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

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

Roll call showed a quorum present. Prayer was offered by Delegate Barnes of Davis County.

Journal of the fifty-first day's session was read and approved.

File No. 377, signed by David Peebles and 15 others, from Roy precinct, asking that woman's suffrage be submitted as a separate article to a vote of the people, by Adams, of Weber.

Filed.

Committee on manufactures and commerce reported as follows:

Committee Room.

MR. PRESIDENT:

Your committee on manufacture and commerce, to whom was referred files No. 144, proposition for insertion in the Constitution article on the metric system of weights and measures; 148, proposition to protect manufacturing business against losses sustained, provided prohibition should be inserted in the Constitution; 47, to regulate and license the manufacture and sale of fermented, vinous and spirituous liquors, beg leave to report that we have had the same under consideration. We have carefully and thoroughly investigated each proposition submitted to us, and found nothing that we could recommend to be embodied in the Constitution. We refer the same back and recommend that they be filed.

HYDE, Chairman.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Varian in the chair, and proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled mines and mining.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “coal,” in line 3.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that motion will not prevail, for this reason: In 1891, the Congress of the United States took it on themselves to appoint a mine inspector in every territory in the Union to look after coal mines alone. They did not go into the quartz mines or other mines. It was the danger of life that surrounded the coal mines that they thought was necessary to have a mine inspector for. The quartz miners of the Territory have not asked for anything of this kind

All the circumstances that surround all those accidents occur in the coal mines. It is unnecessary altogether to have it in there.

The motion was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 3. That same question was passed upon by this Convention, and the judgment of this Convention was that private property could not be subjected to private uses.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor also of striking out this section. {1414} We devoted some two or three days to the discussion of this question when it came up as a proposition in the bill of rights. Members of the committee may remember at that time that I favored a section declaring the rights of way for purposes that are named in this section, and also the rights of way for irrigation purposes and drainage to be declared public uses. I would have been glad at that time, if I could, of determining by a section of our Constitution that these things were public uses, because I thought that it would be better for us to define what were public uses, or at least specify that these particular purposes were public uses, than to leave the matter to judicial determination by the courts. But inasmuch, Mr. Chairman, as after a full consideration of that question at that time, it was the sense of this Convention and of this committee that we should simply declare that the right of eminent domain should exist, leaving the courts to determine what was a public purpose, I am now in favor of striking out this section. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we should give mining any greater preference in this State than the interests of agriculture. I think myself that the courts will be obliged to decide that rights of way for tunnels, flumes, pipes, ditches, roads, tramways, or dumps or the drainage or working of mines are a public use. I believe that they will also be obliged to declare that the rights of way for irrigation and drainage purposes connected with agriculture are a public purpose, but inasmuch as we have left the one matter to the courts, I think we should leave the other matter to the courts also. I am, therefore, in favor of giving no preference to mining over agriculture. It would mix this matter up. It would be declaring certain purposes here a public use; perhaps by the very fact that we insert this in the Constitution, the construction of the courts would be that rights of way for agriculture were not public purposes, otherwise we would have designated them in the Constitution; in order to make a uniformity in the matter, in order to give no preference to one of these great branches of industry over the other, but permit both, as I think by judicial construction, to have the rights that we desire for them, I am in favor of leaving the matter to the courts and striking out this section.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion. It is very necessary that it remain. Mining is one of the most important industries of our State and always will be. It is likely to grow in importance and it is subject to the control of the Legislature. I think these should be declared public uses. There are certain limitations put upon them by the Legislature, and in order to protect one of the greatest industries of our State, I think that this section should be retained. Therefore, I shall vote against striking it out.

Those gentlemen that are so ably opposing this proposition know more about the necessities on the snowy white cliffs of the Wasatch range by what they read about it or by what somebody told them. They never were up there and developed any mines. If they go up some canyon for miles and there discover a mine and start a road that is going to give them a roadway into the city, and where the ground is no use to anybody on earth, they will have the practical part of it, and can speak from a different standpoint. This is a necessity_a necessity that the fixed industry of this State must have. I take it that that is the main enterprise of the State and one that goes to make it one of the greatest intermountain States in this Union_is the mining industry. And, gentlemen, I trust that there is not one of you who wishes to throw a stone in the way of that grand industry, because you have hundreds of square miles of rich mountains with untold treasures of wealth that will conquer the generations yet to come.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I am one of those gentlemen that do not know anything about mining. I will confess that, so the gentleman's remarks in that regard apply with all their force upon that proposition; but this is a proposition that we have already passed upon. We passed upon a broader proposition that included this. The proposition that we passed upon was taking of private property for other than public uses. Now, it was sought to make all these things a public use. We had that question up and discussed it before, so as to get around that theory, that you cannot take private property for a private use. I submit, gentlemen, it does not make any difference what you call it, it is the same thing. You may declare that a man that owns a little mining claim up here has the right to go across his neighbor's claim and that that right 19 a public use. That does not make it a public use. What is a public use? A public use is one which benefits the people generally, not where it is an individual matter. This would be in all

