the land, including their teams, and their harnesses, and their farming utensils, and their labor upon it_I was confronted with the startling fact that an average of all the farms in Lehi City only amounted to four hundred dollars including their labor and their capital invested. I find the same thing, sir, in {1161} regard to American Fork, and it fell some little short of the four hundred dollars on an average, and I submit to you gentlemen of the Convention that that is from the men whom we are seeking to tax for the purpose of paying these salaries, and I ask you to call a halt and ask yourselves the question whether you are willing. These are the facts we have got to confront when we present this Constitution to the people and ask them to ratify it, and they are the people you will have to depend on for its ratification. I submit to you, upon a question of justice, is there any reason why that class of men should be taxed when their whole income including their time and their capital invested only aggregates the amount upon an average of four hundred dollars, that we shall tax them to pay men two thousand dollars for taking care of their taxes? I do not think this Convention is ready to submit, any such a thing, and I am willing to trust it to them.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that I have got one man converted and I hope there will be a number more. I presume that you will remember_there does not many of us do_that the treasurers served Utah for twenty years for five hundred dollars a year. True, their bonds were not as high as they are now, but their labor was about the same to do, and I want it kept before the minds of this honorable body that if they expect this Constitution to be ratified, they have got to get the people of the Territory to vote for it, and I can tell you if we do not keep these salaries down, they may not vote for it. Just as the gentleman has said, in regard to the condition of the men that pay the taxes, they are that way all through the Territory, they are the Men we are to expect the money from to pay the taxes and if we do not make the salaries reasonable to start with we won't get the votes. I want this kept in mind before this honorable body.

The amendment of Mr. Hart was rejected.

Sections 21, 22 and 23 were read.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to section 8. I do not believe it was the intention of the committee that drafted this article to give the governor absolute veto power, but I claim that this section gives him that right. Now, any important bill that might be passed by the Legislature in the closing days of the session might be referred to the governor, and then the Legislature adjourn. If the Legislature passes an appropriation bill and the governor objects to any portion of it, either one or two or more sections, and the Legislature refers it to the governor and in the meantime the session comes to a close, the governor can veto those sections or the whole of it.

The PRESIDENT. Has the gentleman got any motion to make in regard to this?

Mr. HOWARD. I just wish to call the attention of the Convention to this and find out whether it is intended to leave it in that condition. I believe I could offer an amendment, but I have not had time to do so.

New York, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming, provide simply for the veto by the governor of an item or items of an appropriation bill, but the following states, Mr. President do not even give the governor that power; he has to veto a bill as a whole and he is not even given the power to object to an item of an appropriation bill; these states are: Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvana [*note*], South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, and the only state in the Union, Mr. President, that provides for a similar veto power, of the governor as is brought forth here is the state of Washington. The constitution of Illinois possibly may provide for a similar power, although it is doubtful to my mind, at least from the hurried examination that I gave to it. It clearly gives him the power to veto an item of an appropriation bill, but whether it gives him further power than that I am not clear. I think it would be a serious departure from established precedent. I do not think there is any reasonable doubt about it.

Any such a power as this in the governor, for my own part I would almost as soon vote to give the governor an absolute veto power as I would to permit him to veto any particular section or sections of an ordinary bill. For this reason, it would give a few members a greater power in the Legislature than a majority, and a few members, with the assistance of the governor, would have absolutely more power than the majority of the convention would. In the making up of the bill a series of compromises takes place. Each individual cannot have his own way, but after the bill is agreed upon, there may be a very large majority who would be in favor of putting it through section for section as it stands. There might be two-thirds who would be willing to have a bill enacted in the form that they pass it, and yet if the governor vetoed one section, by the opposition of a few men, unless you could get two-thirds majority who would stand by that particular proposition, the governor would have the right to exclude that, and although a majority might wish to have that section remain, although a two-thirds majority might be willing to pass upon the bill as a whole, yet a few might be willing to exclude one particular section. I do not think, Mr. President, that we should follow after Washington on this very doubtful experiment to say the best. I think that the states that permit the veto of an appropriation item adopt a wise plan. They are in the majority, although you will observe there is a very large minority that does not

even give that power. I think that we should not exceed the powers that are given by a majority of these states to their governors in the veto of appropriation items. If my amendment prevails, we will then have a Constitution that is almost exactly similar word for word to the constitutions that I have named. It would be almost word for word the same as New York on this subject, and the other constitutions that I have named. I trust the amendment will prevail.
{1163 - LABOR AND ARBITRATION}
Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I have read this section over, pretty carefully; I do not know who the committee were; I know most of them. It suited me very well. We ain't making a constitution for those other states; we are making a Constitution for Utah, and we are the body of men to tell what is best and if this suits us, I am sure I do not care about suiting anybody else. There is nothing unreasonable or unconstitutional in this and it suits me very well, and if it suited the committee and this Convention I am in favor of it.

The amendment of Mr. Hart was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the adoption of the entire article.

The roll being called, the result was as follows:

AYES_90.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christianson
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah

NOES_2.
Green    
Haynes.

ABSENT_14.
Button    
Crane    
Hill    
Kiesel    
Keith    
Kimball, Weber
Lewis    
Lund
Miller
Richards
Spencer
Thorne
Warrum
Whitney.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I vote aye, expressing my disapproval of section 12.

Mr. MALONEY. I vote aye, but object to sections 12, 13, 14, and 15.

The PRESIDENT. The article on executive has been adopted, gentlemen, and under the rule goes to the committee on compilation.

