[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 Attewall Wootton, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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

File No. 376, signed by Andrew Funk and 35 others, from Brigham City, asking that woman's suffrage be submitted as a separate article to a vote of the people, by Gibbs of Box Elder, by request, was presented.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wish to make a motion, and before doing so it will be necessary to make a few remarks. The Convention will remember that when we passed section 4 of the article on elections it was left in such a manner that the election for judicial officers would be as a separate election_separate and apart from all other elections. Since this was passed, I believe that a great majority of the members have considered that it ought to be changed. I have heard a great many express themselves to this effect, and in order to do this I presume it will be necessary to suspend the rules and reconsider, and therefore I will make a motion that we now suspend the rules and reconsider section 4 of the article on elections, and section 4 only.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I do not believe that would be quite wise from the fact that there are so many absentees this morning. It would look something like taking snap judgment on those who are not present.

Mr. EICHNOR. It is not Mr. Allen's idea to press it to a vote this morning, I believe.

Mr. ALLEN. This will not interfere with the school elections in any way, nor with the municipal elections, but it will save the expense of this extra election. It was considered by those that favor the section as it was that it made the election non-partisan, but I have heard a great many of the members here express themselves to this effect, that they would not vote for a judge of {1288 - EDUCATION} another party to be judge of their district. I believe that if each one of us had to bring it to ourselves and say whether we would be willing to vote for a judicial officer of the other party, I do not believe that there is scarcely a man here that would think that he was willing to do it. Therefore, it would be useless in my opinion to try and make it non-partisan. And this extra expense is something worth considering, and if we have got a few thousand dollars to throw away every few years, why, let us give it to the schools, where it will do some good.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I hope that motion will be postponed until after the article on judiciary has been considered and adopted. I hope by that time my friend will see new light. Nearly all the lawyers are absent from the Convention, and some of them I presume would like to give their ideas before this thing is brought to a vote. In regard to the last remark of the

gentleman, I want to say that if two gentlemen are running for the office of judge and one of them is a republican and I thought he lacked the essential qualifications for a judge, either in character, or ability, or in the character of mind that he possessed, and the gentleman on the other side, a democrat possessed, those qualities, I should not hesitate one second to vote for a democrat, and I think I am perhaps as strong a partisan as anyone in the house. The very idea of that election of judges on separate day was to withhold that office out of politics. There are some republicans who would make good judges; there are some others whom I do not think would make very good judges, but possibly we might vote for them to retire them, and as bad as the democratic party is, there is occasionally a democrat who would make a first class
judge. It is the tendency of men to get on the bench politicians_men that run for a political office, that expect to put up assessments, to attend primaries, to rustle with the boys, and after this year, with the girls. I would keep the office of judge separate from all that. And certainly this motion this morning, inasmuch as there is no haste, and nearly all the legal profession are absent from the Convention, ought to be postponed. When the right time comes, I shall be glad to see it sprung and find out how this Convention stands, but not this morning.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think that this is a motion that is worthy of consideration. I think it would be well to leave it until some other time, and I therefore make a motion to lay the motion upon the table. It can be taken up by a majority vote at any time and considered.

The motion of Mr. Hart was agreed to.

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

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we were considering section 5 of the article on education and school lands. There are two motions before the house, one of Mr. Goodwin, that state normal school be added to line 8, after the word “stations.” The other motion is that of Mr. Thurman to strike out section 5.

Mr. MAESER. Mr. Chairman, although I am committed to the union of these both institutions, the university and the agricultural college, but as this has been voted down temporarily, I sustain Mr. Goodwin's amendment to take the state normal school out from that place, and put it where he has suggested it, for this reason, I am on principle opposed to normal colleges_normal training schools, being located in large cities. In normal training schools we are training teachers for our common schools. It is not only the knowledge that we require of them, and have to take into consideration, it is their Character, their moral standing, which {1289} is the greater part of their efficiency, because these teachers are expected to formulate or at least help formulate the character of the generation that is rising up.

If you place a normal college in a large city, where the young people of both sexes, after the exercises of the day are over, are not only entirely outside of the control of the professors and the faculty, but also are exposed to all kind of inducements, enticements, allurements, and influences of an exceedingly questionable nature, and wise governments have seen this point long ago, and

wherever it has been found possible normal colleges have been located in smaller places, where the students of that college can be kept under measurable control, so that not only their intellectual advancement can be taken into consideration under the care of their professors, but chiefly and more so their moral standing, the development of their character. I would sooner trust my child to the exposure and expose her to any infectious disease and trust to the skill of medicine, or the faith within me, to rescue them from the snatches of death, than expose my child to the influence of an immoral teacher. And the majority of the parents feel like that. In order to know this and have that security that the children of our people are under the influence and guidance of teachers that can be trusted, we must have their training in such localities where we have the assurance, to some extent at least, that the young people there are free from those allurements which great cities are full of, and therefore, I sustain fully, if the union of the two institutions, which I sustain for financial reasons only and absolutely and only on financial grounds_there is another reason why I advocate a union of these two institutions, except a financial reason; if the union can be effected, then I strongly sustain Judge Goodwin's amendment and would do my very best to have also the normal college separated from the university.

The motion of Mr. Goodwin was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now upon the motion to strike out the whole section.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, a great may of the delegates are absent, especially those more particularly interested in this particular section than any others, and I suggest to the committee that we pass for the time being and go on to section 6.

The CHAIRMAN. If their is no objection, we will pass that.

Section 6 was read.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, this section refers directly to the preceding one, and inasmuch as it will be necessary to amend it in case the preceding one should be stricken out, I suggest we pass on to section 7.

Mr. PIERCE. Why would it need to be amended? I do not see any reason why it should be amended.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I think, too, we should pass that for the reason that while the section as it now stands would refer to the university of Utah and all the colleges that it might comprise, yet we might have to amend this if the two institutions are kept separate.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, then, we will pass section 6.

Section 7 was read.

Mr. EICHNOR, Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for section 7, “If through neglect,

misappropriation, or any other contingency, any portion of the educational funds set apart in this article shall be diminished, or lost, the State shall replace such portion so diminished or lost.”

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I do not see anything accomplished by that section that is not accomplished in section 7. Section 7 provides that the State shall keep the funds intact; that is all that is accomplished by Mr. Eichnor's {1290} section. The purpose of section 7 is so that the State shall require its officers who handle the school funds to give proper bonds and that the State will assume the responsibility of suing upon the bonds.

Mr. EICHNOR. That is exactly what I am getting at. We want a constitutional guaranty that whenever this fund is diminished through any contingency whatever, the State will replace the fund, not only guaranteed them by the bonds and then suing on the bonds, when possibly the bondsmen are worthless. That is the point I want to reach.

Mr. PIERCE. What do you mean by the word “guarantee,” in line 7_if the State guarantees them, is not its credit back of it?

Mr. EICHNOR. It does not state how it shall be guaranteed. They might guarantee by the bonds and then sue on the bonds, and then the bonds are worthless. This is a provision that has been formed under enabling acts like ours. This substitute is a little different, but, gentlemen of the committee, it simply comes down to this, whenever the educational funds enumerated in this article are diminished through any contingency whatever, there is the constitutional provision that the State must replace the funds. There is the provision in plain Anglo-Saxon. There is no chance for a quibble.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the substitute for the reason stated by the chairman of the committee on education. If the State guarantees the school fund against loss, it makes no difference in what way the fund may be diminished. The State must make up whatever loss there may be, either through deflection or in any other way. And to specify the way in which the loss may take place and to state a way in which the State shall keep the fund intact, seems to me to be unnecessary. All we want is that the State shall guarantee the school fund against loss or diversion. I cannot see that the substitute covers any more ground than the section.

Mr. EICHNOR. Under section 7, how is it guaranteed? Why not say that immediately whenever there is a loss that the State will replace the fund? Then we are sure the fund will be safe through all the years to come.

Mr. KERR. I will answer that question by asking if it is not true that in this Constitution a provision is made that the State shall guarantee this fund against loss, that it is made mandatory upon the State to make up any loss without our stating the way in which it shall be done?

Mr. EICHNOR. Correct, Mr. Kerr; at the same time, does it not require a legislative provision in this to make section 7 operative, while the substitute gives us a constitutional guaranty that the fund will be replaced?

Mr. EICHNOR. That may be and may not. I am not on that committee, but if it is mandatory, you cannot force the Legislature to do it.

Mr. KERR. I would like to ask as to whether the substitute could be enforced without legislative enactment, any more than the original section?

Mr. EICHNOR. Well, Professor, if the Constitution guarantees it so plainly, if the Legislature wanted to violate the oath they take, why, of course, I presume they could do it.

Mr. BOWDLE. I want to ask Mr. Eichnor a question. Suppose the whole fund should be impaired and suppose that it should be drawn upon by the authorities and a portion of it used, which is prohibited here under your substitute, is it your idea that the State must replace that?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir; when the State lets this fund be diminished, through {1291} negligence, or any other way whatever, I say it is the State's duty to replace it, because that is what we get the allowance for from Congress; that is exactly the point.

Mr. BOWDLE. If that is the purpose of the substitute and if it will work to that end, in case the State lets it become depleted by using any portion of it_that the State will make it good, I would be in favor of it, but I cannot see it in that light, Suppose you used a portion of the principal for the purpose for which the interest is intended, that would be a diversion?

Mr. GOODWIN. May I ask Mr. Eichnor a question? Suppose you were to endorse on the back of a note, “I hereby guarantee the payment of the within note,” would it add any to the strength of the note to say, “and I will pay it myself if necessary.” [Laughter.]

Mr. EICHNOR. No.

The substitute was rejected.

Section 8 was read.

Mr. MAESER. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to section 8; strike out everything after the words, “public instruction,” on line 4, and substitute instead, “and such other persons as the Legislature may hereafter provide.” The reason for me making this amendment is, the section as it stands now takes the appointment and selection of these officers constituting the board of education entirely out of the hands of the people, placing it in hands entirely beyond the people's control. I would like to have the people to have a word to say in this matter, that concerns them so very much, and the Legislature could from time to time as our circumstances change, the population increases, either add to or diminish, as the case may be, and the circumstances require, the number of persons constituting that board of education. That is the reason why I did

not propose, in stating the number, leaving this also to the Legislature, so that from time to time that board of education may be as efficient as circumstances may require. I have considerable confidence in our Legislatures and a great deal of confidence in the people_in the sound judgment of the people. If mistakes are made, as they have been made and as they will be made again, they can easily be rectified naturally, but if it goes into the Constitution, it is a very difficult thing to rectify mistakes there.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of Mr. Maeser's amendment. This section was placed in the article at the urgent request of quite a number of people, but I find since examining the matter very carefully that they are not so particular about it as they were and it seems to me the section as it stands is rather too cumbersome, and it better be left to the Legislature. Of course, with Mr. Maeser's amendment, it leaves the superintendent of public instruction on the board. There is where he ought to be, and then leave the rest to the law.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to the amendment by striking out the word “hereafter.”

The CHAIRMAN. Will you accept it?

Mr. MAESER. Yes, sir.

The amendment of Mr. Maeser was then agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 were read.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to put in an amendment, insert the word “and,” so that it will read, “institutions for the deaf and dumb, and an institution for the blind.” The reason for this is that those two institutions have special grants made to them in the Enabling Act. As it is now stated, it would indicate that it is intended as one institution, whereas two separate grants have been made.

Mr. KERR. If the amendment prevails, it will be possible for the Legislature to unite these two institutions, will it not?

Mr. PIERCE. Yes; I understand that they can. They can be supported together, but the fund from the various {1292} lands must be used in the line of the grant, that is all.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out line 12 of that section, “secured by the State against loss or diversion.” We find in section 7 that all public school funds shall be guaranteed by the State against loss or diversion, I think that covers the question.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, that would hardly do, for this reason, that in the Enabling Act there are three different grants for educational, charitable, and penal institutions. I think it is a question

as to whether this school for the deaf, dumb, and blind, could be classed with the public educational system, and it seems to me that it would be better to leave the section in there as it is.

Mr. THORESON. With that explanation, I will withdraw it.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the word “secured,” in line 12, be changed to “guaranteed.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 1. After “law,” in line 2, insert, “and shall be located at Ogden, Weber County, Utah, provided that the city of Ogden furnish a site and necessary buildings free of cost.”

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by placing it in San Juan.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in support of this I wish to say that our people at Ogden are taking a keen interest in this institution, and we have a splendid site and necessary building, all of which we shall convey in fee simple, free, to the future State, as a gift from the city of Ogden, for the deaf, blind, and dumb. Now, I hope there will not be any one of you that will object to this, because this is a very generous offer.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would suggest as an amendment to that, instead of “free of cost,” that it read “without expense to the State.”

Mr. KIESEL. I will accept that.

Mr. BOWDLE. That would be a temporary matter, would it not? That it could be changed at any time by the city of Ogden. There is no fee to be given to the State under that provision; no property to be sealed to the State. It is simply to go over to Ogden, transfer their pupils, deaf, dumb, and blind, there, and Ogden is to furnish a place to take care of them; that is all there is of it. Now, if the gentleman will do something towards ceding to the State that property for that purpose, then, perhaps, I would not object.

Mr. KIESEL. I will second the motion to that effect.

Mr. BOWDLE. I am in favor of that proposition if that will be done.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it would be as well to leave that; it seems to me it is trenching upon the proper domain of that to deal with the question of the location of the institutions that are assigned to them by the very formation of the State. I favor consideration of the question, but it would have to come up in the proper way.