probability where there would be one individual against another individual. How can you call that a public use? A man owns a mine up here_one single man owns a mine. A man right next to him owns a mine. Now, would you have this Constitutional Convention declare that it was a public use for that one man to go across the other man's land and take his property? That is what you would have this Constitutional Convention do. We said once most emphatically upon that question, “We won't do that thing.” We said that when it was included in it, that it should be for the benefit of agriculture. Now, it is reduced down to the one single thing of mining, and I agree with the gentleman from Cache County, that if this goes into the Constitution, you thereby fix a limit and no court would say that any other thing was a public use_that agriculture was a public use, {1416} that you could build a flume and that was a public use, unless that included the benefits to a large proportion of the area of a country. It might be in a case like that. I think there was a case that was decided in one of the courts, probably of California, where the question came up, and the question was where there were a great many people that were interested and would be benefitted by that, that the court would then declare it a public use, but I have never known a case_and I looked this matter up before it came up on the other question. I could not find a single case where it was one man against another man that the court would declare it a public use. I am opposed to this. I am opposed to it, because it is class legislation. That is the reason I am opposed to it. I recognize the great importance of mining in this country, and I would not strike a blow that would injure it in any way, unless it was necessary for the protection of the individuals of the State and the individual rights. The right to hold and own and control one's own individual property is above every other consideration, save and except that of the public use. This is not that kind of a case at all. I am opposed to it.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you take notice that Colorado, Idaho, and Montana, the states that surround us here, with the same state of affairs that applies to us, have a section of this kind in their constitution_they found it necessary?

Mr. BOWDLE. Has the court ever construed those?

Mr. KEARNS. In those states that I have mentioned_Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, California, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If you fail to find anything, you can post yourself up.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will confine himself to a question. We cannot allow this discussion.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would not wish to say anything, if I was sure that the Convention would stand to what they have already decided. The gentleman from Summit says that no practical man has spoken upon the subject. I think that anyone that is acquainted with me will admit that I am a practical man. While I do not pretend to know much about mining, I am willing to admit that the mining interests of this Territory are of great importance. But I am not willing to admit that they are of the greatest importance. Now, I am a farmer. My friend over here is a miner, I presume, and I hold that the farming interests of this Territory are the foundation of the prosperity of this country, or any other country as far as that goes, and that the mining interests would be but little without the farming interests to support it. And inasmuch as we have

heretofore decided that there should be no provisions of this kind, depriving the agricultural interests of any privileges, rights of way of any kind, declaring it to be a public use, I shall vote for the striking out of this section unless it can be amended as to include the agricultural interests. I am not willing to make the mining interests the first and foremost to the expense of the agricultural interests of this Territory.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion to strike out this section. I also wish to be understood that I am not antagonistic to the agricultural interests of the State or Territory of Utah. I think we have made a grave mistake when we strike out the section that made the public use of these matters. Possibly we were right in striking out the section that private property might be taken for private use. It should have been declared a public use. Now, when it comes down to a practical man, I have had experience in farming. I have had experience in mining until my money {1417} ran out. I am not engaged in mining at present, and I am glad of it. Now, I think that this section ought to stand, and when the report, comes in from the committee on schedule, future amendments, and miscellaneous, that under the head of miscellaneous we should insert a clause putting the agricultural interests of this Territory on a par with mining. Let the two stand on a par with each other. It is not worth while for us here to fight against mining in one sense of the word and against farming in the other. The two exist in this Territory and they are two great interests. Now, this section provides in the latter part that the uses which are declared public are subject to the control and regulation of the State. That certainly means the Legislature. I think instead of being dangerous it would be beneficial to the mining interests, and certainly it would work no harm to the farming interests. It is a fact, the more mines you have in this Territory, the better market has the farmer for his products. The states that have prospered the best in the United States are those where great mining interests and great agricultural interests exist. I hope that the section will be retained.

Mr. Kearns hands me Lewis on Eminent Domain, and requests me to read a certain section. I do not know what it is, but I will read it:

The taking of land for water power, for running any kind of mills or machinery, is held to be for public use, and principally Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and also by the supreme court of the United States in a case which went up from New Hampshire. The constitutionality of acts for this purpose has been seriously questioned, but nevertheless upheld either on the ground of authority or under a general acquiescence and uses in Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, and Nebraska. On the other hand such acts have been held unconstitutional as authorizing the taking of private property for private use, save in case of public grist mills, in the state of Alabama.

Mr. EICHNOR. The section refers to milling. Here is one on mining:

On the other hand, the validity of such laws has been denied in California, Pennsylvania, and partly so in West Virginia.

are declared public uses the courts cannot declare them otherwise. I think that is the idea.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask Mr. Eichnor a question. I see that the last clauses of this section declare that this matter is subject to the control and regulation of the State, which I understood you to say meant the Legislature, of course?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask if the settlement of this question when under discussion in the bill of rights does not also leave not only these necessary uses of lands, etc., in regard to the mining industry, but also to agricultural uses arising upon this same principle_if that is not at present also left with the Legislature?