The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled labor.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I move you, sir, that section 1, together with the title and all other sections of this article, be stricken out. I wish to say my motion to strike out this article does not arise from any hostility to labor or making provisions for its protection, {1164} but I am of the opinion that this article is altogether useless for the accomplishment of the purposes designed by drafting it, as a part of this Constitution. I shall not at all be afraid of offending laborers, since I myself am one, but it seems to me, sir, that they are uselessly cumbering this Constitution with a provision that is absolutely worthless, because there is not a proposition in it but what can be evaded both by capital and by labor, and I believe, sir, that the true interests of labor can be subserved if the State shall provide for securing the rights of the individual which are provided for in the bill of rights and which in fact are provided for throughout the Constitution, and by the recognized principles of law in our country, and since I regard the whole article as useless, for one, I am not willing to give my voice to putting in this much lumber into the Constitution. And therefore, I am in favor of striking this whole thing out.

Mr. Evans, of Weber, offered the following as a substitute for the entire article:

Section 1. The Legislature shall provide by law for a board of labor arbitration, which shall fairly represent the interests of both capital and labor, and it shall be the duty of said board, under such regulations as may be provided by law, to endeavor by mediation and conciliation to effect a settlement of difficulties between employer and employes.[*note*]

Section 2. The exchange of blacklists between corporations shall be prohibited.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. President, I would simply like to endorse the words of Captain Ryan. The committee has wrestled with the question. The committee of the whole has done the same, and while we do not claim that it is a perfect article, we believe that it will go a long way and that it will be able to accomplish some good. I hope the article will not be stricken out.
                
Mr. KEARNS. Mr. President, I agree with my friend on the right. I cannot favor the motion of Mr. Roberts to strike out. I think it is the duty of every man in this Convention to throw around

the laborer of this Territory all the protection we can. We have been through this article once and I think we can fix it up where it will be a protection for the laborer of our future State, and it is our duty to do so, and I oppose this motion to strike out.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am opposed to the substitute and also to the motion to strike out. This matter was referred to a committee and was carefully considered by that committee and afterwards brought before the Convention and discussed thoroughly in committee of the whole. I am in favor of the original article as amended in committee of the whole, and opposed to both motions before the house.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am also opposed to the motion to strike out and also the substitute. I think that the article as reported by the committee should be adopted and therefore I shall support it.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. President, I am also opposed to striking out the article as it now stands for the very good reason that labor is one of our great resources, we must recollect, and time influence that it would have on the labor community would be I think very detrimental. To say that we had such an article under our supervision, {1165} and to set it aside without any reasonable grounds for doing so, I think it would be very detrimental. It would show to the laboring community that they were of little or no moment in the community, and for that reason I believe it will be to our interest and the interest of this Constitution and to the people generally to retain that in the Constitution, that they also may be protected with other interests.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I would like any gentleman to explain to me if he can how the Legislature or how the new State can compel a private individual not to make discrimination between man and woman in his employ. If those matters referred to public works it would be a different thing, but how is the State to regulate what a private individual shall do in the employment of labor? It is simply out of the question. It would be a dead letter upon the statute books and would be without effect. There are many things in this article that I believe in. I think the substitute, however, covers everything that is of an important character. Slight troubles or difficulties between labor and capital and all those other matters are merely matters which ought to be left to the Legislature, except one other matter which I have urged before. If any gentleman can explain to me how the Legislature of the new State can enforce the payment of the same kind of wages, regardless of sex, I would like to hear the explanation. That is, if a man is to employ two clerks, one woman and one man, under this it would be contemplated that he paid both of them exactly the same wages. Can that be done? Not considering the question whether it is right that these two persons should receive an equivalent amount of pay for the same kind of work, how can we regulate that? How can we compel it. How can we enforce it? It would bring interminable trouble, I think.

Mr. STOVER. I would like to ask Mr. Evans if he does not understand that in Great Britan the laws prohibit the employment of women and children in mines?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I said nothing about that. That is something I would be in favor of prohibiting. That is a part of the section. This first subdivision, but I will ask the Captain whether

he knows of any such employment in this Territory, and what the occasion for this constitutional provision is?

Mr. STOVER. Why, to prevent it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It has never occurred. If it should occur and be abused the Legislature would have ample and plenary power to legislate for it. The constitutional restrictions are only put in for the purpose of averting or preventing some existing evil. We have not had it yet. We are simply apprehending something that will probably never occur, and if it does occur, the Legislature can probably provide for it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman from Weber that the Legislature will have no power to prevent discrimination in wages on account of sex. I only regret that he cannot see as I do that attempting to prevent an exchange of blacklists stands on the same principle. One is equally impracticable with the other, but in so far as this question of discriminating in wages is concerned, we agree and I support him fully in all that he says. I am in favor of the motion to strike out the article. I know that it may be said that a man has got a pretty hard face to stand up and make a motion of that kind, but I have too much confidence in the intelligence of the laboring classes in this country to believe for one moment that they will be caught by a meaningless, useless, lumbering provision in the Constitution of the commonwealth. There is not a gentleman on this floor but will manfully admit that the Legislature has full power to do everything that we {1166} here require them to do, and that all we are doing is that we are confining them to a means which one of these days, when the Legislature learns the question with which it had to deal, will be trying to find some other means with which to deal with it, in the interests of labor, and the Constitution will say, “you are confined to a board.” Gentlemen, there is where we are bringing ourselves to, and I warn you now to call a halt if you are in the interests of labor. If indeed you want to conciliate the laboring man, give the Legislature of the future who will come from the people power to appoint, not only a board but boards or tribunals, or whatever they may please to call them, by which this question of the relation existing between capital and labor may be dealt with in the most convenient manner for the benefit of labor.