Mr. L. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be laid on the table.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that an institution is located and built for the deaf and dumb in this city, and I do not see the propriety of naming some other place. Hence, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to that going into this section for the reason that it seems to be a bargain_provided that something else is done that it shall be inserted in our Constitution. It does not seem to me it is finished. It ought, as a bargain, to be brought before the Legislature and see what they desire to do with it. It does {1293} not seem that we have any guaranty here when we use that word provided. I would ask with, Mr. Kiesel's consent, if he can make it absolute that the city will cede?

Mr. KIESEL. If you second my motion for it, I say that they will make it absolute.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, this thing has come upon me very suddenly, but I have no doubt in my mind but what the honorable gentleman from Weber, Mr. Kiesel, is fully prepared to guarantee all that he has promised in the name of the city of Ogden, and it seems to me that it is a very generous offer. We have been discussing the matter of no revenues during the last three or four weeks when this Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a State, and the buildings will be necessary for this institution. Ogden City has offered this site and building free of cost. I think it is only right that this committee should consider the generous offer from Ogden City and endorse Mr. Kiesel's proposition and vote unanimously to establish this institution in the junction city. I think it is only right. I think it is due to Ogden City that this thing should be consummated. She has rights and claims; her generosity has been second to none in all her gifts towards establishing enterprises in the past, and I am sure whatever Mr. Kiesel promises with regard to this matter will be fully established and Ogden City will guarantee all that he has said. And I hope that his amendment will prevail and that this institution will be established in Ogden City.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. I am opposed to this Convention entering into contracts with any local or sectional part of our State, by way of guaranty or otherwise in this manner. I think it is a very bad principle to introduce in our fundamental law, to say that by certain inducements or guaranties, we will establish any institution at any particular part of the State, but I would be willing in the course of my remarks_I suggest how I think it would be competent to amend this, that an institution for the blind shall be established and located as provided by law. That will leave it for the Legislature to locate it hereafter, but I think it is very bad practice indeed to say that we will enter into a contract or deal with Ogden City, or any other city of this new State, by way of guaranty or contract. I think it would he better to introduce that amendment, and therefore, if this should be voted down, I shall expect to offer that as an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand Mr. Bowdle does not intend to offer an amendment, therefore this would be in order.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, before I vote on this proposition, I would like to ask the gentleman from Ogden, Mr. Kiesel, if the city of Ogden is now in possession of a site and building which are appropriate for such purpose or whether it is all in the air and to be provided later, and then what guaranty the State would have that buildings such as would be absolutely in keeping with the business and purposes of this section would be provided by the city? I agree with the gentleman from Utah, we are hardly in a position to make a contract with the city of Ogden, or with any other city along this same line. If a matter like that is to be put through, it seems to me that the Legislature would be the proper medium of doing it. Now, if the gentleman has any definite information that he can furnish to the Convention I wish he would furnish it, so that I can have something to vote upon.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the gentleman's question, I want to say that there is a site in Ogden {1294} known as the military academy, some ten acres of ground, beautiful buildings, it is suitable, much more so than the present place which the children now occupy, and the site is well known to the parties now having charge of the deaf, blind, and dumb institution; they are highly in favor of it, and there is a pathetic appeal from those children to have that transfer made, because they have got large play grounds there_ten acres, all nicely planted and it is a beautiful building, containing some sixty odd rooms, with all the necessary outbuildings, gymnasiums, shops and nice parade grounds, and campus, dining rooms, school rooms, everything just up in modern style, they could not get anything better, The children have petitioned for it. They want it. They are familiar with it, and the gentlemen in charge of the institution want it, and hope you will not hesitate a moment, because you will never get such an offer again in the world.

Mr. GOODWIN. In what does the title to this property lie?

Mr. KIESEL. The title just now is in a corporation in Ogden, and who are willing to immediately deed to the city. I have control of it.

Mr. DRIVER. I have a few hundred dollars in it.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would like to state an amendment to see if those gentlemen will not withdraw theirs_that the institution shall be established by law at Ogden. There is no bargain in that. Mr. Kiesel has given his word that it shall be done.

Mr. KIESEL. Yes; you can take my word. I will enter into a bond.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I am a stockholder in that institution and I am willing to donate all I own in it.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would like to ask where this site is in Ogden?

Mr. SQUIRES. Out towards the warm springs?

Mr. KIESEL. It is within the city, perhaps two miles from the city hall, right on the street car line, with cars every fifteen or twenty minutes.

Mr. SQUIRES. In the direction of the warm springs?

Mr. KIESEL. In that direction, yes, sir.

Mr. BUTTON. I would like to know what the facilities are with regard to water at this place?

Mr. KIESEL. It has water works of its own, by gravity_plenty of water there for all purposes, and it is a model structure throughout. I think it cost thirty-five thousand dollars outside of the land.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am in favor of the proposition of Mr. Kiesel. When we went to Logan the other day, I was told by our present governor that he had investigated this subject somewhat and he called attention to a proposition which was made I believe to the last Legislature or the one before the last, that affected this very proposition, and from the manner in which the governor described this institution to me and its location, I think it would be one well fitted for the institution named.

Mr. GOODWIN. Was that description going up to Logan or coming back? [Laughter.]

Mr. CANNON. The description I will state was coming back. [Laughter.] And while it was painted in pretty glowing colors, I am satisfied that I got the true meaning of the gentleman and shall favor the proposition of Mr. Kiesel.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, if there is any doubt in regard to the proposition of Mr. Kiesel being made good, in the minds of the members, I will say that Fillmore is a very good situation for such an institution, and they have a building already erected {1295} there at a cost of about fifty thousand dollars_a permanent, solid, rock building, with a hall forty by sixty and some sixteen rooms below, and an upper story. The hall is located in the building, and it is a very good climate, situated in the center of the city_near the center of the public square, and it is a very healthy location, and the water is very good in that part and the building already belongs to the Territory, and will be ceded I presume to the State. With some little improvements it can be made a very suitable building for that purpose.

Mr. SQUIRES. How far is it from the railroad?

Mr. THOMPSON. It is about fifty-four miles, but the prospects are that in the near future we will have a railroad.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it was built in an early day, but it is as solid to-day as it was the day it was built. It is built rather on the ancient style, but a little expense will do it.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I understand this is all out of order. There is no motion to take this institution down to Fillmore. I want to say in regard to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Weber, Mr. Kiesel, that this question was before the last Legislature; it was very carefully considered by committees and in committees of the whole, and they saw fit to take no action upon it. Now, these statements made by Mr. Kiesel, I do not regard as determining anything. He says the people in charge of the deaf mute institute here want to go to Ogden. We do not know whether they do or not. I am opposed to taking action in an important matter of this kind without more information before this committee than we have. I say, in connection with this, and gentlemen from Ogden well know it, that at the last session of the Legislature I favored this transfer because of the proposition that was made and I believe it to be a good thing; I believe that it may be done and probably will be done, but I contend, gentlemen, that we have no information before us here sufficient this morning to act upon it, and I therefore am not in favor of all these amendments. I believe it ought to be left just as it is.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. Chairman, I know that the proposition which Mr. Kiesel makes is one which is made in good faith. He is that kind of a gentleman, who, when he make a proposition will stand by it, and always does. There will be no difficulty at all about this matter. I, however, rather favor the amendment offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Goodwin, and I believe that Mr. Kiesel himself would agree to it. It is shorter, and it does not partake of the essence of making a contract in a Constitutional Convention, but simply fixes the locality where the institution is to go, and not only that, but it leaves it with the Legislature to establish it as provided by law, and if the Legislature should be convinced that the offer which was made in this Convention by Mr. Kiesel would not be fulfilled, the institution probably would not go there, but I know that all these propositions stated by Mr. Kiesel are in good faith. I have heard him talk about it many times. The military academy now is abandoned and the house is not being used for any purpose, and Ogden is desirous of making some use of that building. Mr. Kiesel is one of the largest owners in the building. He controls it, and he can do just what he says he will do. While I do not like the making of contracts in a Constitutional Convention, I believe that such contracts made by the Legislature are for the benefit of the State, and if I had my own way about it, I should locate nearly all these public institutions just in that way. That is to say, the locality that receives these institutions, {1296} whether the deaf, dumb, and blind, whether it be the capitol, whether it be the university, or any other new institution to be established, I think the locality that receives the benefits ought to do more than the people at large. For that reason, when any proposition of this kind should come up in the Legislature I think it ought to be carefully considered. There is nothing improper about making such a contract there, but I would not like to make it here. I would like to ask Mr. Kiesel if he would not favor the amendment made by Mr. Goodwin?

Mr. KIESEL. Yes; I am entirely in favor of it.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I think the matter that we have under consideration is one that we should think at least once about before we act. It involves considerable of a question. I am acquainted with the grounds in Ogden referred to, and have no doubt whatever but what every obligation that the gentleman from Weber has proposed here would be literally fulfilled if this Convention should feel like accepting his amendment.

The Legislature made a visit to Ogden last winter and looked over the situation there, and it was under consideration as to whether they should not secure the site proposed at that time to be given to the Territory and move the reform school on to that ground and take the two buildings situated on the ground where the reform school is now, for the deaf mutes and blind, and if all the institutions are going to be kept up, in my judgment, it would be a very excellent thing to accept the gentleman's proposition, if we were not in a Constitutional Convention, but in a Legislature. But the question arises here, there are a number of public institutions to be located, and shall we put them up and barter them off by auction or shall we take into consideration the locations that would be adapted for these particular purposes and the wants and necessities for establishing them where in our judgment we might see fit. Here is the location of a state capitol. There is to be a location of a territorial asylum, and of a university and of an agricultural college, and this that is under consideration, and shall we establish a precedent here that we are going to put these up at auction in order to determine the location, or shall the location be determined in the interests of the entire commonwealth, and according to the judgment and the discretion of the representatives of the people?

I appreciate the gentleman's liberality from Ogden, and as I say, I feel sure that he would fulfill it, but is it consistent and reasonable that we should accept it on this occasion? In my judgment, I say not. If so, it would be just as reasonable to us to say who will give the greatest amount towards establishing a capitol, or any other public institution that we might wish to establish, as it would to accept this proposition. It is not drawing wealth from any other surrounding country. It is only taking it from the people of the commonwealth, whether it is distributed over the entire commonwealth or draws from one section of the Territory. And to this mode of proceeding, I am utterly opposed, and so let us fix them. It matters not where it may be, if it is in accordance with our best judgment, irrespective of how much this corporation or this company would give or that company would give. I am opposed to the amendment upon these grounds.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment to this section, and wish to give my reasons why I am opposed to it. One of them is that I do not think we ought to consider bids on these institutions. If we are going to consider bids I believe that Salt Lake City and Ogden will be able {1297} to get all of them, the agricultural college not excepted. I believe, and I think, that we ought to establish those institutions so that they would not be agitated in the future in relation to removal and location and so on, but I think if we will remember and go back a little ways we will find that Salt Lake City has had the university and this institution that we are now talking about.

I am informed that the reform school was accepted by Ogden in preference to the agricultural

college. Possibly I am wrongfully informed, but I have been informed by some gentleman on this floor, whose name I am not now able to remember, that understood the locations as they were made in times that are past. On the south, Utah County has an asylum. Now, there are the four largest counties in the Territory that have been dealt favorably with in relation to these State institutions. Sanpete County, although her vote was within sixteen as great as that of Cache, never has advocated for one of those institutions, up to the present time, while the chairman of the committee in the Legislature was from Sanpete County, and favored the location of the college at Cache County. But they wished to wait and come in their turn as being the fifth county, and I say, Mr. Chairman, we are not willing this morning that there shall be a second edition of these State institutions conceded to one of these four counties. We feel as though we have something to say upon this floor on this occasion, and we feel, although Sanpete has not offered to you a location for that institution and buildings equipped, we feel as though she has a right that should be considered here upon this floor, and we do not think that it is right for a county, because they have the means to offer those things, or for those things to be accepted and bartered off to the highest bidder. If so, I think that Weber County and Salt Lake County will be apt to get all those institutions. We have a beautiful climate, we have less wind in Sanpete County to-day than any county in Utah Territory. Our altitude is a little high, but the climate is very pleasant. We have for building material_we cannot be compared in Utah Territory for building materal [*note*]. Our fuel costs us but a fraction over half what it costs in Salt Lake City to-day. Our water is good. I am opposed to the amendments that are made, and I have an amendment here, if it was in order, I would like to hand in. As I stated, while Sanpete County has not these inducements to offer before you to-day, for that institution, she has been in the past always willing and ready to do her part equal to any other of the counties according to her capital, and she will in the future do so, but she feels as though to day it is her turn to be considered upon this floor when we come to talk about the fifth State institution to be conceded and located in any part of the Territory. My amendment is as follows:

And permanently located in Sanpete County, the exact place of location left to the votes of the people of said county.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all of these amendments. I do not think that this Convention should enter into any private contract with any person in this matter. I do not think it is right that we should do so. {1298} I do not think we ought to say any of these institutions shall be established permanently in this Constitution, but leave that for the Legislature. The Legislature may enter into a contract for the State if it sees fit, probably, and then proper arrangements might be made for the guaranties of the contract with the person or municipality who offered the bid, but I do not think that we ought to accept bids here for any locality for any of our public institutions. And I do not think that we should establish these institutions, but leave

the section as it is here in regard to these institutions. I think we should leave it as it is here and then it can be established as the Legislature may see fit. I am opposed to all the amendments.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of leaving the section as it is, for two reasons. In the first place the school is well situated now and in good order. It has the proper buildings and is in good running order. It is all right to leave it as it is until another Legislature meets. This Constitution will be voted upon in November, and there will be only two months before the next Legislature meets, if the Constitution is adopted. Within that time, if the people of Ogden have a proposition to make to the Legislature, they have sufficient time to do it and there is nothing lost. I think it unsafe and unwise to amend the section as stated.