Mr. EICHNOR. My answer to that question is this, that in some states when they had no constitutional provision of this kind, they have enacted statutes and some courts have upheld them and others have declared them unconstitutional, and I think we would be confronted with the same thing in Utah, that if the Legislature passes a law declaring certain mining interests and certain agricultural interests public uses, it is a question what the supreme court of the State of Utah will do, that is, the question will be, is the statute constitutional or unconstitutional?

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a corrected copy, as I understand {1418} it, of the bill of rights. Section 22 and 23 read as follows: (Reads.)

The CHAIRMAN. That is all stricken out_section 23.

Mr. IVINS. That being the case, I see all the greater necessity for the approval of section 3 as it has been reported from the committee on mines and mining. Section 22 of the bill of rights provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being made. Now, if I understand the design of section 3 of this report of the committee on mines and mining, it is simply to define that the right of way for tunnels, flumes, pipes, ditches, roads, tramways, or dumps, for the drainage or working of mines, shall be a public use, not to be obtained by any corporation or individual for its own special use or benefit, but may be declared by the Legislature to be a public use. I cannot see how this can possibly come in contact with any agricultural interest in this Territory, but I do know from my own experience that it is necessary that some such declaration shall be made in this Constitution in order that the mining interests of the State may properly be developed. Men secure titles to ground in the neighborhood of valuable mining property. Mines are located in marrow, inaccessible canyons upon the top of almost inaccessible peaks, and it is an easy matter for a man by locating fifteen hundred feet of mining ground to absolutely obstruct any approach to that property. A locator of such ground would be amply protected in the section which I have read, because that provides that this property shall not be taken from him without just compensation first being made, but do not let us give to the Legislature the power to declare the necessity of that road to be a public one and to condemn it for that purpose, after just compensation has been made. It may be said in regard to a drain tunnel, which may be necessary for development of a mine_it would be absolutely necessary to have that right of way in order to develop it. I do not think it is a good argument to say that

because similar privileges were not granted for other purposes that it shall not be granted for mining purposes in case it shall appear to the members of this committee that this proposition of itself is a good one. The fact that the same thing has not been granted to some one else is no reason why we should not grant it to the mining interests of the Territory. To my mind it is proper, just, and very necessary, and I hope that it will be retained.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am very much opposed to the striking out of section 3. I think it is absolutely necessary in the interests of mining, for this reason: My friend from Washington County brought forth the arguments to a great extent that I wished to in regard to the condition of the country in which mining is carried on. I think that it is not illiberal and an interest in the mining interests should be entertained by the people generally in regard to extending more than you would to the agricultural. Still, I am not a miner, but I am a farmer, and I do not think it would impair my rights in the least, nor any other farmer's. As my friend from Washington County has stated, the character of the country that mining is carried on in is very different from agriculture. And let us look at it. I do not recollect in part or as a whole that agriculture has made any particular failure, but I do know that mining has been carried on to a very great loss to a great many people, while there are some, perhaps, have made fortunes, but few in comparison to the general whole. And I say an extension to the mining interests should be certainly tolerated in the country here, while I am willing to admit that mining and agricultural interests go hand in hand, one is dependent upon the other. To be sure, agriculture {1419} is that that we cannot possibly do without. We cannot possibly do without agricultural interests and the products of agriculture, but while they are as it were at the foundation of our interests, but the mining is the source from which we expect to get our money and to get occupation for individuals that are not either agriculturalists or even miners, but they are laborers, and it is that source that gives occupation, and I say that any mine is a public interest. I say that every mine, although it may be owned by an individual, it is a public interest. Why? Because, indirectly the benefits come to the general public, so does every institution that is created. There is not an institution of a mechanical character, but what is a public interest to an extent. It employs men and the results go to the general public. So I say that my feelings are that this section should be certainly retained in the interest of the general public, because, just as my friend from Washington stated, the men might, for the purpose of, as it were, blackmailing, go and take up a piece of ground for the very purpose of asking a compensation that would be thoroughly unreasonable, and I say that the section should be retained, in my judgment.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask Mr. Ivins a question. In your judgment, does the objection raised by the gentleman from Cache, that the placing of this matter in this section and leaving out of the agricultural interests of the State from any constitutional provision, prevent the Legislature from making a similar provision for the agricultural industry?

Mr. IVINS. Well, I do not know that I can answer that question. I was not here when the gentleman from Cache made his argument, and had I heard it, I do not know that I would be as competent as he to answer that.

Mr. SQUIRES. His objection is, Mr. Chairman, that if we mention these uses for mining purposes, we thereby debar the Legislature from making a similar provision for the protection of

agricultural interests. If that is conceded by the lawyers, and there is any chance of having this section put in here, I believe it should be amended. For that purpose I will offer the following amendment to test the sense of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair desires to state that it does not feel like being called upon to rule upon a question of that kind, as everybody knows that I am opposed to this sort of legislation, and any ruling I might make would be misconceived. I would suggest to the gentleman it would come better on third reading, or else that the committee appoint some one else to take the chair.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would there be any harm in offering an amendment now to test the sense of the house?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would be of the opinion that all these matters embraced within the section and the preamble and bill of rights have been finally disposed of by this Convention and cannot be interjected in the Constitution in this way, except upon the reading of the whole Constitution by a two-thirds vote, under suspension of the rules or upon a reconsideration of the other vote which disposed of it, but I prefer not to be called upon to pass upon that question.