I say, gentlemen, that the man who stands here to-day, moving to strike out this article, root and branch, is the real friend of labor, while you are tying up the hands of your Legislature in the future, holding them down to a method which may or may not prove effectual for the purpose, and say, “you cannot deal with this question, except you deal with it exactly in the manner that we have pointed out.” Let us grant this motion, strike it out. If you want to put in a simple provision in here to the effect that the relation existing between capital and labor is hereby recognized, and that the Legislature shall have full power to adjust the relations between capital and labor_adjust the difficulties_do that. I am with you. But when you undertake to go into detail and fix a specific method which may not prove effectual I shall be found voting no.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, it is the usual plea, “I am the friend of the laborer. I am the friend of the working men.” But whenever they are put to the test to show their fruits and show their colors, then it is in the distance. I hope that no gentleman will misunderstand the question before the house. Every person that votes aye votes in favor of the substitute. Every person that votes no

is voting for the article.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, we have had this article up before and it has passed the second reading, and it reminds me the way the laborer has been treated in many instances in the past; he has been downed and kicked, and scratched, and maltreated; we have had labor on the floor; we have had it down under our feet; we have scratched it, and we have almost erased it from this article that is before us. If there is anything wrong in whatever there is left, I would think there is talent enough here to straighten it and to amend it. Yet, there is a little left. There are a few of the rags left of it, by amendment, but let us not strike it out. Therefore, I oppose the motion. I do not think it is wisdom to kick labor clear off the floor on this question.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I would like to correct an impression that would be gathered from Mr. Eichnor's proposition, that those that vote no vote in favor of the article. I understand there is still a motion before the house to strike out this article.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, I am in favor of the substitute and shall vote for it. If that fails I vote for the striking out of the whole article.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, if the substitute be adopted, then the motion to strike out could not prevail at all. By putting the motion to strike out first it virtually permits a division of the question. Mr. Varian, while in the chair the other day, gave a ruling to that effect, and it seems to me that it is the only reasonable position that could be taken to put the motion to strike out before the substitute, for the reason that if the substitute should prevail why the motion to strike out could not be put, {1167} and we vote to strike out something that we have just inserted.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, I like the substitute better than the section as it now stands, but I want the privilege of voting in favor of striking out the whole article. I would rather have the whole article stricken out than the substitute, and if one cuts the other off, then I ask for the motion to strike out to be put first.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, might I be permitted to make a suggestion? If this substitute prevails, it ought to be put first and if it prevails it will kill the others, It is an amendment to the amendment and in the nature of it, it will kill the whole thing. Then a motion could be made to strike that out, if you would so desire, but as I take it, if this substitute prevails, then it destroys both of the other motions and becomes the question before the Convention. If it is killed then the motion to strike out the substitute will be in order, and if that prevails that will kill it and then there will be nothing before the Convention.

Mr. HART. Do you hold that after voting to insert the substitute that we could afterwards vote on that same subject to strike it out?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I hold, sir, that any motion, either to strike out and insert or to strike out without inserting or to substitute, is nothing more nor less than an amendment and the rule is here that will bear that out. Then, upon that theory, this substitute being an amendment to the amendment that was offered by Mr. Roberts, if that prevails, by reason of its nature, as an

amendment, it will kill the whole question, both the original article and the amendment, and that becomes the question.

Mr. HART. The trouble is simply this, we are voting on the same subject twice.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. President, I am in favor of the substitute for the reason that I think it will have the same effect and I do not think the article as it now stands in the Constitution will be of any benefit to the labor interests. Now, I am a laboring man myself, and every act of my life I think will show that I am a friend of the laboring man, but I do not think that voting for this article as it now stands is showing any particular friendship for the laboring man. I shall support and vote for the substitute.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, in view of what Mr. Hyde has just said, I must call the attention of the Convention to the fact that if this article is not just as Mr. Hyde would like it, we can vote down this substitute and amend the article and make it just as we want it, but if either one of these motions prevails, it will put it out of our power. I am opposed to either one of these motions.

The roll being called on the substitute offered by Mr. Evans, of Weber, the re-snlt was as follows:

AYES_19.
Boyer
Creer
Cunningham
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Farr
Hammond
Hart
Howard
Hughes
Hyde
Ivins
Low, Cache
Maeser
Preston
Roberts
Robertson
Thatcher
Thoreson.

NOES_64.
Adams
Allen

ABSENT_21.
Christianson
Crane
Francis
Green
Halliday
Hill
Johnson
Keith
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lund
Lewis
Miller
Raleigh
Richards
Ricks
Spencer
Thorne
Warrum
Whitney
Williams.

PAIRED_2.
Haynes    
Lemmon.

Mr. Maloney offered the following amendment:

Insert at end of section 1, the following:

Whenever a disagreement or controversy arises which cannot be settled by conciliation or mediation, the same shall be sent to the board of labor, conciliation and arbitration for settlement, and arbitration by the parties in interest and the decision of the said board shall be final and shall be enforced by the court in whose jurisdiction it occurs. Pending such arbitration proceedings no employeshall be discharged. Whenever receivers appointed by the State or federal courts are in possession are control of railroads, their employesshall have the right to be heard in court upon all questions affecting them through the officers and representatives of their associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated. No reduction of wages shall be made by such receivers without the authority of the court after due notice to such employes[*note*].