Mr. L. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Ogden will not prevail. I hope that this committee will consider this matter carefully before they vote upon it. Now, I have a word to say in favor of Sanpete County. It is the heart of this Territory. It is a more central point than any other part or location of this Territory. We are away south of Salt Lake and of Ogden, but it is the central portion. We have got no public institutions there, and to vote to-day to send another public institution to Ogden, when they have got the reform school to- day, I do not think is in harmony with the ideas and views of the people of this Territory, to shut off other parts who are as much entitled to a boon of this kind as they are at Ogden. We have facilities in Sanpete which are very good, and a good climate, and good water, and I have no doubt if inducements were needed but what they will be forthcoming. I have none to offer at the present time, because it is a matter that has not been talked over or considered, or, as it were, discussed, but as I say, if inducements are what are wanted, Sanpete will offer inducements, but I do not think inducement ought to cut any figure in this question whatever. I believe that these public institutions should be located where the proper places are, and this should be left to the Legislature to do, that you let them select the places and divide up these institutions properly so that they give general satisfaction to the whole people and not put them to one side, all of them, and leave those as it were alone, without any of those institutions. This will not give satisfaction in my humble opinion, and I therefore appeal to the members of this committee to consider it carefully when they vote upon this. I hope it will not prevail. I am in favor of leaving the section as it now stands, and then leave it for the Legislature in future to divide up those institutions as best they may according to their wisdom.

Mr. MURDOCK ( Beaver). Mr. Chairman, that you might not overlook the best location, I desire to say a word. It is quite presuming to occupy the time of the committee, but hence, as there have been different locations pointed out in the different parts of the country, I wish to call your attention to the fact that Beaver County possesses to-day the best facilities for any institution that I know of, barring one item, and that is railroad communication. It is thirty-two miles from railroad communication {1299} at the present time. But aside from that, I have in my mind in Beaver the best place that can be found for an institution of this kind, or in fact for most any other institution that we have in our mind.

Mr. THURMAN. You have got your buildings already made?

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). And we have got the buildings already made, and we have got every

facility with the exception of the railroad communication, and that is Fort Cameron. It is suitable for any number of pupils of any institution, either agricultural or deaf mute or university, or any other institution that is necessary for the people to have in the community, and that is Fort Cameron. It has the buildings ready for the schools of any kind and the boarding houses for those that are there to take charge of the pupils. And so far as a stream of water is concerned, I want to say to-day that it has the best stream of water in Utah for its qualities_for its qualities, understand me. There are other fine streams, I realize, but when it comes to the quality of the water there is no stream in Utah that I know anything about that is equal to it, and it has a perfect forest up and down the stream and there is every facility that would make a lovely place for an institution of learning.

Mr. NEBEKER. Mr. Chairman, I do not come here with a proposition from Rich. I stand with Mr. Kiesel on this proposition, and I want to call attention of the gentleman from Sanpete and the gentleman from Beaver to the fact that if they leave this to future Legislatures, they want to keep their eyes on Rich, because Rich is liable to get away with the plum. We had better settle it now and give it to Ogden.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I submit that Judge Goodwin has made the only amendment to this section that ought to be considered. Mr. Kiesel has made a good bid, and gentlemen of the Convention, if you are ready to accept bids do not stop when you have just heard the first bid. We will bring you a bid from Sanpete, if bids are acceptable before this honorable body. That is, if you will give us two days' time.

Mr. THURMAN. Have all the time you want.

Mr. LUND. It would be very unwise to accept the first bid when you go into the bid business. There is one great advantage, though, perhaps of uniting it with the reform school. The deaf and dumb would not see nor they would not hear the had example of those that are in the reform school.

Mr. KIESEL. I beg pardon, they would be miles apart.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that we advertise for bids and adjourn for four months.

Mr. CANNON. Mr, Chairman, I simply wish to state my position on that. I do not want to be misunderstood. In approving the amendment stated by Mr. Kiesel, I do not wish to approve his offer or anything of that character. I simply desire to state from what I had heard that the site was suitable, not that his offer was acceptable or anything of that character.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the gentleman from Weber, Mr. Kiesel, i y able and willing to make good every proposition that he has made in relation to this school and taking it to Ogden. I know him to be a democrat. Democrats generally keep their word. [Laughter.] When it comes to speaking, as my young friend here from Sanpete says, why San Juan is strictly in it. [Laughter.] It would take me too long to enumerate the inducements that we would offer for this public teat to go to San Juan. The gold, the silver, the iron, the

Mr. PRESTON. The Indians.

Mr. HAMMOND. And the Indians thrown in. Now, let us take it to San Juan.
{1300}
The amendment of Mr. Creer was rejected.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Kiesel as modified, the committee divided, and by a vote of 18 ayes, noes not counted, the amendment was rejected.

Mr. Jolley then offered the following amendment:

And permanently located in Sanpete County, the exact place of location to be left to the votes of said county.

Mr. THURMAN. Which block?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I have one objection that occurs to me as fixing the location in Sanpete. I do not think it was an inspiration but it just occurred to me, our deaf mute and blind started into life under very great disadvantages. They had to be peculiarly industrious in order to attain the same measure of education that a man would who had all his senses. They could not be idle and do anything of that sort, and I remember reading in the good book that Ephraim was joined to his idols, and if it be there, I am afraid they would not succeed.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I desire, with the consent of my second, to withdraw the amendment that I made.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I trust that you will consider this amendment favorably. I believe this is the first time in the history of Sanpete County that she has asked for anything of the kind, and as I stated before, she has been willing in the past to concede to her older sisters those merits first, and as you are aware, we have other institutions here to locate, so there will be no county robbed that is her senior and her superior in number, but we have felt, and this is not under the impulse of the amendment that I make these assertions, but as a county we have felt that our turn would come in next in having a permanent location of one of the State institutions in our county, and I trust that you will now consider this amendment favorably
inasmuch as there will be, or is in the minds of the delegates at the present time, quite generally

that there should be a permanent location designated by this body of men for these State institutions that the unrest may be done away with in future time. We think that we ought to be favored at this time and we ask only from you as you would like in the same situation. I trust that you will vote one and all for the location of that institution or those institutions in Sanpete County.

The amendment of Mr. Jolley was rejected.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “law,” in the second line, and insert the words “this Constitution.” I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Convention should take hold of the question of the location of such of these institutions as we can locate now, and forever settle the question of the location of them. I think we should locate the institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind, the university, the agricultural college, and such institutions as we can locate.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to that motion for the reason that I cannot see what it will amount to. If we fix a permanent location there is no need for it, and if this Convention has decided not to fix that {1301} location, then it ought to be left in there, and I believe this Convention will decide that that location is to be fixed, but it will be left to the Legislature just as provided by the report of the committee, and I hope it will so be decided.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, I move that the location be in Beaver County, at Fort Cameron. There are more advantages_and I will call upon any man that has ever visited the place to bear me out in what I am going to say. There is not such a place in the Territory of Utah for every facility with the exception of the railroad communication, in every particular, barns, and buildings of every description, that can be taken possession of at once.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I bear testimony to what Mr. Murdock says {laughter] in regard to that matter. If I was not an honest man I would say, except Fillmore, Millard County, but I cannot conscientiously say that Fillmore, Millard County is ahead of Mr. Murdock's proposition and place. His place certainly beats any place that I have seen in Utah Territory for such an institution.

Mr. ROBISON (Wayne). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this whole matter. We have been discussing that now for two solid hours, and it does not amount to one straw. We should leave the whole thing to the Legislature, and I think we should dispense with this matter and proceed to business and lose no more time.

The motion of Mr. Murdock was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Now I suggest, gentlemen of the committee, that you change the reading of that section and say instead of “shall be established by law,” “are hereby established,” to save all question about that, and let the subsequent orthography of institution wherever it occurs be put in the plural.

Mr. VARIAN. I suggest that in accordance with that suggestion it read this way, “Institutions for the deaf, dumb, and blind are hereby established,” and let the word “institution,” in line 10 of page 4, read “institutions.” That can be corrected by the committee on compilation.

Mr. HART. Would not it be well to leave the words “for the” in there also, so that it will read, “Institutions for the deaf, dumb, and for the blind are hereby established?”

Mr. VARIAN. I will write it out.

The CHAIRMAN. We will consider section 11 while Mr. Varian is preparing his amendment.

Sections 11 and 12 were read.

Mr. Varian offered the following amendment to section 10:

Strike out line 1 and line 2, and insert so that it will read, “Institutions for the deaf and dumb and for the blind are hereby established.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I now ask that section 2 be taken up that was passed the other day. I offer this amendment in accordance with the discussion the other day: add at end of section the following, “Provided that high schools may be maintained free in all cities of the first and second class now constituting school districts, and in such other cities and districts designated by the Legislature, but where the proportion of school moneys apportioned or accruing to any city or district shall not be sufficient to maintain all the free schools in such city or district, high schools shall be supported by local taxation.” I ask leave to withdraw the amendment I offered the other day and substitute this in its {1302} place. This seems to cover all the objections that were raised. It means just this, that every city or district shall be entitled of course to its proportion of the school moneys arising from the general taxation and from any other source that it may be provided for, and such city or district may use that money so apportioned, and the entire district for the maintenance of the whole system, but where it shall be insufficient to provide for the whole system, then and then only shall the high school be maintained by local taxation.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I submitted an amendment to that section, providing for local taxation for the support of high schools. I now withdraw that, as this amendment covers the ground.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, this seems to meet the objection raised by some gentlemen on this question. But it hampers the Legislature in one respect wherein I think it ought not to be

hampered. The time might come in Utah that even our high schools might be supported by public taxation. And this amendment has a proviso to it that it must be by local taxation if the ordinary fund is not sufficient. I am inclined to vote for the amendment, but I shall oppose hampering the Legislature.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the amendment that is proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake. My only opposition to his proposition in the first place was on account of the uncertainty to the distribution of the school fund. I think that uncertainty is entirely removed and I would have no opposition to the high school system on which I made my objection in the first place. I think now it is clearly referred to each district to say how their fund shall be used. If they want to use a portion of it for high school purposes and raise an additional fund by local taxation, they have that right.

Mr. JOLLEY. I want to ask Mr. Varian a question. How would it be known whether there would be a deficiency? For instance, here in Salt Lake City in the past you would have out of the school fund enough to run high schools. In the far out districts and scattered settlements, where there are but a few in a place, even up to the present time, they have not been able to have the school during the whole year; where could that point be drawn?

Mr. VARIAN, The gentleman is mistaken. We never had money enough here to run high schools or the public schools. We have had local taxation and we have had to borrow money.

Mr. JOLLEY. Partially, I mean.

Mr. VARIAN. I will say my design was to leave the matter so that the outside districts can do as they please. We do not want to tread upon their toes in this matter. I drafted that as nearly as I could in accordance with the suggestion made by the different members that we might have this proviso, leaving it open to the Legislature from time to time as occasion might warrant to provide for high schools in other districts when they want them there. It seems they do not want them there now and are not able to keep them up.

Mr. THURMAN. Do you understand that any Legislature in the future, if they find the State has ability to support high schools by taxation generally, can provide for them?

Mr. VARIAN. I have not considered it from that standpoint. My mind was directed entirely to the objections made.

Mr. Varian's amendment was read.

Mr. THURMAN. I have no objection to that.

Mr. MAESER. Mr. Chairman, as the amendment of Mr. Varian fully satisfies me in regard to the common schools, I give my full consent to that also, and I vote for it.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would like to ask Mr. Ivins if he has withdrawn or wishes to

withdraw his {1303} amendment to the original motion of Mr. Varian?

Mr. IVINS. I was not aware that I had an amendment to Mr. Varian's motion. I will state that I understood when section 2 was passed on Friday that the proposed amendments were passed with it, and the section would come before us without any amendment at all this morning for consideration.

Mr. VARIAN. You withdraw your amendment?

Mr. IVINS. Yes, sir; as I understand, it was withdrawn.

Mr. BOWDLE. I want to ask Mr. Varian one question. I do not know whether I understand the amendment fully; suppose there should only be a partial deficiency in the fund, there would be in other words sufficient funds to partially support the high school from the general fund, is that applicable to the high school?

Mr. VARIAN. I understand, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to permit all the moneys going to any school district to be applied to the public school system_the free school system, or to speak more precisely, to the free schools in the public school system. If in any case such moneys coming from the State or the county or from any other source which may be provided for shall be insufficient to maintain all of them, then the high school shall be maintained either in whole or in part by local taxation.

Mr. BOWDLE. That is the point. As I understood the amendment, if there was a deficiency in the fund, although there might be enough to partially support the high school, then the high school was to be supported.

Mr. VARIAN. As I understand, that is left to the district.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say that the people of Ogden think a great deal of their high school up there and they want it preserved.