Mr. SQUIRES. This section is still under consideration. The chair does not rule that it is not under consideration?

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to make that suggestion. The gentleman can proceed as he chooses.

Mr. SQUIRES. I move to amend so that if the section be adopted it will stand in this form, insert after the word “mineral,” in line 5, the words “and agricultural,” so that this provision would apply not only to the mining, but to the agricultural resources of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should send his amendment up in writing.
{1420}
Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the delegate, Mr. Squires, that he add in his amendment, “for manufacturing purposes.” It is also an important industry.

Mr. SQUIRES. I understand that the courts have ruled that the use of water for manufacturing purposes is a public use and would not need to be put in here.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here for this section that I think will cover the ground_an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer a substitute for section 3.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all these amendments and to the article itself.

Mr. Thoreson's amendment was read as follows:

To strike out from lines 4 and 5, the words “as a means to the development of the mineral resorcesof the State,” and insert in lieu thereof, “and for agricultural, domestic, and sanitary purposes.”

The necessary use of land for rights of way for tunnels, flumes, pipes, ditches, canals, reservoirs, roads, tram-ways, or dumps, for the development of the farming or mineral resources of the State, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the control and regulation of the State.

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir; that is worded just the same as this other, with the addition that I have put in there, “canals, and reservoirs, and for the development of the farming resources of the State.”

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Does the chair hold that that substitute is in order now?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands that it is a substitute for these two amendments.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I know, but it is just an amendment, if there are two amendments. already to the section.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right; the proposition should come on Mr. Squires' motion.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw the amendment which I offered, as I think the substitute offered by Mr. Howard more fully covers the point we desire to gain; that will leave the substitute before the house.

Mr. THORESON. I will withdraw mine.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the substitute offered by Mr. Howard.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I think that this matter was thoroughly discussed when we had it under consideration in the bill of rights, and after mature deliberation this Convention decided against that, and I believe that that is what they will do again. My friend from Summit decided here some time ago, that no man only he who was practicing in the law was speaking upon that side of the question. He referred to the fact that but very few knew anything about the great white-clad peaks of the Wasatch range only what they had read about. I want to say to the gentleman that I have been upon those peaks myself, but it did not help me to form a conclusion, by reason of that, that I had any right to cast my vote to enact a constitutional provision whereby one citizen could demand aid of the State to take away the property of his fellow individual citizen.

That is what you propose to do in this article, as I comprehend it; that you are going to make a constitutional enactment whereby if one person believes that his interest demands that another

person's property shall be taken by giving him what he thinks perhaps is a just compensation, that he will have a right to do it, and I say {1421} that we ought not to do that. I say that it is sufficient, as we have already declared, that private property shall be taken for public uses and those uses will be declared by the courts. I am opposed to this system. I believe that we have done all that we ought to do, and I do not think this Convention is prepared to say that if it shall be in my wisdom deemed proper that I should take the property of my neighbor, that we should declare that I had the right to do that. We cannot tell where that principle will strike, and, so far as I am concerned, it would make no difference to me where it would strike. I should be opposed to it upon the principle of human liberty, and we ought not to be allowed to do it. I say that it is going as far as we ought to go when we say under our organic law that private property should be taken for any purpose whatever. Those purposes should be strictly public, and they should be defined by the courts, because that is where it will go eventually. Whenever this question is tested, if you shall put that in your organic law, men will not submit to it, and it is a question that will institute litigation in this Territory and will eventually have to go to the courts to be decided upon, and I believe that if we were to take that position that the courts would decide that it was unconstitutional; it ought not to exist, that private property should be taken by private individuals for their private purposes and uses. If you follow this thing up, you will soon see that the safety of the individual, that the bulwark of his liberty and safety is broken down, whenever you insert such a provision in the organic law, and I believe that this Convention, when this vote is called upon the substitute and also upon the section as reported by the committee, while not charging them with any selfishness in this matter_I want to say to you, gentlemen, if this substitute will be voted down, as I think it will and ought to be, then when the question shall revert upon the article as reported by that committee, that the fact that they have defined in there what is to be a public use, it will be curtailing upon the Legislature, as I comprehend it, that they will not be able to say that anything else shall be a public use, and therefore, you will discriminate against the manufacturing resources of the State; against the agricultural industry of the State, in favor of the mining industry, and I do not think we ought to do it, and I do not think this Convention will.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you think the Legislature would provide the necessary laws from time to time without doing anybody injustice?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). No, sir; I do not think they would have the power to do it, if we undertake to define what is a public use.

Mr. KEARNS. If you strike it out, they certainly won't.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the gentleman a question. I want to ask if he has heard of the reputation of Mr. Choate, of New York, as an attorney. He confirms that principle.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I do not know anything about Mr. Choate's reputation at all. It would not make any difference to me if I did.

Mr. CREER. His reputation is national, and he sustains this.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir; I do. I believe that when the necessity becomes sufficient, the courts will so decide.