Mr. THATCHER. Mr. President, I am not able to vote for that article as a whole, but inasmuch as it contains the virtue of striking against blacklisting, I would vote for the whole provision rather than lose that. I know individuals now who last year took part in the great strike, who were discharged because they used their rights as American citizens to try to protect themselves. I know of individuals who went to Canada because they were discharged and a blacklist followed them there_followed them back into the United States on the Northern Pacific railroad, and it is impossible for them to get employment in this country, and they are preparing to go to Mexico. I am in favor of any provision which shall say once for all that corporations shall not follow American citizens as bloodhounds once followed the escaping slaves. [Applause.] And for that reason, I shall vote against the striking out of this provision. I shall vote in favor of the provision, although it is crude. I think it could be amended.

Mr. JOLLEY. You mean that you would rather sustain the article as it is here than to vote for the striking of it out, is that it?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir; I will vote for it because it has that one virtue in it.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. A motion to strike the whole article out is not in order. That motion would properly come up upon the question as to whether we should adopt the article or reject it upon the final vote.

The PRESIDENT. I think the point {1169} of order is well taken, although we have gone over a good deal of ground in connection with it.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. I did not desire to take up the time of the Convention, but you can see very well that as fast as one is done away with, if another is permitted to come in, as it has been doing, perhaps the motion to strike out would not be reached to-day at all. Now, I submit to you that when there is an amendment made to any article and that

has been amended and the vote begun to be taken on that amendment, it must continue until they reach back to the original article. Then it is subject to amendment.

Mr. SQUIRES. We are considering this article, and if there is not a constitutional majority it will certainly be stricken out.

The PRESIDENT. We have got back to the original article and amendments are in order.

Mr. EVANS (Utah ). Will you be kind enough to explain what becomes of the motion to strike out? My contention is and my point of order is this, that the motion to strike out is not a simple amendment. That was amended by the gentleman from Weber and that has been voted upon. My contention is then the amendment which proposes to strike out should be voted upon. Then the article is susceptible of being amended and also an amendment to the amendment again, but not until.

The PRESIDENT. The chair will entertain any motion looking to the perfection of this.

Mr. ROBERTS. Is it the decision of the chair that the motion to strike out is not now in order?

The PRESIDENT. The chair rules that the effort to perfect the article was in order and amendments should be received.

Sections 2 and 5 were read.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I wish to amend by adding a fifth paragraph to section 5, as follows: “The Legislature shall protect employesfrom political and commercial control.” I stated my reasons for such a provision the other day, and it is unnecessary now to review them, as I think all the members are here now that were here then. If we do anything at all for labor, I think we should first liberate it from political and commercial control. That is the object of that amendment.

The amendment of Mr. Ryan was agreed to.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, I move in section 5 to strike out in line 5, “discrimination in wages on account of sex.” It is inoperative. It would be impossible to make that operative.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to strike out. I think we have just as much right to place this provision in as many others that are contained, and I believe there is a reason for it. There has been in almost all ages a discrimination on account of sex, not because of the difference in work, not of the difference in the amount performed, but simply because of sex. There are instances in this Territory where parties at the present time contract for certain kinds of work. I would instance the case of tailors, where clothing has been manufactured or made, by tailors, and where there has been a discrimination on account of the sexes that were employed. The articles made are sold to the public without a difference in price. The work is performed just the same by the lady tailors as by the men tailors, and yet there has been a difference in the price.

There has been, too, at different times and in some places, a difference in the amount paid to those who were engaged as typesetters, and in different employments, and this provision is intended to prevent anything of this kind. It does not aim to regulate what shall be paid to employeswhen they work side by side, simply because one is {1170} a man and the other is a woman, that they shall receive the same wages, it does not attempt any such thing as that, but it does provide that where a man and a woman work side by side and perform the same work that they shall receive the same pay and that no discrimination shall be made.

Mr. VARIAN. Does the gentleman understand that this Convention or any legislative body has a right to determine the principles of contract between citizens, and say that you shall or shall not discriminate in the matter of wages between employes[*note*]?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I think that the Convention has the right to say that as between two persons who perform the same work equally well, there shall not be a discrimination because one happens to be a woman and the other a man. I think we have that right.

Mr. GOODWIN. Is not that already disposed of in another article, where it brings women down to the level of men? What is the use of duplicating it? I shall favor the striking out, unless there is an amendment added that if this goes the girls shall pay for half of the ice cream and soda water.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will please send up his amendment in writing.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, the gentleman from Salt Lake might just as well undertake to make the wages of all men equal as to undertake to make the wages of women equal with men; it cannot be done; it is inoperative. The supply and demand will govern the question and it cannot be regulated in any other way.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Preston, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 46 ayes to 22 noes, the amendment was agreed to.

Sections 7, 8, and 10 were read.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I move that section 10 be stricken out.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. Kearns offered the following as an additional section:

Eight hours shall constitute a day's work on all works or undertakings carried on or aided by the State, or municipal governments, and the Legislature shall pass laws to provide for the health and safety of employesin factories, smelters, and mines.