The amendment of Mr. Varian was agreed to.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the section by inserting at the beginning of the section the words, “until otherwise provided by law.”

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to make that motion and in connection with it another that a new section after the word university, in line 4_that the words after university, in line 4, may be made a new section. The motion of Mr. Pierce is all right because this limits the Legislature to establishing certain schools and does not give them any permission to establish any other. It is necessary to do it, because at present kindergarten schools cannot be established. There is no money, no houses, and there are neither means nor places for establishing kindergarten schools. Under this, without Mr. Pierce's amendment, the Legislature would be unable to establish them. I move as an amendment to Mr. Pierce's motion that the section be

divided and what follows the word university be made a new section.

Mr. PIERCE. I am willing to accept that.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope that neither amendment will prevail. I object in behalf of our high school here to leaving that matter open at all. We want to have it fixed just as we have it, leaving it to the Legislature to determine the question, and the outside when it shall be ready for it. Now, while it is true that in this section the division is made as to what school shall be free and what not, and what shall constitute the public school system, still there are no other schools as we understand it anywhere that become a part of the general rule of the public school system. There are the common, the primary and grammar schools, the high schools, and the kindergarten. We do not wish to have this matter left open to be continually annoyed by applications made to the {1304} Legislature in aid of schemes and features which may be very good for other localities. We have established our system here at great expense, and I understand that Ogden is in the same situation, and as we have gone through this two or three times, heard all the suggestions that were to be made upon it, and we have endeavored to conform to the suggestions of the members of this Convention in the proviso that has just been adopted, now to practically undo it is what we object to. If we are going to fix it in the Constitution at all we would like to have it fixed permanently.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, if, as Judge Goodwin suggests, all after the word university is put into another section so that the words of Mr. Pierce's amendment shall only affect the first section, would that have that effect?

Mr. VARIAN. It strikes me the Legislature might then strike out high schools entirely as a part of the public school system. If that is not a power given to the Legislature by this proposed amendment, what is the purpose of it? To strike out high schools entirely and strike out kindergarten, that can reduce the public school system to the primary or the grammar, or both.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Do you understand from this section that no other schools could be included than those enumerated?

Mr. VARIAN. As it stands?

Mr. ELDREDGE. As it stands.

Mr. VARIAN. That is the way I read It.

Mr. ELDREDGE. The word include_does that signify that it limits it to that?

Mr. VARIAN, Possibly they might be required to have these schools and might add others. I have not considered it from that point of view. Possibly that is so. If that is so, it obviates my objection_no it does not either; there is no necessity for it.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say I thought I could fix this. Thirty years ago

people knew nothing about kindergartens. This is a great feature now. Perhaps in twenty years there will be some other great feature. Under this section as it reads, I do not see how it could be provided for at all. So I will withdraw my amendment to Mr. Pierce's amendment and I will offer as an amendment that the words, “and such other schools as the Legislature may establish,” be added after the word university, in line 4.

Mr. VARIAN. That is all right.

Mr. PIERCE. I will withdraw my amendment and accept that.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman. the section as proposed to be amended would not be particularly objectionable to me, but the section, as it now stands, would include, as Mr. Varian stated, all possible grades of education. The kindergarten begins with the children two or three years old, the university receives students all the way from fifteen years up to a hundred, if persons of that age desire to enter. If it is desired to establish any technical schools, they would come under either the high school or the university, if they want any school that would either be the grammar grade or the high school grade, or the grade corresponding to the work in the university. There is no possible grade of educational work which would not come under one of the four subdivisions in this section as it now stands. We give here the Legislature all the latitude that can be desired. As I stated, because any kind of a school, technology, night school, normal school, or of any grade, can be established and come under one of these four subdivisions. I do not particularly object to the amendment just proposed, but I think it entirely unnecessary, as I believe that the Legislature is given all the latitude needed as the section now stands.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Goodwin, the committee divided, {1305} and by a vote of 36 ayes to 34 noes, the amendment was agreed to. Section 5 was read.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I move you that the blank be filled up by inserting Salt Lake City.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there was a motion before the committee yesterday, offered by the gentleman from Utah County, to strike out section 5.

Mr. VARIAN. Suppose the motion fails, then the judgment of the house would be that it stands just as it is. We ought to perfect it in accordance with the will of the house.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will entertain motions.

Mr. THURMAN. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that to be the rule. I admit that I am not a parliamentarian, and the gentleman is, but anything that leads to an absurdity is not even parliamentary law. Now, the truth of the matter is here that we are amending and perfecting this section. A motion is made to strike it out. Is it not possible that another section can be put in in the place of it, after this is stricken out, or if this motion to strike out fails, is it not possible that we can still amend the section by changing the wording of it in some way?

Mr. VARIAN. I say it is possible, if the house, by a two-thirds vote, overturn the rule of

parliamentary law, just as it will be possible on the final passage of the Constitution here to still change it by suspending your rules. I have the authority for it if the gentleman wants it.

Mr. THURMAN. I do not ask for authority. When the gentleman states anything upon his word, that settles it with me on this floor, but I hope that the amendment will not prevail. I will say frankly, I am not opposed to Salt Lake City having the university, but what I am opposed to is that every institution of learning, every department, shall be forever fixed and located at any particular place. For that reason I move to strike out the section. I believe that the university as it now exists is fixed by section 4 at Salt Lake City. I believe that the agricultural college is established at Logan by section 4, and I think that at that point this Convention ought to rest; that if some future Legislature should desire to establish a branch or a department of learning, a part of the university, and locate it in Sanpete or Saint George, for convenience of the people, but under the management of the university, that it ought to have the power to do so. For that reason, I am opposed to it. Now, gentlemen, look at this as it stands. Section 4 provides that the establishment by existing laws of the university of Utah and the agricultural college is hereby confirmed. The existing law establishes the university as it is in Salt Lake City. That is hereby confirmed. Existing law establishes the agricultural college at Logan. That is hereby confirmed. There I say this matter ought to end, and section 5, which undertakes to say that every institution that ever may be established hereafter by future Legislatures, to the end of time, shall be located in some one place. And I say, gentlemen, that this Convention in my opinion does not want to do anything of the kind. Now, that is my position, made broad and plain, and consequently I stand on that ground. I have no objection to the university as it stands being in Salt Lake. I have no objection to the Legislature, if it should desire in the future to add every other department of learning here to that university and locate it here, but leave it to the Legislature, and not bind them hand and foot as we are trying to do.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Thurman, do you understand that the word establishment as here used would also be interpreted to locate, and the two words are synonymous as applied here?

Mr. THURMAN. It would depend altogether {1306} on how the law reads by which they are established. Now, my rocollection of the law_I have not recently read it_is that these institutions are located at particular places by existing law. Now, that is as I understand it.

Mr. CANNON. I would have placed a different interpretation and asked your interpretation, because I desired to know how a lawyer would do that. You notice that in section 5 the term establishment is also used as well as the word located, making a distinction between established and located. I would like to know how the lawyers of the Convention view that, whether section 4 does fix the location as well as the establishment of the institutions.

Mr. THURMAN. So far as I am concerned, gentlemen of the committee and Mr. Chairman, if there is any misunderstanding in section 4, you may insert the word location before establishment, and leave out these terms that are unnecessary; that fixes it.

Mr. SQUIRES. If section 4 should pass as amended by you, do you think the power would then lie with the Legislature to change that location afterwards?

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, the only suggestion I have to make_if there is any question about the establishment of different branches of the university at other places, it might readily be obviated by an amendment to the proviso of section 5 and striking out the word “agricultural” and leaving it experiment stations.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with Mr. Thurman on the general proposition that it would neither be wise nor right to absolutely now locate all future institutions of learning that might be provided for by law, and I am inclined to think with him that section 4 accomplishes the purpose he suggests. I want to call attention to section 6 also in connection with this. That section is attempting to deal with the grants of land by Congress to these several institutions, and it assumes that all these institutions, as I understand it, are to be consolidated with the university. Is it not true that section 6 would have to be remodeled and reformed in accordance with that, if section 5 is to come out?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will state that we passed section 6 pending the amendments to section 5.

Mr. VARIAN. Well, I think it ought to be read and considered in the matter now before the committee. I am not prepared to make it myself, on the first inspection of it. I prefer to have time to look at it.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, this brings up one of the most important subjects that comes before this Convention, and no doubt before it is finally acted upon by the committee will lead to a little discussion. It is already after 12 o'clock, and I therefore move you that we now take a recess until 2 o'clock.
{1307}
The committee then took a recess until 2 o'clock.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The committee met pursuant to adjournment and resumed the consideration of the article on education and school lands.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out section 5. I think that section 4 as it

stands, or as it may be amended, is sufficient on the question of location. While I am willing to vote to insert Salt Lake City there in case the section shall stand, when it comes to the striking out of the section I shall vote to strike out the whole section.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I trust that all these amendments will be voted down and those two sections may be stricken out. I favor striking out the section entirely.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Pierce, the committee divided, and by a vote of 21 ayes, noes not counted, the motion was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs upon the motion of the gentleman from Utah County to strike out the entire section.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, it might be well to have an understanding as to just what the condition of the law is. It was suggested to me this noon and I brought down the statute in order that we might reach a conclusion as to striking this out. The university was established in 1850 and located at Salt Lake City. In 1892 the act was amended, not repealed, by changing the name. (Reads.) The school for deaf mutes was afterward established, as a department of the university, and the act provides that until separated therefrom it shall remain as a part of the university. In 1894, a school for the blind was established in connection with the institution for the deaf mutes, under the control of the same board. It seems that as the law now stands the school for the blind and the school for the deaf mutes are together and form a department of the university of Utah. And with the university of Utah, they are located at Salt Lake City. The question is whether there is any necessity for section 5. That would depend upon the true interpretation of section 4. There seems to be some doubt and uncertainty in the minds of many as to what the true interpretation of the language of section 4 would be, that is, whether the words “the establishment” by existing laws are sufficiently comprehensive to include the location of the university. To meet that objection it is suggested by the gentleman who makes the motion to strike out that he would favor the insertion of more positive, definite language in connection with the words “the establishment.” That being so, it would seem that if we entertain the view that Mr. Thurman does, that we ought not to provide definitely and permanently for all other institutions that may be provided for by law_that is, institutions of learning as to their permanent location at any one place, but that section has no useful purpose to subserve and ought to be stricken out. So far as I am concerned, as it appears to me now, at least, it seems to me that we could safely strike out that section.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking it out.

The motion to strike out section 5 was agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that we strike out section 4. I believe it should be stricken out for the same reason that the other is stricken out.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, that was the question that we argued the other day, and I think that by all means this Convention should settle now the question of location. If there is going to be a

union, let there be a union by the vote taken the other day. Make the location by all means. I think we owe it to the people to settle this question. If you leave it to the Legislature, it will {1308} be unsettled. It is just as well settled now as it can ever be by the Legislature, for even if the Legislature takes further action, it will always be subject to change by some other legislative assembly. I do not think that this section should be stricken out. We considered this question very fully the other day and determined upon leaving it there. I think that this Convention owes it to these institutions and to the people to settle for them those questions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the section, I think, under the ruling of the chair, is still open for amendment notwithstanding the motion to strike out.

The CHAIRMAN. I think so.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then I would amend the section by inserting the words “after the” in the first line, the first word, and insert “location and,” and at the end of section 4, I would add the word “respectively.”

Mr. BOWDLE. I want to ask Mr. Varian a question. I have not had the opportunity to look into the location of the agricultural college. Is there any statute upon the location of the agricultural college or any United States statute fixing it?

Mr. VARIAN. It was located, Mr. Chairman, in 1888. That may have been amended. It has been recognized as being at Logan in the several appropriations that have been made.

Mr. BOWDLE. Under your amendment, Mr. Roberts, as you have it, do you think if it is adopted the college should be changed from its present location up to the place that has been ceded by the United States government?

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you mean the college or the university?

Mr. BOWDLE. The university, I mean.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think, sir, that it could be transferred.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, it is a question I had not looked into.

Mr. ROBERTS. I cannot say that I have looked into the question either, Mr. Bowdle, and therefore, I have no special information about it.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is hardly a dissenting voice at the present time in regard to the location of the university being at Salt Lake City, whether it be on University square or up where the government has appropriated for it. I should be in favor of having it so that it can be moved up there and everything pertaining to it, where the government has appropriated the land. I think that is the most suitable place for the extensive improvements of that university. As I understand, there is nothing in the laws to prevent putting it on the ground. I think that is pretty

well fixed, and I think it is pretty well fixed in the minds of the most of the members of this Convention that the agricultural college shall be in Logan. Well, now, I hate very much to repeal that section and in twenty years from now, or ten years from now, have the people up at Logan or the northern part of Utah get up a great furore and hue and cry that the university should be at Logan, and detain the legislative body some eight or ten days or three or four weeks quarreling over that. I should like to fix that, if we could, so that could not be changed without calling a general convention of the whole Territory, consequently, I am in favor of fixing on it to-day, with that section with Mr. Roberts' amendment in the first line just as it is_that we fix that matter and settle it for once. We said the other day that the university should stay here and the college at Logan, and I do not see why we should change our minds.