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I am in favor of having a constitutional provision providing for that emergency.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Evans a question. Is it your idea {1422} that the Legislature should declare these interests public uses?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). No, sir; it is not.

Mr. EICHNOR. Simply the court.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir; simply the court, But I say the Legislature may do it if we do not debar them by specifically setting forth one interest, by declaring it to be a public interest. These debates will be gone into in defining these questions, when they come to rule upon them. They will see what led up to it. This Convention struck the other provision all out and then inserted this.

Mr. HART. There is a matter connected with the legal phase of this question that I think should be considered. I think that the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Bowdle, is mistaken when he declares that the decision of the courts in the western states at least will not uphold as a public use the taking of land for purposes of right of way for irrigation ditches, and also for manufacturing and mining and milling purposes. It is true that the decisions of the courts all over the United States are considerably at sea as to what is a public use. They are not only undecided and uncertain as to what is a public use in these different cases, but there is a difference of opinion amongst them as to the test or criterion upon which a public use is to be determined. But the decisions of the western states have very generally held, in addition to the authorities read by the gentleman from Summit County, that a right of way for irrigation purposes, for mining and milling, was a public use. It is true that there is a decision there from California that the gentleman read that does not uphold that in a certain mining case, but I can show the gentleman other authorities from California which do uphold the right of way for drainage and irrigation purposes connected with mines, such as drains, etc., from the mines. It seems to me there must have been something connected with the particular circumstances of the case that the gentleman read there that should cause them to decide that that was not a public use.

The CHAIRMAN. For one individual is the division_for one purpose.

Mr. HART. It would seem from that case that it was for the benefit of one individual solely and some other person was perhaps being injured to a like extent. Of course, if some great good shall come from some slight injury, although a few persons only were interested in that right of way, I

have no doubt the court would uphold it as a public use. Therefore, if upon the first discussion of this question we could have the substitute offered by the gentleman from Weber County (Mr. Kimball), which was the Idaho constitution on this subject, I would have been glad if that had been adopted. It would have defined and settled the question to a great extent and removed the uncertainty of the decisions of courts upon this question; but we have rejected that. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out this section for the reason before stated, that if we enumerate these matters connected with mines, and declare that they can be taken for public purposes, I am afraid that the courts will be hampered in passing upon the question of rights of way for agricultural purposes. I would not oppose this section for a moment if it was simply to make certain and sure something that the mines should have which it would do. I would be willing to give it a preference over agriculture by declaring and making certain in this way, inasmuch as we cannot make the other matter certain, I would fix certain that part that we can if I was not afraid that by so doing you would rule out the power of the courts by judicial decree of determining that rights of way for agricultural purposes were public uses.

I am opposed to the substitute offered {1423} by the gentleman from Emery County for the reason that I believe it is crude and imperfect. From a casual reading of it, I am certain that it is. No layman can sit upon the floor of this house and in a casual manner produce an article that will stand the test of the courts or will give us satisfaction. Mr. Chairman, if we were going to declare these matters public uses at all, let us include the whole list, rights of way for milling, manufacturing, mining, and agricultural purposes. Let us by unanimous consent go back to the section introduced by the gentleman from Weber County and get a section that is well considered and nicely worded, and not attempt either to hamper the courts in their discretion as to what is public use by declaring some of these purposes public uses, or let us not on the other hand attempt to cover the ground by a crude and imperfect substitute that is offered upon this whole subject. I am in favor of striking out the section and oppose the substitute.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be opposed to the substitute. I am opposed to the third section and was opposed to it in the committee, but I did not see that it would or could do any good and would not answer the purpose which it was designed for. Some remarks have been made showing or tending to show that a man might take up a piece of ground below a valuable mine and obstruct the right of way for drainage, for roads, or for any other reason. He might take it up for that purpose and he might not.

One mine might be developed and be valuable. A piece of ground adjoining it might be undeveloped and equally as valuable, and if you, Mr. Chairman, wished to cross my ground with a road or a ditch, claiming it to be a public use, and I would deny your right, this section I do not think would settle the question. You would have to go into the courts then, would not you? And looking at it in that way, and taking that view of it, I cannot see that it would accomplish any purpose whatever.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would it be necessary to have more than one case taken to the courts_could not a test case be made that would settle the whole question?

Mr. RYAN. I presume so; that would settle it, without this section, would not it, so that the

section would not do any good?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman permit the chair to make a suggestion, that each case would have to depend upon its individual facts?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, this whole matter that has come up for discussion this morning, as I remember it, was very thoroughly considered in sections 22 and 23 when the bill of rights was under discussion. The latter part of section 22 and the whole of section 23 covered all and more than is proposed by this substitute or by section 3 in the article on mines and mining. I think, sir, at that time, the result of the discussion was that the latter part of section 22 and all of section 23 was stricken from the bill of rights and the provisions left thus:
Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.
That, sir, as I remember it, left all this matter to the Legislature and to the courts. It left mining, agriculture, and manufacturing interests, so far as these matters proposed in this substitute are concerned, upon an absolute equal footing, and now to disturb the action that was then taken by the Convention, after full, free, and prolonged debate upon the question with a full house, I think it is exceedingly unwise and unprofitable, and as was suggested and brought out by the remarks of the gentleman from Juab, in the question propounded by the gentleman from Salt Lake to him, this whole question {1424} at any rate would have to go before the courts and depend upon the decision of the courts as to what public purposes might be. And for that reason I am unwilling to disturb the candid decision of this Convention upon this proposition.