Mr. KEARNS. That covers it. I accept the amendment of Mr. Jolley.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, that motion is not in favor of laboring men, to give them eight hours' labor in a day, because they will only get eight hours' pay and they cannot live on eight hours' pay, or at least prosper on it, in this country. I have never been able to do it. I am a laboring man, with the best of laborers; I do not care where they come from or what country they come from, and I have not been able to get along with eight hours' work in a day, nor they cannot unless they wish to continue to be laborers all the days of their lives and never rise to the dignity of proprietors in any kind of business. If they wish to be serfs in the land, then let them be confined to eight hours' labor and get eight hours' pay. That is all they will get; it cannot be done.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment interjected by the gentleman from Sanpete County, that is, that it may mean counties as well as cities, for the reason that no doubt that would govern poll tax, and one thing that we need more especially than another is better roads in our new State, and I think that the poll tax payer had just as soon work ten hours as eight; in order to keep up with the advancing prosperity we want good roads.
{1171}
Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, we cannot get our people in Sanpete to put in more than eight hours good solid work on poll tax, and there is no reason for asking them to do it.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. President, I hope that this section will prevail. It is the custom in all the late constitutions that eight hours is a day's work in all county and municipal works of that kind. And poll tax that the gentleman refers to, If he puts in eight hours for the pay that is in it he would be satisfied.

Mr. CREER. I have put in ten hours.

Mr. KEARNS. I hope the section will prevail.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. President, I favor the eight hour labor on the ground that there is not enough of labor for those that want to be employed. That is one good, sound reason, in my opinion. There is not enough labor in the country for the working men to-day, and it is a good proposition to divide it so that all may have a chance to get an opportunity. Permit some to work ten or twelve hours a day when the others cannot work an hour a day_for that reason I favor the proposition.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I hope this motion of Mr. Kearns will prevail; I think it is a good provision and should be adopted.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, I hope it will not prevail for the very reason that Mr. Morris says, that there is not labor enough to go around. Leave it with the Legislature and when there is plenty of labor, why, then let it go around.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I think I will have to take issue with our working friend, Mr. Eichnor. I hardly agree with him. I am afraid he makes a mistake. I am afraid he conceives something that he thinks is working, but if he had to apply it, he would discover that he had made a mistake. Now, gentlemen of this Convention, I am not going to say it, egotistically or braggingly[*note*], but I say I am a working man. I was brought up a worker, I was reared on a farm, and I came with the ox teams over the plains before the railroad was built. I have filled every position in a mine from a shoveler in the day rate to the manager and owner of property. I do not believe in my time that I ever came in contact with a man that I believed could do a better day's work than I could. That is a manual day's labor. Now, Mr. President, when any gentleman stands upon this floor and tells you that eight hours as a uniform day's labor is a proper thimg [*note*], he just simply does not know what he is talking about. I say to you; Mr. President, that there are different classes of work; I say to you, Mr. President, that men come to me daily for employment, that beg me to give them twelve hours a day's work in preference to eight. Why? Because that twelve hours a day labor is a different proposition from eight hours. We have got eight hours in our mines, we have ten hours in our mines, and we have twelve hours in our mines. Our engineers as a rule running machinery all work twelve hours and they are willing to take it. Why? Because you could not have a ten hour shift. Your machinery must run continuously, you cannot afford to put three engineers on.

Mr. KEARNS. This does not apply {1172} to your engineers at all. This is just public works_State buildings.

Mr. JAMES. Well, the public works have engineers.

Mr. KEARNS. You are speaking of your own men.

Mr. JAMES. You hamper the operation of your public works in that manner of dealing with a day's labor. Now, I want to say to the gentlemen here that are trying to legislate in the interest of labor, that they are very apt to overdo this thing. I do not permit any man to be any more of a friend to labor than I am. I have been a friend of labor because I was brought up in it. I have not only worked at it, but I have been the employer of labor for the last thirty years. Now, you can go to Omaha and have a lesson of what you are trying to do in this Convention to-day. Two years ago the municipality of Omaha passed an ordinance compelling eight hours a day's labor. My friends, it caused almost a riot in that town in a short time. The laboring men said they would not stand it, or would not submit to it; why, because, as the gentleman has said here, a little while ago, on this floor (Mr. Preston), they got eight hours' pay and they were not permitted to work any longer. Why, it is in the interest of the employer of men every time to have eight hour a day

men. Why, it is like the machinery, if you have a piece of machinery that you have got to crush right up to its very utmost that it is put there to do, does not that machinery soon work out? On the other hand, if you have machinery there to do that work that one-half its capacity will perform the labor, won't that machinery hold up? But here you take your eight hour a day man and of course he feels like playing half the time, You pay him for only eight hours and the result is he does a good deal better eight hours' work for you than if he is working ten, and I tell you my friends, if you go up here among these men and put the question to them in that shop and ask them if they prefer to work eight hours a day and get eight hours' pay or work ten hours a day and get ten hours' nay, the laboring man will say to you right straight, “I prefer to have my choice about this thing; I prefer to do as I please about it.” That is what the laboring man will say to you, Mr. President, and this very effort in behalf of the laboring man is simply to his disadvantage.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I have been a working man. I have worked eight hours and I have worked more. My experience is altogether different from the man that has just spoken. I belong to labor unions. I never belonged to one yet that did not want eight hours for a day's work, and any man that hires labor and will keep watch of his labor will find out that he will get better work for his money at eight hours than he will at ten.

Mr. JAMES. I think that is so.