Mr. MAESER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Davis County. If it should prevail it would ignore all the proofs and statements we have listened to by which we have been convinced to that extent at least that the university cannot {1309} exist in the way it stands now, and something would have to be done and also the agricultural college. We have to take into consideration that we are entering into a statehood now which will increase our taxes considerably without any particular additional incidental appropriations, but the first thing that would have to be done on the part of the regency of the university would be to apply to the first Legislature for a considerable additional appropriation to keep the university alive or to enable it to continue the fine work that is now being carried on under the present management, and I cannot conscientiously support any motion that tends to perpetuate the existing condition of affairs. I am decidedly in favor that the section be stricken out.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I voted the other day for the insertion of “agricultural college” as it was inserted in this section. At that time I did not think for a moment that it meant that the establishment would be interpreted to mean also the location. I am opposed to the establishment and location as at present, of the two institutions, as I stated on Saturday. I believe the only thing for Utah to do is to unite her higher educational institutions. It is for this reason that I made the motion to strike this out. I do not desire to take up the time, because I do not think we should go over the same ground. The vote the other day was taken when a great many were absent. I do not think it is by any means conclusive, but I certainly am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Davis County, and am in favor of striking out the section.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask Mr. Cannon a question, and that is, in the event of striking out section 4, what would be the status then of our educational institutions?

Mr. CANNON. As I understand it, the status would not be changed. In the article on schedule or the ordinance can be included some provisions for the existence of the institutions and the confirmation of their existing rights. I think that is the proper place for it. That is my opinion, after consulting with some of the lawyers present.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, wish to avoid going over the ground that we have already traversed in this discussion in regard to the propriety of uniting these two institutions. I think, however, that it must be clear to gentlemen of the committee that the insertion of the words “agricultural college” in the two places at which they were inserted in this section certainly

contemplated the separate existence of these institutions. I will say, since they were added to the section upon my motion, that that was clearly the intent and purpose of them, with the additional fact in view, and that was to add in section 5 a provision that the agricultural college should be located at Logan. Subsequently, however, the gentleman from Utah County, who sits near me, suggested that in all probability it would be a better thing to do to insert the words that I now offer as an amendment.

I, too, believe that if we should strike out section 4, the whole question would be left to the Legislature, and in the interests of our educational institutions and in order to remove the hand of demoralization that is laid upon these two institutions by leaving them subject to change and transfer and alteration by each succeeding Legislature, I, for one, favor the settlement of the question now. If it could be possible, I would be in favor of a provision and an amendment that would take and establish the university of this new State at Logan. But I have looked upon that as utterly impractical. I do not believe that it is possible to remove the university to Logan. I believe that if the question was once settled as to the union of the university and of the agricultural college, separate and apart {1310} from any consideration of where you would leave it, the simple decision of union would carry with it union at Salt Lake City. There is no question about it. That is just exactly what it would mean, and it was for that reason that I endeavored to avoid risking everything upon the question of union alone, and wanted the question of location to come up in connection with that, because I think of right it should come up with it since it involves in any event the sacrifice of no inconsiderable sum, and to postpone settlement of this question now means that our educational institutions for years or for some time to come at least will be in an unsettled condition and work very great injury to these institutions. Therefore I again urge that we settle this question and that we settle it in the consideration of section 4, now that is before the Convention. I again repeat that there is nothing so injurious to our educational institutions as to leave them in a condition where their existence is all the time unsettled. We have suffered from it in the past; we shall suffer from it in the future if we continue this policy, and now is our opportunity. I again say that if it involves no great sacrifice of property, it would not be a very serious question in my mind_the union of these institutions. I think then, perhaps, it would be the proper thing to do, and yet I cannot get away from the fact that the union of the agricultural college with the university at the best is but an experiment, and in the majority of cases, as authorities cited upon the floor the other day show, the preponderance of evidence at least seems to be in favor of running these institutions separately. Now, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope this section will not be stricken out and I hope that we will settle this vexed question now. Union if possible at Logan, but since I believe that to be impracticable, then let us declare where these two institutions shall be located.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to me this is an exceedingly grave question, and one to which should be given the most deliberate concern. One of the gentlemen on the floor remarked that the argument made by Mr. Kerr had convinced him that the institutions should be separate. Before the argument of Mr. Kerr, I was convinced that the places should be separate. After his argument, I became converted, and voted accordingly on my conviction, that these establishments, wherever they might be located, should be made one, and I trust that this Convention, in consideration of this question, will consider it not as to a question of location, whether in Salt Lake County, whether in Utah County, or Sanpete County, or Cache County, but

that it shall receive the gravest consideration as to the wisdom and prudence of the union of this system. There are many reasons, it is true, that could be offered in one way and another as bearing upon it, but to my mind the great question before us, in the consideration of this matter, and the adoption of the course we shall pursue, is the economic one. We have started out upon the basis of being exceedingly economical, and we have sought to work to that end. In fact, the result of the desire for economy has awakened some ridicule in the breasts of some of the members present, probably as well as gentlemen outside of this Convention, but when it comes to this proposition, it is one of extreme moment. There are none of us, I presume, but what desire that there may be established a thorough and complete university so far as it is possible, in which or to which we may send our children to receive their education. Of course we recognize that all of us have our prejudices as to the question more or less of location, but it seems to me in regard to the character of public institutions that are to be decided upon, the first proposition with us should be what {1311} are we going to have, how we are going to place them, and how they will reach the needs of the people, and the interests as an entirety, and how far they will subserve the best interests of the entire people and at what points they should be properly and reasonably placed. After we have determined in regard to this matter, I believe that a full and candid discussion of the wisdom of where these various institutions should be placed should come before this Convention as a separate proposition, and that none of us should seek to be hauling and pulling this in this direction or that in that direction, a portion or a parcel. The question, in my judgment, should be one of patriotism, so far as the institutions are concerned, and wherein they will best subserve the people of the proposed new State and in the most economical manner.

Therefore, in consideration of this matter, so far as I am concerned, I have my views. They are fixed in regard to this matter. I have conversed with many gentlemen, so far as that is concerned, in regard to it, and I know that very many of them are fixed in their views and their views are not in harmony with my own, but I believe that the argument made here yesterday upon this proposition by Mr. Kerr is simply unanswerable, that his study of that question has put it in my mind beyond the question of a doubt, and while I might desire to subserve through my selfishness some personal interest in connection with this matter, the question with me is and upon which I want to vote, that these institutions shall be one institution, and that if this body of men shall say that they will have these various institutions and how they shall be builded up when they conclude as to where they shall go, so far as I am concerned, I will sustain them in carrying out their proposition to the best of my ability, but until this is the case, I think the discussion as to where or how they shall be disposed of in my mind is simply unwise and accomplishes nothing. Let us determine whether we will or will not. Having determined whether we will or will not, then let us determine where they shall go, or where they shall not go.

Mr. MAESER. That is right.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer the following at the end of section 4, “and shall be located at the city of Logan,” to be considered if Mr. Roberts' motion should not carry.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, that is an amendment to the section, not an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I give notice now that when that is disposed of, I shall move the amendment which I suggested.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion to strike out and will support Mr. Roberts' amendment to locate these institutions as they now exist. I think that the best interests of the new State will be subserved by their remaining separate. I think that the government, when it passed laws establishing these colleges, intended that they should be separate from the university. It is not necessary to go over the arguments again, but I am opposed to the motion of striking out and will support Roberts' amendment.

The amendment of Mr. Roberts was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the motion to strike out.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I trust that that motion will not prevail. We have now reached a point in this possible disagreement from which we can see that it will settle this question so far as this Convention is concerned. Let us vote that motion down and let the matter stand as indicated by this last vote.
{1312}
The motion to strike out was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I now move to strike out section 2.

No second.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, in line 6 of section 6, the words “as specified in section 5 of this article.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr, Chairman, I move that when the committee arise, they report the article to be placed on the calendar for third reading.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think that we ought to consider this last section in connection with that section in the bill of rights. It seems to me that section 4 of the bill of rights covers the same ground nearly, if not in the same language, that is covered in the last section of the present article. Judge Goodwin moved this morning to strike out the last section of this article on the ground that there was something in the bill of rights. If my memory serves me correctly, it is section 4.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). It was decided here that the bill of rights did not cover that point.

Mr. SMITH. I think it does amply.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the gentleman withhold that a moment, until I offer an additional amendment to section 6?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the committee be good enough to look at lines 7 and 8 again, in section 6? It seems to me that the article “a,” in line 8, and the word “university,” in the same line, should be stricken out and the word “fund” made plural, so that that would meet all the questions presented by the land grant. Now, I suggest that the words in lines 5 and 6, “and the university and the departments thereof,” be stricken out so that the act of Congress referred to will embrace all those land grants.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. In line 12 it now reads, “maintenance of the different departments or colleges respectively of said university.” That should be changed. I think that “departments” should be changed to “schools.” That would take in the deaf and dumb and the school for the blind, mentioned in the act of Congress; and that “of said university” be stricken out or put in “institutions.” I move these amendments be made.

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I was informed by gentlemen most interested in urging this metric system that the committee had decided to ignore the matter altogether. The chairman of the committee tells me they purpose to report on that, and hence, with the permission of the committee, I will withdraw that amendment until that report is made.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, that matter having been brought up, as chairman of that committee I will state that the committee have had that matter under consideration, and have given it very careful consideration, and they expect to make a report. I do not know how they got the impression they would not make a report. There {1313 - JUDICIARY} is nothing of the kind in the minds of the committee.

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

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled judiciary.

Mr.. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment to section 2 to strike out all after the word “years,” in line 14, and insert in lieu thereof the following, “at the first election for said judges, one chief justice shall be elected for six years, one associate judge for four years, and the other associate judge for two years. The terms of office of said judges and which one shall be chief justice shall at the first and all subsequent elections be designated by ballot.” Whether this amendment is adopted by the committee or not, I think that as a member of this Constitutional Convention it is my duty to bring this question up. Now, I believe when we elect supreme judges the first time, that it be designated by ballot who shall be the chief justice. You are not trusting to luck by the uncertainty of lot. You know exactly for whom you vote. You know whom you will elect as chief justice or at least you have the privilege of voting for the man whom you want as chief justice, and the associate justices will be elected according to the amendment for four years, and the other for two years, and after that, they will be elected at different times, but all be elected for six years. But I do not believe that it is a modern sentiment to have judges drawn out of a hat by lot, and whoever happens to get the lucky number shall be the chief justice. I believe that the people of the Territory of Utah are intelligent enough to say, “We want such and such a man for our chief justice.” There is no more salary, I presume, connected with the chief justice than the associate judges. It is a position of honor and it is the most responsible position. I believe in getting right down to the people, as I advocated a number of measures on this floor, I have always said I was not afraid of the people, and I believe in trusting this measure to the people. We may get a better chief justice. The chances would very likely be that the poorest of the three would be the chief justice, possibly the youngest man would be the chief justice. Now, I think that should not be the case. I believe the people should nominate their man, and put forward the most experienced man for chief justice. The democrats should do the same, and the republicans should do the same.

Mr. PIERCE. How about the populists?

Mr. EICHNOR. Well, the populists then should, and certainly all parties should. Gentlemen of the committee, I hope it will receive your earnest consideration. I do not want to take up your time, but I believe this is a matter that comes right home, in which we will have a right to name our choice for chief justice and not trust it to the luck of a few numbers in the hat or by whichever method lots are drawn.

Mr. ELDREDGE. It everything runs regularly in the course of their proceedings, will they not all three be chief justices?

Mr. EICHNOR. No; I do not think so.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman. I have two or three times noticed in this committee, something in the course of argument which seemed to express a great sympathy for the people, but where Mr. Eichnor can find that his plan gets down closer to the people than this one, I do not understand. He says the richest lawyer and youngest man might be elected chief justice under this lottery.

Mr. GOODWIN. I want to say if that be true according to this, he would be out of office in three years, whereas, if it went on his way the man would serve {1314} at least five years before he got a chance to be chief justice. The truth is the gentleman argued so long on the deaf and dumb asylum, he is getting a little deaf himself.

Mr. EICHNOR. I did not argue that question.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, for fear that this amendment might go, I want to just say a word about it, as I am on the committee, I think probably it is not quite understood. Taking the position of chief justice, and it has no more responsibility than that of associate justice not a bit. He has no other duties to perform, except to preside on the bench. Now, if we nominate three men for the justices of the supreme court, and each of them will probably be the very best man that can be found in either of the parties, if you are to nominate one for the short term and one for the next longest term and one for the long term, the chances are you would get the short term man in some lawyer who amounted to but very little, but if we should engage them all at once, each one of those three judges will, of course, expect to be chief justice, and the chances are that we will get three good men. Another thing, it is right anyway to have this honor conferred by lot. Under the system as proposed each one of these judges at one time or another will be chief justice. The short time man is chief justice. When he goes out and another one comes in, he is a long term man, and the next shortest term man is chief justice, and so on. I think that is fair the way it stands and hope the committee's report will stand.

The amendment of Mr. Eichnor was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I just merely would like to ask the chairman--have read this article very carefully. I do not find anything that says that these judges shall be citizens of the United States. Now, I have an amendment to offer here:

Every judge of the supreme court shall be at least thirty years of age and shall, before his election, be a member of the bar, learned in the law, and a resident of the State or Territory of Utah for five years next preceding his election, a citizen of the United States and State of Utah.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee a question. Was it ever discussed by the committee that the words be added, “the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction to issue the common writs of mandamus?” etc.

Mr. GOODWIN. No, that was understood.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, in line 8, section 5, the word “thirty,” and insert in lieu thereof, “twenty-five.”