And now to spring an ill-prepared and doubtless ill-considered and hurriedly prepared substitute, to work into this Convention what was once ejected from it, is not the part of wisdom, and I think that in all these respects we can safely trust the Legislature, and we can safely trust the courts, and the miners can do that just as well as the agriculturists and the manufacturers can do it. Now, sir, for the reason that we have fully discussed in this Convention and settled these propositions, I am opposed to the section and also to the substitute.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention, of the gentleman from Davis County to the fact that it is necessary in order to secure rights of way over these mining properties that they should be declared rights of way for public purposes by this Convention, otherwise the courts would have no power, as I understand it, to declare rights of way over these private properties for private uses. We are attempting, as I understand it, in this section to determine what is a public use, and as I understand it, it is within the scope of this Convention to make a declaration of that kind.

Mr. ROBERTS. Does the gentleman not remember that substitutes were offered for section 23, attempting to declare what public uses were, in the discussion that we had on that question?

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir; I do. You are right.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then, I ask you if you do not also remember that those substitutes were rejected on this settlement by this Convention?

Mr. ROBERTS. Is not this reviving a question that was once settled by the Convention?

Mr. JAMES. That is also correct. I take for granted that if this Convention in dealing with some question should have enacted or passed some provision that they would afterwards discover that would be beneficial to the public to correct, that it would be a proper thing for them to endeavor to do so. Now, the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. Murdock), called your attention to mining as a public benefit. Now, I take it for granted that no gentleman on this floor will question the gentleman's position regarding mining being a public benefit. Now if there should be any question in any gentleman's mind regarding this statement of the gentleman, let him look to Europe. There, after hundreds of years of experience in mining, we find to-day the government of_

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. This Convention has decided this question in Convention, and is not it out of order to be discussing it in this committee?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair is of opinion that that matter would be properly decided in the Convention. I should not care to rule upon it as chairman of the committee of the whole. When this committee makes its reports the Convention can decide it.

Mr. JAMES. Then I will proceed Russia to-day is taxing all classes of industry for the purpose of working their precious metal mines to a certain extent. Now, if it was not a public benefit, would that great nation, Russia, be found taxing the public in order to work those mines? And is not it so, gentlemen, that Europe has for generations discriminated in the interests of the mining industry, that is, they have made the burden of taxation light upon the industry? Now, I simply mention this to you, gentlemen, as I vote that mining is a public benefit, and that is the reason why the gentleman, I suppose, {1425} from Summit County has come in here and asked you to declare rights of ways over these properties public uses. Now, Mr. Chairman, so far as I am personally concerned, I have not one particle of personal interest in this thing being done. As you all well know, I am an old miner of long standing in this Territory. My titles are perfect. I am not seeking rights of way anywhere, but, gentlemen, there are poor men in this county to-day that own mining property that, if I do not see fit to give them rights of way over property that I own patents to, in this county, their properties are not worth one cent to them, and they have spent years in trying to develop them and make them of some value to themselves. Now, for the reason that it cannot injure anybody and it is a public benefit, that it is no concern to the agricultural industry, excepting. to their benefit, I do not see why this question should have come up here unless there is something improper or illegal in our proceedings. I concede if there is, that we should not do it, but otherwise, there should be no question about this I say to you, gentlemen, that are engaged in agricultural industries, this very proposition is to your particular benefit. Why? As the gentleman from St. George has told you and as you all know, because you have lived in these mountains and you are familiar with how mines are located, how they are situated, and where they are found, and know that it is frequently a narrow passage, we cannot get into the mountains where mines are without these passes, and a man, as he has a right to do under the law, has got that and located that piece of property, shutting off the right of way to that narrow

passage; now, suppose, gentlemen, you vote here so that you put yourselves in a shape that you cannot get over that piece of ground, and what is the result? Why, you farmers must go up into the mountains to get that timber. You must go up there and seek_

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. In your mining experience, how many cases have you met such as you speak of, desiring the right of way over another man's property_how many cases have you met that you were not able to settle amicably with the claim owners?

Mr. JAMES. Well, personally, not any; but I know of several that have caused serious trouble. Now, I want to say to you, gentlemen, supposing you want to pass over this piece of ground or to get out of those mountains to take rocks or drive your cattle up in there to herd them, in the summer season, just as is done in all of these mountain ranges, just as you have the privilege to do. Providence put the timber up there for your benefit, and it should be utilized. Now, supposing I should come, and in my contrary, stubborn and selfish disposition, shut you out of there and say you shall not go up there, am I doing anybody any good? Now, I cannot understand, unless it is for the reason I speak of, why there should be any question of adopting this section with this mining article. You will all observe in the bill of rights, passing over this ground or taking possession, that cannot be done without compensating the holder of this property for what it may be worth, and what more should he ask?