Mr. BUTTON. And he will find another thing that is different from what the gentleman has just said. He will be paid for ten hours' work although he only works eight. And I am in favor of the section and am going to vote for it. I have lived in New York state where they have the eight hour law, and never saw a riot over eight hours a day work. There may be riots over ten. We have never had a strike yet because the employer wanted. to cut it down to eight hours. There is more where they are trying to make it ten.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I certainly want to add my testimony in favor of the eight hour a day system. It has been my experience that men will do just as much work if not more in eight hours than they will in ten, and I do not pretend to ask men to work longer than eight hours. When they work eight hours they have done more than their share of the world's work.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. President, in regard to my friend, Mr. James_according to the statement of himself and {1173} many more on the floor here, they are the finest body of working men I was ever in in my life. They all tell of their qualifications as working men. Now, I judge from the standpoint of himself, he could always satisfy himself with eight hours a day. I think if I should tell you my good qualities as a working man you would laugh the same as you did at what he says. I was always a working man until I came here and turned out to be a politician. I was always a working man, and I maintain I can do as much in eight hours as I want to. He talks about his men playing when he works them ten hours; I believe they would, because he could not stay and watch them ten hours. That is too long for a man to sleep, and I hope this section will be put in.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it seems to me this section only applies to public works, and the real argument in favor of the section proposed is that it gives a chance for the public to

employ mare of the citizens than it would on the longer hours. I believe it is universal with the laboring men that on public works eight hours constitutes a day's work, and I shall vote for the provision.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I suggest the quickest way for the members to get themselves on record on this question_that seems to be all they want to do is to have the roll called on this section and let them vote aye or no.

The roll being called on the adoption of the section offered by Mr. Kearns, the result was as follows:

AYES_79.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Francis
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Hart
Haynes
Halliday
Heybourne

NOES_11.
Barnes
Cunningham
Farr
Hammond
Hughes
James
Lowe, Wm.
Maughan
Preston
Sharp
Snow.

ABSENT_16.
Hill
Johnson
Keith Kerr
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lewis
Lund
Miller
Raleigh
Richards
Ricks
Spencer
Thorne
Warrum
Whitney.

Amendment adopted.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I desire to offer a new section as follows:
{1174}

Section 12. The Legislature shall provide for the abolishment of the contract system as applied to public works, and all such works shall be done under the supervision of the State or the political subdivision thereof that is having the work performed.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, Mr. Squires referred to that idea or that section that had been proposed to the committee. It was not proposed to the committee, but the committee was loaded

down with a number of propositions and we expected or anticipated a great deal of trouble with the article which we had presented and we were not mistaken in our anticipations. I favor the original section.

The question being taken on the section offered by Mr. Squires, the Convention divided and by a vote of 27 ayes to 38 noes, the section was rejected.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I offer the following amendment to section 5, to take the place of subdivision 2, line 5:

The employment of youths under eighteen years of age in occupations dangerous to limb and life.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I had no such object in view. The idea was that boys under the age of eighteen as a rule have not judgment matured enough to handle machinery whereby the lives of other people are put in danger. As an illustration, the putting of young boys on street cars in this city. I had no thought of shutting any boy out in the world, but perhaps there is a feature in that that I ought to have given more consideration to. I was thinking of the owners of dangerous machinery employing boys where the public or some portion of the public are put in danger. I do not know, but the objection raised is good.

Mr. MALONEY. Why not say fourteen years of age instead of eighteen?

Mr. GOODWIN. Well, that does not weigh, because I do not think any one would so employ a boy under fourteen years of age.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. President, would not this prevent a boy from running a mowing machine or working around a threshing machine, and all such things as that?

Mr. GOODWIN. No; I do not think so. It might prevent a boy riding a mustang.

Mr. WINS. Mr. President, I employ a large number of boys down on my ranch, and the best broncho riders I have are young fellows, and I should dislike to be deprived of their services, and they would very much dislike being deprived of the opportunity of making thirty dollars a month.

Mr. GOODWIN. Under the remarks of the gentlemen I am satisfied there will be enough boys killed. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I move the article do now pass.

The PRESIDENT. There is a motion of Mr. Roberts to strike out the whole article that is properly before the house.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer to take the place of section 9, that was stricken out yesterday. I believe that that was an important matter and I think that a great many members of the Convention think so, but they voted against it on the ground of expense.

The same was read as follows:

Section 7. The secretary of state shall collect statistics and information on the subject of emigration, agriculture, and labor, its relation to capital, earnings of labor, men and women, and means of promoting their material, social, intellectual, and moral prosperity, and other statistics of general information.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the gentleman if he expects the secretary of state to undertake that on fifteen hundred dollars a year.

Mr. STREVELL. I was in favor of giving the secretary about twenty-five hundred dollars. He will have a chief clerk.

Mr. ROBERTS. The Constitution does not do it.

The amendment of Mr. Strevell was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on the motion of Mr. Roberts to strike out the entire article.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order on that. This article is on its third reading_its final passage, a motion to strike out simply accomplishes what would be accomplished by a negative vote on the article. If the motion to strike out shall not prevail, then we would have to go on and take the same vote in a different form over again. The only question now before the house is, unless there is some amendment to be offered to the several sections, the calling of the roll upon the third reading and final passage.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that after the word labor the following words be re- inserted:

It shall be the duty of such board to endeavor by mediation and conciliation to effect a settlement of difficulties between employer and employe[*note*].

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, possibly the gentleman is under a misapprehension of the reason and effect of the motion to strike out. If he will notice, commencing on line 7, he will see that the provision was that the board is required to hear and determine controversies which may be submitted by either of the parties. As that provision stood, the employer could compel a submission of the controversy. And if it should be constitutional in the full sense_if this Convention has power to enact that (which I deny), it would not have been a board of arbitration at all. It would have been simply a board of control which could be put in motion by either party. The very name of arbitration would be inconsistent with such a board as that.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am opposed {1176} to that motion to insert those words, for the reason that it undertakes to define what the duties of this board shall be. Now, I am opposed to attempting at this state of the development of labor and capital to determine just how this matter may be. I am afraid the construction would be that the Constitution, having attempted to define the duties, that the Legislature could not add other provisions. I am afraid that the construction would be that you could not require compulsory arbitration, and we may, later in the development of this question, see that that is the wise thing to do, and the only way to effectually do anything in conciliating matters between capital and labor.