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, that would conform more nearly to the other part of our Constitution, in which we axed the age of State senators and also the attorney general. I think the age of the attorney general is fixed at only twenty-five years.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to amend section 5, in line 10, by inserting after the word “years” the following, “of the district one year.”

Mr. THURMAN. I would like to ask a question, if there are not some judicial districts as described here that perhaps have not a lawyer in them competent for a judge?

Mr. ALLEN. My idea was to give our young men who are studying law in the different districts a chance to hold these positions, so that the others will not come in and hold them.

Mr. THURMAN. You do not answer my question.
{1315}
Mr. ALLEN. Whether there is or not, I do not know.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I think that this ought not to prevail for the reason that every district, if they have a man in that district that is competent, there is no question about anybody else coming in and getting elected in that district. But if it should be found that there is not a man competent in that district, why then they should have the opportunity of going outside. I think it ought not to prevail.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all after the word “so,” in line 15. Nowadays there are honest lawyers and dishonest lawyers, and if ever two dishonest lawyers get together, they can get another dishonest lawyer to be judge pro tempore and sell their clients out. [Laughter.] I do not assume all the virtues in the profession of law.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I insist that Mr. Eichnor shall not give away the secrets of his profession.

Mr. HILL. May I ask you a question? I would like to have you point out a dishonest lawyer.

Mr. EICHNOR. There are none in this Convention.

Mr. CREER. Present company is always excepted.

Mr. SQUIRES. How would the compensation for the judge who acted pro tempore be arranged?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There is absolutely no provision for it. The State would not have to pay out a dollar.

Mr. SQUIRES. The judge would sit just for luck?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Yes, sir; many of them would be willing to do it. The gentleman has suggested on my left that lawyers frequently defend men charged with crime without receiving compensation. They are more patriotic perhaps than those to which the gentleman belongs that asked the question.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment, and I would not do it, coming from the committee, were it not for the fact that I suggested it in committee, and that is, by striking out the word four, in line 7, and inserting in lieu thereof the word two. I will say, gentlemen, the only purpose of this is that we must bear in mind that this is a constitutional provision. There may be many counties where four terms a year would not be necessary. This would make it obligatory to hold four terms a year whether any business was transacted there or not, and you must remember that the language is “at least four terms a year.” My amendment would make it read, “at least two terms a {1316} year,” and then the Legislature might provide more terms if necessary. But I fear that if this prevails, as it is written in the article, the judges will have many trips to make and many terms to hold when there will be no business to attend to.

Mr. SMITH. May I ask the gentleman a question? If probate business is given into the hands of these judges, won't they, in order to meet the necessities of the case, have to hold four terms anyhow?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The probate business, however, is not transacted by terms. That is transacted at any time at chambers. The judge can simply go into the district at any moment or at any time, and I think he ought to go into the counties oftener than four times a year for the

purpose of transacting that business, but this has no reference whatever to probate business, as I understand it.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I would object to the amendment, for the reason that I believe that four terms should be held in each county every year. I know that in my own county, if it was left optional with the judge, we would only have two terms a year and the criminal business would have to be carried over from month to month, and for that reason we have got a bankrupt county already, holding prisoners waiting for trial, and I think that the terms should be held every three months at least.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I see no provision in this statute for probate judges, and as I have been raised and always lived in a country where they have always had probate judges, and it is rather an innovation not to have them, I thought I would inquire why it is they do not have any probate judges? I want to find out.

The CHAIRMAN. The purpose of the article is that the district judge shall do probate business.

Mr. FARR. That will do away with it. I wanted to know if each member of this committee thoroughly understood it. Some of our counties are very large and the county seat is at a distance and it does seem to me as though the county should be provided with a judge for doing probate business, instead of compelling them to wait for the regular term of court. That is a question I would like to have considered.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment beginning with line 6, simply inserting the words “until otherwise provided by law.” Then I am ready to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Weber. That will leave it in the hands of the Legislature and they can determine the matter.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will accept Mr. Bowdle's amendment to my amendment and make it one.

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask if that provision would not affect all the balance of the section?

Mr. BOWDLE. I do not think so. I only think that it modifies that one question.

Mr. CREER. It might be construed to modify the entire balance of the section.

Mr. BOWDLE. I do not think that construction could be given to it.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, this time I am with the committee that reported this article. I thought I would make that declaration so that there would be no misunderstanding about my position. I think if the probate judges are abolished as provided in this article, that the judges should appear four times a year in the county. A great many matters need attention; no matter how small the county is in population, there are always some matters coming up that should have attention. If there was some one that could transact the probate business when the judge is not

present, why, then the objection might be good, but under the circumstances I submit it is not.
{1317}
Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Weber. I have understood that the design of this article was that we might facilitate the business of the outlying counties, and that in doing away with the probate courts, as it is anticipated, so I understood, it would give us a better opportunity to attend to the probate procedure without its accumulating. And we have endeavored of late years to work up this business, and if the gentleman's amendment should succeed, we are of the opinion that it would be of a very great disadvantage, and as the gentleman from Garfield has stated, cases of importance would be transferred from term to term or month to month, and the result would be that a great many of our counties would become bankrupt. Therefore, I should certainly insist on the article that is presented that the district court be held at least four times a year, and should the judge be overworked the Legislature may have the opportunity of course of making provisions for extra judges.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, all I wanted to say was simply this, that it will be but a short time after the adoption of this Constitution until the Legislature will convene and they will have the opportunity to look into this matter and see whether four terms are needed in any of the counties. It may be there will be some counties where it is not necessary, and it leaves it in the hands of a power that can adjust it. I believe in leaving things so that they can be adjusted. It may be made just in that section, but I am opposed to making it ironclad.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, this matter was discussed a, great deal in the committee and the result has been that this section was made as a majority of the committee thought that the people of the Territory want it. It does away with all probate judges, and we find in consultation with members of the Convention that while they approved of having an arrangement which would secure to them by giving the man a better salary a higher order of judge, there still was great fear that the outside counties would be neglected, and so this was put in “at least four times a year,” to make it clear to the gentlemen of the Convention, as well as to the people outside, that the judge who lived in the district should be in each county three or four times a year at least. I am not particular about the amendment, if the Convention think best, only I would suggest to my friend from Weber that if he insists on his amendment he change the order of it a little to make it read instead of until otherwise provided by the Legislature, that the terms shall be “at least two terms a year, but the Legislature may change this provision.” That would make it apply simply to that one paragraph. I do not care anything about it.

Mr. EVANS {Weber). If it is put in the paragraph just before the word there, in line 6, it would be all right.

Mr. GOODWIN. If I were you, I would make it at least twice a year.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I care nothing about that; that would be perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I trust this article will stand just as it is prepared. We have got some counties in the Territory where the judge will go two hundred miles to hold court. Now, I

do believe any judge is going to take those trips just for fun or amusement, or just because he may not have anything else to do. If he takes them at all, he is going to take them because he has to, because it is fixed unalterably in the law, and I think that the judge ought to appear four times in each county. The only way to arrange for that is to fix four terms. Abolishing the probate judges in the counties, as we propose to by this article, it is as {1318} little as we can provide in place of them to compel the district court to go into those counties four times a year to hold court and transact the business that is to be done there. If we do not provide for it here, it won't be done, and in any event, if I was going to favor any change it would be that, “until otherwise provided by law,” there should be four terms held in each county. That amendment I would not object to, because I do not believe the Legislature would ever change that until they found out beyond a doubt that two or three terms would be sufficient.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I am not a lawyer, I would like to say a word on this subject. It is true that district judges would have many miles to travel to reach some of the counties, but is it not true also that some of these outlying counties have jails for prisoners, that prisoners will be kept in for a double length of time that is slow poison_that they could not hardly stand, and I consider that we ought to take into consideration even those things. A man if he has done wrong or a person to be locked up for five or six months awaiting the next term of the court to come around_in some of the jails, and prisons, that they have in the outside counties, I think that the judge better be made to travel once a month than to have such hardships placed upon those that are compelled to be confined in the jails.

Mr. BUTTON, I wish you would separate that motion. One part I want to vote for, the other part I do not.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the section remaining as it has come to us from the committee. When I first read it over, I was not in favor of those four terms a year; as sprung from our judge_Dave Evans_he knows pretty nearly everything, but I referred the matter to my republican friend on my right and he suggested a way out of the trouble that satisfied me. I was looking to this expense, and he suggested that the provision in this article makes it the duty, or it is the county clerk that is to be clerk of the district court. Now, nearly all our clerks even in those remote counties can write_nearly every one of them, and they can correspond with the judge and tell him when they want him to come down.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I do not believe, gentlemen, that you understand the fact that in Utah when we have statehood, our judges will be different from those who have been sent here from Washington. Under that old system they were very arbitrary, and if it were left with them, they would not hold their terms as often as they otherwise would have done. But under the system of statehood, we must remember that in these outlying counties the judge will be elected for these counties and he must do that which he believes for the best interests of the people who elected him. It is not supposable that he will be arbitrary, that he will neglect one county or another. He is compelled under this article to reside in the district where he is elected, although he may not be a resident of that district when elected. The only objection I have to it is that it has arbitrarily fixed in the Constitution four terms a year when it may not be necessary. Of course, so far as our more thickly settled portions of the Territory are concerned, it is immaterial to us. I think you will

find in the end it will work a hardship in some instances. There are as many as five or six counties in some of these districts. In her words, there are four terms a year held, there are six counties, there would be twenty-four terms in one year. The judge would be pretty much occupied all his time in opening and closing terms, and getting from one county to another. We would scarcely have time enough to transact business.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I {1319} want the committee to get this article right from this on. There should be at least four terms held a year. All this probate business is to be transacted by those district judges. In other words, in addition to the district court business now done by the four judges, the nine judges must do all of that, and the business of the twenty-seven probate judges. Well, now, if you limit it so that the district judge is not required to go but twice a year into these outlying counties, it seems to me that a good deal of this probate business will be neglected. The idea of the judiciary committee, as I understand it, was that there should be a probate court held at least once a month in each county of the Territory. Now, if a man happens to die, I do not want it to be six months before there can be an administration or the granting of letters testamentary. I want the judges to go there and transact business that is ready to be transacted. I want justice brought home to the doors of the people of this Territory. So I think that the committee has reported properly_at least four times a year. I think it is as little as a judge can do to go there and transact business. If there is no district court business, there will be some probate business. I insist that the people demand at least four terms a year in each county. Now, take San Juan County. While the population is not very great at the time the census was taken in 1890, we learned from the distinguished delegate from there, there are now about two thousand people down there exclusive of Indians. I say there ought to be court four times a year in that county.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, suppose now, some future Legislature would establish probate courts. We have left it open so that it can do it, and we would have fewer district courts. Under this constitutional provision, these judges would be required to hold district court in this State four times a year.

Mr. MALONEY. That is just the way I want it done, and if there is absolutely no business to be done at the district court, let the clerk adjourn the court without the judge going there.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the amendments be put separately, for, while I would like to vote for the phrase, “until otherwise provided by law,” in order that this question might be left to the action of the Legislature, I am not prepared to vote for cutting down these district courts to two terms a year.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to say anything on this subject, but I would be opposed to both motions, whether they were put separately or jointly, because I do not believe we should put it in the power of the Legislature to make less than four terms a year in each county. There is certainly some business that will be necessarily transacted or should be transacted in each county at least four times a year, and if any county in the Territory or in the State should be neglected and four terms not held in that county, I think it would work a hardship on that county. Take it from a financial standpoint and I think that it would be a great deal cheaper to hold at

least four terms in each year in a county than otherwise, because, if a crime is committed, we will say just after the close of a term, to keep a prisoner or perhaps four or five of them for six months would work a hardship on the county. They have to pay the expense of keeping those prisoners and I certainly am not in favor of putting it within the power of the Legislature to make less than four terms a year in each county.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to both of those amendments. I do not think we ought to put it in the power of the Legislature to make less than four terms a year in each {1320}
county, and I would certainly be opposed to fixing it at the low number of two terms in each county and leaving it to be further disposed of by the Legislature. I think the objection that is raised that there might not be business at any given term is one that would be wholly outside of any danger. If there were no business, the court and judge could easily send his order to the clerk to adjourn the term and he would not have to go to that county. If there was business even if it was only one litigant, I think that the proper administration of justice would require that he should go and attend to whatever business there was in the county. I hope that neither amendment will prevail.

The amendment of Mr. Evans was rejected.

The amendment of Mr. Bowdle was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer right at that place; before line 7, insert the words, “at the county seat thereof.” It seems to me that is an omission. It is not intended that the court should be on wheels.

The amendment was agreed to. Section 6 and 7 were read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment to line 6 of section 7, to strike out the word “they” and insert the words, “district courts and the judges thereof.” There seems to me an omission in that particular. Of course it was not designed to limit the issuing of these writs to a time when the court was in session.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. I would ask the indulgence of the committee to insert the same amendment in section 4 as to judges of the supreme court. It is desirable that they have the power outside of term time. I ask to make this amendment, “each of the justices shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the State upon petition by or on the part of anybody held in actual custody, and may make such writs returnable before himself, or the supreme court, or before any district court or judge in the State.” I have taken this language from one of our Constitutions.

That is to be inserted after “habeas corpus,” in line 3 of section 4.
        
Mr. EVANS (Weber). I want to ask Mr. Varian a question. Don't you think that this section gives the same power that your amendment gives?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I want to ask you if, as a matter of law, a court has not power to issue any writ that is necessary and proper to exercise the jurisdiction which it has?