Mr. BOWDLE. I want simply to reply to what Mr. Hart has said in one regard. He has challenged the correctness of my position, and claims that it is not backed up by the decisions of these western states. He has asserted that that is not the case, but he fails to bring the decisions to contradict them. Now, the gentleman misunderstands one thing. I made no assertion with reference to mills. It has been held in a great many states that milling was a {1426} public benefit. Everybody has to go to mill unless somebody comes for them, and it was held that that was a public benefit, and all of those cases that were referred to in the Eastern states, save and except possibly one, was on that ground. I admit that, and the court here would hold that milling in that term commonly used_that a grist mill, saw mill and the like would be a public benefit, and that you could have a road to these mills. I believe in some of the states it is held that in laying out a road you can make a terminus at a grist mill, because that is a public benefit. You can make a terminus at a public graveyard or cemetery, because that is a public benefit. Everybody has to die and be buried.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you hold that mining is not a public benefit?

Mr. BOWDLE. Mining is no more a public benefit than is agriculture_no more.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you hold that both are?

Mr. BOWDLE. I hold that they are both a public benefit in this, they furnish the means of subsistence to the people. One man raises the crop from the ground and the other digs the mineral out, and simply because a mine which employed a hundred men_it is no more a public benefit than a ranch that will employ a hundred men.

Mr. BOWDLE. I do not know. The test of public benefit is the amount of good it does to the public, and it does not make any difference whether it be a mine or whether it be a farm, if the farm is equally productive and turns out as many dollars and benefits as many people, it is as much a public benefit as is the mine. But I do not want to be understood in this that I am antagonizing the mines, not a particle. I wish for the mines of Utah the greatest prosperity. But I do claim that when this section, if we pass it in favor of one industry, and by passing it we discriminate against another that is equally as great in this Territory, you cannot get away from the proposition that if that section passes you thereby say to the courts, “we have passed on the question of what is a public use. Agriculture and manufacturing is not a public use and you cannot benefit them by any decisions you may make.”

Now, one other thing, I do not believe that it is the province of this Constitutional Convention to make a thing by declaration a public use that is not a public use.

Behind this Constitutional Convention there is a power that is greater than it. The Constitution of the United States has guaranteed unto men their property, and this Constitutional Convention cannot say to them, “We take that and declare it to be a public use.” You cannot do it, and I do not believe that it means anything, that if we stand up here and declare a thing that is strictly a private enterprise or a public use, the public benefit, that that makes it so, and I am opposed to that on that ground. I am just as anxious that this Territory should improve and grow as any man dare to be in this Constitutional Convention, and every industry should prosper, but I am not willing to put that section or to put the substitute in this Constitution, because when we do, you say to one man, “You have the power to go and take another man's property,” and one man stands in the eyes of the law just as good as the other, and the first is guaranteed that right and you say you will take it away from him.

Mr. HART. Just a moment in reply to a remark of Mr. Bowdle. He referred to the fact that I quoted no authority to substantiate the position I take. I will refer him to the same authority that my friend from Summit has over there on eminent domain, as {1427} bearing out the position that I take. If I had the opportunity of reading the words, I would read them, and I am satisfied that it bears out the position I take. It is true, as he says, those cases named from the eastern states are in reference to milling purposes, but the same reason can be applied to agriculture, milling, and mining here in the west. There is no reason why a grist mill is any more a public use than a theater, and upon the same reason you could condemn a man's city lot for the purpose of erecting a theater, a public building to which all the public could go. It is just as much a public purpose as a mill is; it is not upon that ground that they sustain that line of industry in the west_the necessity of it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the section that is sought to be stricken out. I believe that it is necessary for the development of our mining industries. I do not share in the belief that it is unconstitutional. The section simply declares that the necessary use of lands for right of way, for tunnels, flumes, etc., are hereby declared to be a public use. Now, when

gentlemen argue that these lands can be taken and appropriated for anything different from what the section expressly provides, the intimation in the argument is not well founded. It is only where the use is a necessary one for these necessary purposes. That is, for the purpose of developing the mining industry. Take, gentlemen, for instance, cases where men first located upon mining grounds. They secure all the grounds around them, and if somebody happens to get a subsequent location in a situation that is surrounded by the prior location, he would not be permitted to develop his ground, although it might be rich in mineral.

Mr. SQUIRES. Did you hear the substitute offered for the section?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I did not, and would like to hear it read.

The substitute offered by Mr. Howard was read.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I confess I am not opposed to the substitute. I take the same position that I took the other day upon this question, that courts will determine the question as to whether these purposes are necessary; they must be essentially necessary before the courts would deprive the owner of his land, and even then the title to the land is not taken, but simply the use for the purposes mentioned. It has been suggested here that there is no difference perhaps in agricultural pursuits and that kind of mining. I think in this respect there is a difference and I will state the reason for it. In agricultural pursuits the county courts and public authorities fix rights of way and ways by which people may travel and secure access to other lands, whereas in the mining camps up high in the mountains the public exercises no such control. The Ruler of all has placed in His wisdom the minerals in our mountains for the purpose of developing them and taking them out for the use of man. Why should man be permitted to so locate or be fortunate enough to secure lands in the situation that it will prevent the design of developing these minerals and developing the country and securing that additional wealth to our new State?