Mr. SQUIRES. May I ask the gentleman a question? Does he have an idea that such a thing as compulsory arbitration can ever be obtained?

Mr. HART. Well, that matter is. in a state of uncertainty yet. I do not know but what it may. As it now stands, if both parties have to consent to the matter_if one refuses, why the whole thing is useless. It may be that that will be the only solution of the question between capital and labor.

Mr. SQUIRES. It would then have to be in the courts, not before an arbitration board.

Mr. HART. Well, in the court and then an arbitration board having certain powers.

The motion of Mr. Squires was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move the secretary re-number the article and transpose sections

10 and 11 so that 10 will come last.

The motion was agreed to.

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

AYES_78.
Adams    
Allen    
Anderson    
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Coray
Corfman
Crane
Creer
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Farr
Francis
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Hammond
Hart
Haynes
Halliday
Howard
Hughes
Hyde
Ivins
James
Jolley

NOES_13.
Barnes
Cunningham
Heybourne

ABSENT_15.
Clark
Cushing
Hill
Johnson
Keith
Miller
Raleigh
Richards
Spencer
Thorne
{1177 - TAXATION AND REVENUE}
Kimball, Weber     
Lewis            
Lund
Warrum
Whitney.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I desire to state that the article is so mutilated that I can hardly recognize its originality and I shall have to vote no.

The PRESIDENT. The article on labor has been adopted.

The committee on rules presented the following report:

Committee Room.

MR. PRESIDENT:

Your committee on rules herewith report resolutions 74 A and 75 B, with the recommendation that rule eleven be amended by adding after the word “Convention,” in the fourth line of the rule, the following:

“And no member shall speak longer than fifteen minutes on any one question;” and that rule twenty be amended by adding after the word “another,” in line 8 of the rule, the following:

“Provided, the time of any member shall not be extended more than fifteen minutes.”    

VARIAN,

Acting Chairman.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article entitled revenue and taxation.
Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, the word “mixed” was stricken out of the 8th line and the word “and” inserted between the words real and personal.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, I move to amend section 2, in line 17, by striking out the words, “if any there be.”

The amendment was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I move to re-insert the words stricken out the other day, in line 12, “municipal corporations. That would conform to the idea expressed and agreed to the other day.

The amendment was agreed to

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). Mr. President, I move as an amendment, to strike out the words “his, her, or its,” in line 8 of the section, and insert the word “their.” I think this is somewhat cumbersome.

Mr. CANNON. That would be ungrammatical and it would be a matter for the committee on compilation and arrangement.

The PRESIDENT. There is no second to it.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. BUYS. I would like to ask the chairman what is the meaning of the language, “and all machinery used in mining and all property and surface improvements upon or appurtenant to mines and mining claims, which have a value separate and independent of such mines and mining claims.” I want to know whether the intention was to exempt all mining machinery and improvements from taxation_whether that was the intent of it and whether it would do so.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 were read.

Mr. CORAY. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee how much property is there that has not been taxed heretofore what is the estimated value of it_mines and mine improvements?

Mr. CANNON. It is almost impossible to ascertain that. We could not arrive at an accurate estimate, but it would probably reach in the neighborhood of from two to four million dollars.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 were read.
{1178}
Mr. VAN HORNE. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee whether the term “personal property owned or used” is intended to cover temporary use such as special cars that are forwarded for the purpose of one shipment and would be used by a corporation?

Mr. CANNON. Answering the gentleman, I would suppose that this would not apply to property of that kind, but cars that are used continuously even if they belong to corporations in the east, the design would be to tax them, but that is not the only class of property. Money might be used by corporations which is borrowed_that is permanently used.

Section 12 was read.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to strike out that section. It is pure legislative matter.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I trust this motion will not prevail. It was argued at length yesterday. I do not want to take up the time of the Convention. I think this well worth the consideration of the Convention and it will save to the State something like three thousand dollars a year and unless it proves to be bad, I think it should remain. It can easily be changed by the Legislature if necessary.

Mr. ELDREDGE, It simply provides until the Legislature shall otherwise provide, so that the entire matter is left in the hands of the Legislature. Therefore, it might just as well be stricken out.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I desire to offer an additional section, to be designated section 14, as follows:

“Section 14. Taxes shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.”

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I do not want to discuss it all. I simply want to vote upon it.

Mr. VARIAN. That is simply declaring a general principle, is it not?

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the question is, if you lay it on the table whether it would not take the article with it, under the rule. I think if there is any controversy on that point, we had better vote directly on the adoption or rejection of the proposition.

Mr. EICHNOR. That is what Mr. Evans wants.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No. I do not want to do that. It would do it, however. Gentlemen have no right to impugn my motives about that. I simply want to declare that I do not want taxes levied or collected except for public purposes.

Mr. VARIAN. Can taxes be levied for any other than public purposes now?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I think not, but it is expressed in so many of the constitutions and is left out of this one, and I think it ought to be expressed in this. If the vote to table carried, of course the whole article will go with it. Mr. Eichnor is mistaken about me, because I do not want to carry the article with it.