Mr. VAR IAN. Certainly, but that has nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment is conferring the power upon judges only to issue writs of habeas corpus, which seems to be confined to the court sitting as a court.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is just the point. Has not the court the right, having that jurisdiction and that power-has not any judge of the court the right to issue these writs?

Mr. VARIAN. I think not.

The amendment of Mr. Varian was agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman the gentleman's first amendment, section 7, “district court and the judges thereof,” it seems to me it would be more euphonious to say, “the district courts and any judge thereof.”

Mr. VARIAN. I guess it would.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection that change will be made.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to make an amendment to this section. I wish to strike out, in section 7, line 2, the word “matters,” and the word “and” after the word “civil,” and insert between the word “criminal” and the {1321} word “not,” the words “and probate matters.”

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not see what is the object of that; the words “civil and criminal not excepted in this Constitution and not prohibited by law,” will cover everything relating to probate matters, as well as anything else. The object of this section is to give to the district court jurisdiction over every case that is not given to the supreme court and is not given exclusively to justices of the peace. It means that, and it says that. It does not say “cases,” but all matters, and probate matters are civil matters; they are not criminal. They belong to chancery jurisdiction. We discussed that matter in the committee.

Mr. CRANE. I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah County what it means, “and not prohibited by law?”

Mr. THURMAN. “Not prohibited by law” simply means anything that is not prohibited to this jurisdiction, which this court has.

Mr. CRANE. I was brought to that thought, Mr. Thurman, by reading in section 1, “and such other courts inferior to the supreme court.” It seems to me that you are giving the Legislature

power to institute any other courts they may see proper in the years to come. You are laying the foundation here of the judicial power of the State and what the judiciary shall consist of, etc., and then you give the Legislature power to institute other courts inferior to the supreme court, is that the idea?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; the object is to give the Legislature power to institute courts inferior to the supreme court.

Mr. CRANE. Any other courts they may choose?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; we have limited the power, if you will notice, of a justice of the peace. I do not call to mind the section that it is now, but I would like to read that in answer to your question. It is in section 8. Now, the intention was to restrict the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace, or rather not to allow an increase of that jurisdiction, that they never should have probate jurisdiction or anything else above what they have got to-day under the laws of the Territory. The Legislature might cut it down, but they could not increase it. Now, suppose the Legislature should want to create probate courts hereafter and confer upon them the power to transact probate business, then section 1 would mean that the judicial power of the State shall be vested in the senate, etc. (Reads).

Mr. CRANE. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the idea of this article and all the articles in this Constitution would be to curtail the power of the Legislature. It seems to me in this article you are just giving the Legislature all the power that they ever had regardless of a Constitution, by giving them the right to institute any new courts that they might see proper in years to come. The idea of my amendment was that it should emphasize the fact that the district court had the power_

Mr. THURMAN. Do I understand now that this a question or a speech?

Mr. CRANE. No; it is a question in reply to yours; or rather an answer.

Mr. THURMAN. Oh, it is an answer.

Mr. CRANE. My idea in this amendment was to curtail the power of the Legislature. That is the idea, I suppose, of this article, and to emphasize the fact that they had powers in probate matters.

Mr. THURMAN. Would you withhold the power from the Legislature to establish in the years to come, if they desire, a probate court in each county?

Mr. CRANE. Yes; I think I would.

Mr. THURMAN. Well, the committee did not_

Mr. CRANE. If you have as many judges as this article calls for, you would never need any probate judges.

The amendment of Mr. Crane was rejected.

Section 8 was read.

Mr. EICHNOR. I desire to ask the chairman of the judiciary committee a question. Are the justices of the peace to be elected at large in the county or to be elected in the several precincts?

Mr. GOODWIN. Just as the Legislature may provide. It is given in the hands of the Legislature.

Section 9 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, in line 3, the right of appeal seems to be limited to questions of law alone. I do not know why that restriction is sought to be placed in the Constitution. It might be very appropriate in criminal cases, but as broadly as that is stated, it seems to me there might be some question as to how it would be interpreted in equity cases. In equity cases the whole substance and gist of the matter on appeal and everywhere else is the fact The evidence goes up. The determination in an equity cause is not made on isolated propositions of law, but simply as it is prescribed by the whole facts. It occurs to me that may be safely left to the Legislature. I move to strike out “on questions of law alone,” and that will not interfere with the general sense of this article and would probably be in line with the general idea of the committee.

The amendment was agreed to. Sections 10 and 11 were read.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, if there is no amendment to this section, I would like to call the committee's attention to section 8. The way that section reads the justices of the peace would be elected at large by the county.

Mr. PETERS. I just desire to ask the chairman of the committee whether the latter part of this section would imply that the judge would have a right to appear before the senate and defend himself? This simply provides that he shall receive notice and that he shall be notified as to the time when his case would be heard. There is nothing here that says he may appear and defend himself.

Mr. GOODWIN. That is a right guaranteed in another article.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer as an amendment to section 8, in line 3, strike out “from each county, city, and incorporated town,” and insert the following, “incorporated cities or towns, or any precincts.”

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, as the law now stands there are incorporated towns, but they have no justices of the peace elected for those incorporated towns. This would provide for electing a justice of the peace for the town corporations. I think that would simply incur an unnecessary

expense. The present justice could act for the incorporated towns. I prefer the section as it now stands.

Mr. EICHNOR. Is it your desire that all except city and town justices shall be elected by the county at large?

Mr. CREER. No.

Mr. EICHNOR. That is the construction that can be placed on it the way it stands. You might strike out “incorporated towns.”

Mr. HAYNES. Why not strike out “county” and insert “precincts?” That will cover your idea.

Mr. GOODWIN. The whole matter is in the hands of the Legislature. It is not fair to suppose that they will all be idiots?

Mr. EICHNOR. Judge, the Legislature shall determine the number of justices in the county. It says they shall be elected from each county. Suppose they say sixteen from Salt Lake County. Will they determine also where they shall be elected from_what precinct?

Mr. GOODWIN. They shall determine how they are to be elected, certainly.

Mr. EICHNOR. If there is no objection, I will withdraw my amendment {1323} and strike out the word “county,” in line 3, and insert the word “precinct.”

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, as it now reads, I think that takes everything there is in the county, and throughout the whole State. I think the Legislature can provide how many justices of the peace there will be in a precinct. I do not think it necessary for us to say anything about it. If there is the right number of justices of the peace in each county, it covers everything.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mr. Farr's statement, I would say that a justice of the peace is really not an officer of the county. He is elected for a precinct or for a city or a town, as the case may be, and I am in favor of the motion as it stands, striking out the word county and inserting precinct.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, there is another suggestion made to me, to strike out the words “town and county,” and insert “in each precinct.”

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me this gentleman has stated the matter pretty correctly. The Legislature can fix the number of justices of the peace in each precinct, and I understand the Legislature has the right to say how many justices of the peace shall be elected in any county. I think the section is right enough as it is, and that the Legislature and the county court may regulate these minor matters.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would just like to ask the gentleman from Weber a question. Would not it be

possible, under this section, for the Legislature to provide that all the justices for the county be elected on the county ticket? That is, what the objection here is_is not that so that the Legislature might provide that way?

Mr. MALONEY. I think that the Legislature might do that.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is what they want to avoid. They want the justices of the peace to be elected from each precinct and not each county. That is the way they are elected now.

Mr. MALONEY. There is no cause for any committee to alter existing laws. The voters of each precinct select their own justices of the peace.

Mr. SQUIRES. This amendment will make that plain.

Mr. MALONEY. I think it is plain as it is.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. I move that that vote be reconsidered.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I make the point that in committee of the whole you cannot make such a motion.

Mr. BOWDLE. I ask if he voted for it?

Mr. GOODWIN. I voted both ways. I merely wanted to call the attention of the committee to the fact that as the sentence now reads, “the number of justices of the peace to be elected in each precinct, city, and incorporated town.” Now, every city and incorporated town is divided into precincts. What is the use of “city and incorporated town” in there, if we say precincts?

The CHAIRMAN. An amendment is in order if you wish to make one.

Mr. GOODWIN. There is not any amendment except when this comes up on the third reading.

Section 12 was read.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this, line 11 of section 12, add after the word “decided” the words, “or not held by agreement of the parties.”

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, in line 5, all of that section after the word “elected.”

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that while the object of this matter is very good,

still perhaps it might work (disastrously in many cases, and in any event, it is rather an undignified position to put your judges in. I want to simply call attention to how this provision worked in California. It {1324} went into the constitution, as I remember it, in 1874. As the business of the supreme court increased and pressed the attention of the judges, litigation accrued, it was found absolutely impracticable to comply with the technical literal command of the constitution and the judges began to devise ways, and schemes out, which made them still more undignified. In order to evade it, they were in many instances compelled to do this, they would hear arguments during a term and direct the clerk to make an entry like this: Cause so and so was argued by so and so and so and so. When they got around to the business after a time, and got ready to decide the case, they would have the entry made on the record that the cause, stating it was submitted on such a date. Thereupon the decision was filed and so they beat the devil about the bush in that way.

Now, it may be that your courts here will not find it necessary to evade this provision. So far as I am concerned, I think it is putting the judges in rather an undignified position to require them to go before a clerk every time they draw their salary, as may be necessary for them to do occasionally, and make an affidavit_it is not a certificate, they have got to swear so and so and put it on file.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to striking that out. I know that there are lawyers here in Utah_in Salt Lake who know that judges have withheld decisions month after month and almost year after year. When it has been demanded of them that they render a decision one way or the other, the judge would simply say, that he did not have to do it, and did not do it. While it may be a little undignified for a judge to take such an affidavit as that, it is quite impertinent that judges should unnecessarily sometimes withhold decisions and keep litigants out of their money.

Mr. VARIAN. The gentleman probably has in mind only one or two cases.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). One or two judges, too.

Mr. VARIAN. One or two cases in the whole course of his experience. We have not been troubled that way more than_    

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Not since you got democratic judges.

Mr. FARR. I second that motion on the ground that all judges are honorable men.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I say this, that if three months is not long enough time extend it a little longer, but do not permit the judge to arbitrarily withhold a decision just as long as he pleases.

Mr. VARIAN. Mandamus him.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Yes; you are already in litigation in a court, You will put the litigant to another lawsuit. Of course that would be a very proper thing so far as lawyers are concerned, and

it would augment their business a little, but it does not help the litigant at all. I am in favor of some limit and I did advocate a little longer limit than this in the committee and would support one now, but I do not like it to be unlimited so that the judge can do just as he pleases.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I concur with what the gentleman says. He insisted on it being four months. I insisted on it being as it is. The gentleman has instanced cases where decisions have been held over arbitrarIly [*note*]. I know a number of them. I know a number on the bench now where they have withheld them, district and supreme judges, over six months. There is no reason for it on earth. If a judge cannot decide a case correctly in this time. he never will decide it correctly. I agree with my friend that there ought to be some limitation on this matter. I am willing for the judge to take all the time necessary. To simply pocket the file of papers and carry them about the country and deliver the opinion so long {1325} after and let litigants or counties suffer, I say is not right and there ought to be some limitation. As far as I am concerned, I favor sixty days. It is long enough. If they cannot decide it then they will never decide it correctly.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is hardly fair to criticisejudges in this Territory and particularly where as a rule, in the hard worked districts, they sit days on end, and in the gentleman's own district, where the judges were asked by members of the bar, after the adjournment of the court, to sit in the evening, and if they could not sit as courts, to sit as judges. Business has overworked them, and it is not strange or remarkable that in individual cases they should be unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion in the time the lawyers who were pressing for a decision think they ought to. There is no rest. Six days in the gentleman's district and in our own district the judges are on the bench. In their districts the judges sit nights. They will not do it here. Some allowance ought to be made for overtaxed human nature. You must expect those things, but now you are going c have a different system. You are going to have sufficient judges, and I suppose every judge can be reasonably expected to do his duty and perform it honorably and well.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I had just remarked that I hoped the gentleman who had just preceded me would also say that hereafter the judges, instead of being appointed, will be elected and the masters of the judges will be in Utah hereafter, and I think there will be better conduct from them on that account, and I therefore shall vote for this amendment offered by the gentleman from Millard.

The amendment of Mr. Crane was agreed to.

Sections 13, 14 and 15 were read.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask if it is the intention to permit persons within this decrease to practice law in the courts?

Mr. GOODWIN. Certainly; it says the judge shall not appoint his relatives to office, that is all.

Mr. VARIAN. At the proper time, if this article shall go through, I will prepare an amendment on

that.

Sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were read.

Mr. Crane offered the following amendment to section 20:

Until otherwise provided by law, salaries of the supreme and district judges shall be three thousand dollars per annum, payable quarterly, and mileage.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, we seem to be hurrying through here so rapidly it is not quite possible to give the consideration it seems to me that ought to be given to it. I want to propose to the committee and to the Convention that this question of salary, so far as the different districts are concerned, be left to the different districts. That Is to say, that not necessarily shall it be uniform throughout the State. Take the Salt Lake district_that the Legislature may provide a different salary for the judges in that district, if it shall so determine, from that found necessary in other districts. Also, as connected with that, a provision that the salaries of the different districts shall be paid by those districts; but as we are proceeding, of course it is impossible with due consideration to write out amendments of that kind.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I think this matter of salaries_the way this section reads, I do not exactly understand it. I think it must be drawn up by a lawyer. It says the salaries of the district shall be paid quarterly and shall be paid at three thousand dollars, that is three thousand dollars a quarter.
{1326}
Mr. GOODWIN. The printer has left out “per annum.”