Mr. EICHNOR. I say you want the vote on the proposition direct.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is all. I do not want to discuss it at all.

The motion of Mr. Button was withdrawn.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I now move the adoption of the section which I proposed and to designate it section 14, and ask that the ayes and noes be called.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, this is simply a declaration of what the law is anyhow. I do not know any other construction to be put upon it_that taxes must be levied for public purposes. I see no objection to putting it in the Constitution, but on the other hand, I see no reason for putting it there.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask the gentleman who introduced this a question. Is the purpose, Mr. Evans, to prevent payment of bounties?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That question {1179} of bounties has rung in my ears ever since I have done anything in this Convention.

Mr. CANNON. I ask the question.

Mr. CANNON. Would it affect the payment of bounties?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If it does affect the payment of bounties, I hope it will carry.

The roll being called on the adoption of the section proposed by Mr. Evans, of Weber, the result was as follows:

AYES_36.
Barnes
Boyer
Buys
Call
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Francis
Hammond
Hart
Halliday
Howard
Ivins
Kiesel
Kimball, Salt Lake
Lemmon
Lowe, Wm.
Low, Cache
Maeser
Maloney
Murdock, Wasatch
Nebeker
Partridge
Peters
Preston
Roberts
Robertson
Robison, Wayne
Sharp
Snow
Thatcher

NOES_45.
Allen
Anderson
Bowdle
Button
Cannon
Chidester
Christianson
Coray
Crane
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Farr
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Heybourne
Hill
Hyde
James
Jolley
Kearns
Lambert
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lowe, Peter
Maughan
McFarland
Morris
Moritz
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Summit
Page
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete
Ricks
Robinson, Kane
Ryan
Shurtliff
Squires
Stover

ABSENT_25.
Adams
Brandley
Clark
Cushing
Driver
Haynes
Hughes
Johnson
Keith
Kerr
Kimball, Weber
Lewis
Lund
Mackintosh
Miller
Pierce
Raleigh
Richards
Spencer
Symons
Thorne
Warrum
Wells
Whitney
Williams.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, I have a substitute here for section 5. I would like it read and would like the floor for a few minutes to speak upon it.

The same was read as follows:

All mortgages secured on either real or personal property shall be taxed; a reduction equal to the amount of such mortgage shall be made in the assessed value of the property covered thereby.

The point of order was sustained.

The PRESIDENT. That was in committee of the whole. This is in the Convention. I think the thing is perfectly in order.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, while I realize that it is somewhat legislative {1180} matter, yet I realize by placing that article in the Constitution, it would be a material help to thousands of poor people that are now in Utah Territory. We have been living in days of prosperity in the past for many years until the last two years. We have found ourselves_thousands that have our homes mortgaged, personal property mortgaged, and there has been a shrinkage in property and valuation of at least fifty per cent., until to-day people are almost unable to find the wherewith to pay their taxes, and while the money that they have borrowed_the men that own it are exempt from helping to bear that burden.

This is simply equalizing that burden, taking a portion of it from the poor man that has got to-day possibly fifty or seventy-five per cent. of all that he owns mortgaged, and is paying taxes on all that he owns, and the money that he borrowed too, and yet within the last two years has lost fifty per cent. of all that he does own, and they are laboring and struggling, but it is life and death financially, and if we are here, as we have been to-day, in the interest of the laborer and the poor, I think that we could not do them a greater favor than to have that inserted in the Constitution. It would be a boon which would be a great help. It would be an encouragement to them that to-day are unable to keep body and soul together. This is all that I have to say. I trust it will receive consideration here before you vote it down.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I do not wish to occupy a moment's time de bating this question, but to call atten-ton to the fact that it was precisely the same thing that was voted down yesterday by a vote of two to one. It amounts to just the same thing, and I hope that it will be voted down to- day. Now, I want to state while I am on my feet, if this question is going to be opened up for discussion again, there is a good deal to be said and we have a provision that we are ready to put in and substitute for that that will make mortgages taxable, as they are under the California system, but we do not want to enter into this debate. We are willing to leave it for the Legislature to determine, just as we left it yesterday. It is a fair proposition.

The substitute of Mr. Jolley was rejected.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. President, before calling the roll I want to call attention of the gentlemen to the fact that there is something wanted in section 11. We have outside of the general taxation of this city five or six special taxations. There is the light tax, there is the water tax, there is the sewer tax, there is the sidewalk tax, there is the street tax, and there is no end to the special taxes that we have outside of the general taxes until the people are eaten up with taxes and no end to it. I think there is something wanted in that section.

The PRESIDENT. There is no question before the house.

AYES_77.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christianson
Coray
Crane
Creer
Cunningham
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Lambert
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lemmon
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Low, Cache
Maeser
Maloney
Maughan
McFarland
Morris
Moritz
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Wasatch
Murdock, Summit
Page
Partridge
Peters
{1181 - PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS}
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah

NOES_3.
Corfman    
Nebeker
Sharp.

ABSENT_26.
Adams

The President declared the article adopted, and referred to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

During the roll call the following explanations were made:

Mr. JOLLEY. I will vote aye as far it goes, but it does not go far enough to suit me.

Mr. NEBEKER. Mr. President, in voting on this proposition, I want to explain my position. I believe in section 2. While the proposition is aimed to be left to the Legislature to tax mortgages I believe that the Legislature is silent upon that proposition that mortgages can be taxed under this article and I am not in favor of taxing mortgages, unless we go to the California provision, therefore I vote no.

On motion the Convention then, at 5:24 o'clock p. m., adjourned.