Mr. FARR. Oh, that was a mistake. That makes quite a difference. The way the salaries are it would amount to two hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars per year; that is, if they had three judges for each county and each judge having his twelve thousand dollars a year_three thousand dollars a quarter. We certainly shall make a move that the salaries of the judges_there being so many of them continually sending in requests that the salaries be cut down, and the judges that had salaries here for about twenty years, they had two thousand dollars per year paid. I move that the salaries be two thousand dollars a year.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would move as an amendment to the amendment that the sum be twenty-five hundred dollars per annum.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment will be out of order until we pass upon this. There is an amendment and an amendment to the amendment before the house.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is to be an amendment offered here which will change the whole subject of salaries if it is adopted. I suggest that we pass by that until that

amendment is prepared.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say it is not safe to sit down and write a matter like that. I only made the suggestion. I see it is getting along in the evening. Possibly you might pass that and by morning I could bring in my suggestions incorporated in the form of a proposed amendment

Mr. ROBERTS. I would ask if the amendment contemplated the interfering with the salary as fixed by the committee?

Mr. VARIAN. Yes, it would; it would contemplate fixing the salary so far as the Salt Lake district was concerned, without reference to what other gentlemen might desire for their own districts. I propose to put it in such shape that each district could fill it in to suit themselves.

Mr. ROBERTS. The salary would not be uniform under your arrangement?

Mr. VARIAN. Not uniform.

The CHAIRMAN. In the third reading that could be presented and we could go right along.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not see any reason for passing these questions. Let us settle them as we go along, and if anybody has an amendment that is not prepared, he can present it when we come to third reading.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Crane.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I do not apprehend that this body will vote for three thousand dollars. I am satisfied that they will vote for the amendment of two thousand dollars a year. I have that confidence that the matter staring us in the face of high salaries is what is going to frighten the people out of a great many votes, and as I have already stated the salary of judge for some twenty years was two thousand dollars a year, when everything was four times as high as they are now, and two thousand dollars a year you must remember is over six dollars per day, and their expenses for traveling are already paid. I would like to know where the money is coming from to pay all these salaries? I tell you we must look this matter over and take it into consideration and put things down within reason. This is only until otherwise provided by law. I think two thousand dollars is plenty to start in on.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I think if it were possible to pass this salary question until to- morrow I believe we could save time. I am not prepared to vote on that question, because I am in harmony with the opinion that has been suggested here. I think that it is not an unusual thing that there is a {1327} difference in the salaries of the judges throughout the state; for instance, I know in one place where the judges in one county get a certain salary and in different parts of the state they get another salary, because of the increased work; in that county. As I understand it, that is the idea that will be brought up here, and if we pass this it is sure to be gone over again. It will come up in the third reading; it will take the time and I wish that we could let that section pass

until we could get hold of that amendment

The amendment of Mr. Crane was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the amendment of Mr. Farr to strike out the words three thousand, and insert two thousand.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to vote for that amendment. Of course I know how anxious men are to be economical, but if there is one part of the labor to be performed by the officers of this State that we should not be niggardly in the matter of compensation for, I think we stand now face to face with that class of officers. There is danger that in our effort to be economical and please the people by voting low salaries for officers we shall plunge them into much greater loss than if we gave a reasonable salary for the services that are to be rendered. I am of the opinion that already we have gone too far in the matter of retrenchment in the payment of salaries for officers. When we take into account the class of men that it is desirable to employ in the public service, I hold that it is a matter and will be a matter of economy for the future State to pay a salary to its judges that will insure good service to the people. The gentlemen of the legal profession have such expenses, have been at so great pains to acquire the knowlegethat qualifies them to fill these positions, their labor is so intricate and requires so much patient research, that if you get a man who is worthy to be a judge at all in these districts, in my opinion, you have to give him at least three thousand dollars.

Mr. FARR. I want to ask Mr. Roberts if he thinks that six dollars a day and upwards is a very low salary.

Mr. ROBERTS. I admit it amounts to six dollars a day, in the event of two thousand dollars being the sum_a little less than six dollars per day. In view of the labor that the judges are to perform_in view of the salaries paid in other states for similar service, in our western states, I am of the opinion, sir, that three thousand dollars is not at all too much for this service that we expect of these judges, and I was proceeding to argue when interrupted that by paying the salary of three thousand dollars per annum we would get a service in the judges' seat that would in all probability be better economy than paying a smaller salary and putting up with inferior lawyers in the judges' seat, which would constantly entail the expense on the people of taking appeals to higher courts in consequence of bad law being in the judges' seat, and for this reason and in the interest of economy, I shall do what I can to keep these salaries up where they have been fixed by the committee. I think I can do so safely. I shall not at all be afraid of the people when we have to stand face to face with them next fall and persuade them to accept this Constitution with the salaries that it shall give, because I believe that it can be made as clear as daylight to them that this action is in the interest of economy, and that we best subserve their interests when we provide efficient judges for the several districts that we are providing. Now, these are the considerations, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that shall lead me for one to insist upon these salaries being at least three thousand dollars per annum.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this substitute, in accordance {1328} with the suggestion I made, for the entire section, “until otherwise provided by law, the salaries of the

justices of the supreme court shall be three thousand dollars per year and paid quarterly out of the State treasury. The salaries of the district judges shall also be paid quarterly, and by the counties composing the respective districts in proportion to the taxable property of each, and shall be in each district until otherwise provided by law as follows:” leaving blank all except the third, the Salt Lake district, in which I insert the sum of thirty-six hundred dollars.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask Mr. Varian if he does not think mileage should be included?

Mr. VARIAN. I have no objection; it did not occur to me.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask Mr. Varian the question, what is the purpose in this amendment of yours in inserting the amount of salary that should be paid to the judges in our district and providing in the Constitution that the others shall be fixed by law?

Mr. VARIAN. The gentleman misunderstands the amendment. I leave the amounts blank for the other districts for the purpose, as I supposed, of permitting the delegates from those districts or from the counties composing those districts to agree among themselves upon the amount of salary they are willing that their people should pay until the Legislature shall change it in that district. If the gentleman will examine the amendment, he will see that in each case the Legislature in the future may change it. This is only for the present, but it has this underlying principle in it, which is not found in the section, that it may be different in different districts. You may want to pay a man fifteen hundred dollars in a small district. We want to pay a man, for instance, more than that. We want to pay our judges more, we will say, in the Salt Lake district, where the work is heavy and continuous throughout the year. I do not wish to indicate to gentlemen from other districts what they should pay, and for that reason I submit this amendment for the approval and the consideration of the committee and they can fill the blanks if they approve the system.

Mr. MALONEY. Have you provided for any fees to be paid in to the clerks or anywhere else_from what source is money to come to pay these districts judges?

Mr. VARIAN. I intend to offer a provision contemplating the changing from the fee system to the salary system, and requiring all fees of the county officers_at least of sheriffs, clerks, etc., to be paid into the county treasury. Clerks of the district courts I think ought to be all on salaries, if that system prevails, and it would be a very large precentageof the salaries we have to pay paid through these fees and there would be very little left, as we think, for taxation.

Mr. CREER. The salary of the district judges now is twenty-five hundred dollars, is it not?

Mr. VARIAN. No, sir; it is three thousand dollars under the United States, and $750 per annum appropriated by the Territory. It has been for years one thousand dollars additional, making four thousand dollars a year.

Mr. CREER. If you would make your substitute to cover your four districts I would support that, and let the rest be twenty-five hundred dollars.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the substitute as it stands now, but I would not oppose one if it was based on this idea that the salaries should be, say, fifteen hundred dollars or two thousand dollars, with a proviso {1329} that any district may raise the salary to any amount that they felt so disposed, but to make the salaries as contemplated in that substitute would not satisfy me.

Mr. VARIAN. I do not understand it exactly. The salaries are not prescribed there, except for our district.

Mr. CHIDESTER. The mode of paying the salaries is prescribed in that substitute, by asserting that the districts shall pay their judges. Now, I oppose it on this ground, that I believe it should be stated in the section that the judges should have a certain amount. For illustration, I would say fifteen hundred dollars or two thousand dollars, then at the end of the section make a proviso that any district may raise the salary to any amount that they see fit; that would give them a chance to obtain the best talent there is in the world if they so desire, and all the districts could do the same.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of Mr. Varian's substitute. Now I realize, I believe, the necessity of economy, and it is for the very reason that I do believe in economy that I think this substitute ought to prevail. There are certain districts in this Territory where men can be obtained who will serve and be capable of serving at a much less salary than men who could perform the duty and fill the office in other districts in this Territory. Now, it is, as you all know, a fact that the cheapest is not always the most economical in anything. If you want anything done that requires skill and ability, you want to get a man that is able to do that and to do it right. The cheaper you can get it done and have it done right, the better, but if you employ some one who is not capable of doing it as it should be done, no matter how little you pay that person, it is liable to be an exceedingly expensive job, and the expense will depend largely upon the nature and
character of the work that is to be done.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Wouldn't this suggestion of mine meet that proposition that you make?

Mr. RICHARDS. Not if I understand your proposition correctly. It seems to me impracticable. I do not understand how any of the district judges can change these salaries. They must be changed by the Legislature.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Let me state the proposition that I made. Under this substitute the different counties in the districts would pay their judges. My proposition was this, that the judges should all receive the same amount of pay under this Constitution, with a proviso that each district if they saw fit themselves should make a further payment to secure better talent if they felt so disposed.

Mr. CHIDESTER. By appropriation.

Mr. RICHARDS. The districts are not political subdivisions; the districts are comprised of various counties and each county is separate and distinct.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Then how would they make the payment under this only by appropriation?

Mr. RICHARDS. They will make the payment certainly by appropriation, but the full amount will be determined, fully determined, and fixed in the Constitution. They do not have to meet and legislate on the subject of what the amount shall be. They simply apportion among the counties comprising the district the amount whatever it may be, that is fixed in the Constitution. Now, I was going to remark on this subject of economy that we sometimes make a mistake in getting things that are cheap and suppose that we are {1330} pursuing a system of economy; that would be false economy. Now, for example, you take the machinery of a court of general jurisdiction, such as the district court, and we are now trying to fix the salary of the judge. Why, the salary of the judge is a very small part of the expense of the district court. Every day that that court sits that judge receives perhaps five or six dollars; if the jury cases are on trial he perhaps has thirty jurors in attendance; the district court in this city to-day, I presume, has sixty jurors in attendance; that would be sixty dollars or one hundred twenty dollars as the case may be. The marshals are in attendance, the bailiffs are there; the other officers of the court. They are all in attendance, and their expense has to be paid. The other expenses, we will say, aside from that of the judge, which might be five or six or ten dollars a day, would be fifty or seventy-five dollars a day. Now, you take an efficient judge and put him on the bench and that man will do twice the amount of work that an inefficient man will do. Then, I say, if you paid that man ten dollars a day and he saves you fifty dollars, is it not a matter of economy that you should have him instead of hiring a man and paying him four or five dollars and let him fritter away the time of the court and keep these people in attendance. Time is saved in two ways or is wasted in two ways. One is by reason of the efficiency of the judge, he hastens business; the business is pushed along. Why, you go into our courts and you see the proceedings before one judge and then go from there into another branch and see the proceedings there, and you will observe at once a very great difference in the way the business is conducted. In one branch it will proceed much more rapidly perhaps than in the other, which is due to the peculiarity of the judge. One man has the talent and the ability to expedite business and to hasten it along, and in that way time is saved. But, gentlemen, there is another way in which time is saved by an efficient judge. You put a man on the bench who is incompetent and that man will make mistakes. He will commit error and the appeal goes up, not from that judge to himself sitting upon the bench, nor to his colleagues, but it is going up to another tribunal, a tribunal which will have no sympathy with him, so far as condoning his faults and errors is concerned, a tribunal whose duty it will be to apply the cold principles and rules of law and to determine whether or not he has proceeded in conformity therewith, and if they find that the man has made a mistake, they reverse his decision and the case goes back; and those reversals usually come in cases of great importance and trials of great

length, as for example a murder case, that perhaps has taken a week to try, which is no unusual thing, to consume a week's time in trying a murder case. And suppose the judge makes a mistake, suppose he commits an error in the trial of that cause, there is a week's time lost, not only the salary of the judge fora week, but fifty or seventy-five dollars a day or perchance a hundred dollars a day has been lost to the State by reason of the mistake that this man has made. Or an important mining suit that involves, as cases have in this Territory, three or four weeks, time, or a month's time in trying, and an incompetent and inefficient judge makes a mistake. He is reversed. The case has to be tried over again, and all the time and all the expense, not only of the judge, but of the whole machinery of the court, has been lost and it has all got to be done over again, and the State has to pay for it. So, I say, gentlemen, when we look to economy, we have to look to true economy, and be careful that we do not fall into the error of false economy.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, we cannot finish this discussion to-night. I move the committee now rise.
{1331 - EDUCATION}
The motion was agreed to.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

Your committee has had under consideration the article on education and school lands and reports the same passed, and recommend that it be placed upon the calendar for third reading, and also reports that we have had under consideration the judiciary article and report progress.

On motion, the Convention then, at 5:12 o'clock, adjourned.