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask Mr. Evans, in the case you refer to, if the prospector were to locate a mine which was surrounded by the mines of other men, possibly patented ground, would not the court permit that prospector, on proper application, if the owners would not, to get access to his ground?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There would be, I think, in a court of equity a way of necessity by which the court would permit such a use, but there are other uses that are just as necessary as a right of way over which persons may travel. It is just as necessary that there should {1428} be tunnels, and equally necessary that there should be flumes, pipes, ditches, tramways and the like. I can see no injury to any man owning mining property to permit these uses to be declared public uses. He cannot be so deprived of his property that he himself will be injured. It simply permits another person, under necessary and proper circumstances, regulated by the acts of the Legislature, to use that property for these essential purposes, to develop the mining industries of the new State. Why, gentlemen, we talk about these mining industries. They are something, in my opinion, that are paramount to all other industries in Utah. They are only temporary, however, in their character. While they are being worked, let them be worked to tothe fullest extent, let them be developed; do not make a Constitution here which would stay the hand of enterprises, or stay the

hand that desires to delve into the earth to extract from it these precious metals, which are essentially necessary as a medium of exchange. There can be no permanent injury to any man owning mines, whether he be the prior locator or not.

Mr. HART. Do you think this Convention can authorize the taking of private property for private purposes, by a simple declaration to that effect? Would not the courts have to pass upon it anyway?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). This is not a declaration that private property may be taken for private use. The whole thing is left to the Legislature, under certain regulations and restrictions, and doubtless the Legislature will deal wisely with it, doubtless the Legislature will say the manner in which this property may be taken. Of course it could not be done without just compensation, that is clear.

Mr. JAMES. Cannot this Convention declare what shall be a public use?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Undoubtedly it can.

Mr. JAMES. Is not that just what we are trying to do?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is all, as I understand it, that we are trying to do. We might make such a Constitution here that private property could be taken for private use, and then declare those private uses public, and it may be possible that our supreme court will hold that it was not a public use, but there is a division of opinion in the courts of the land upon this particular question. Our courts, I have no doubt, would decide that mining was a public use, that it was essentially necessary that these things should be permitted in order to develop the interests of mining.

Mr. BOWDLE. You have almost answered the question I was going to ask you. Simply declaring anything to be a public use, would that make it so?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It would not I will say that in the abstract, it would not, but many of the courts have held that mining is a public use. Gentlemen, it seems to me that it is a public use. The minerals that are deposited in the earth originally belonged to the crown. In the United States government, they belonged to the people until segregated from the domain of the United States and title given by the government. A. person who locates upon public land does it by the grant of the government. He receives benefits from the government. Why should he be permitted, upon public ground granted by the government of the United States, to be put in the position, as I stated the other day, of the dog in the manger, and develop his own grounds and exclude other people who honestly desire to develop their grounds, in cases and circumstances where the person first owning the land is not injured in the least?

Mr. SMITH. Would it be taking property for a public use by my having a mine adjacent to yours, and being unable to get over to mine, to take your property in order that I might {1429} reach my mine? Would that be a public use or a private use?

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Weber favored section 3, or the substitute therefor, I would ask him why he did not favor the substitute of the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Kimball), some days ago?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I did favor it, and the records of this Convention show that I made a speech in favor of it. I am still in favor of the substitute, but I do not believe that the temper of the Convention is such that it can be secured. For that reason I hope to secure the next best thing.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is a very strange course we are pursuing. We spent two or three days on this identical proposition. I myself got somewhat startled at the proposition to cut it out of the original bill of rights, and afterwards we reconsidered the matter and did take virtually this item just as it appears here, with a little changing in the wording. Struck it out after having debated the matter for, I do not know, but some two days. To my mind this is simply rethreshing of old straw, and I am just as much convinced now as I was then. I was willing to vote that this section should go out and that it should go out now. I believe it is a dangerous course and should not be in here. The courts should have this matter under consideration.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, that section that was stricken out of the bill of rights, was it declared a public use and under the control of the State?

Mr. SMITH. It had not those words in it, but it amounted to the same thing virtually.

Mr. KEARNS. The section you are talking about?

Mr. SMITH. I think you are tampering with fire in this thing. We had better leave it alone. Some things we may mention and others not. By mentioning some things it will put the other matter in an unfortunate shape.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I understood, Mr. Varian to champion the striking out of the section of the bill of rights, but he made no serious objection to declaring certain things a public use. That is exactly what we are doing in this section, and nothing else.

Mr. SMITH. My memory in regard to this matter is that so far as he was concerned, he was opposed to the whole proposition in the form in which it was presented.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I understood him to say that in Nevada the courts have declared it to be a public use.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I shall not occupy the attention of the committee very long, but I trust this matter will remain as it was in the bill of rights. The fact of the business is, this is a question that belongs to the courts. The courts have always had control of it, and in every instance they have worked for the interest of the people. I challenge any attorney on this floor to cite one case in the books where a court ever strained a point against declaring anything a public use that was for the benefit of the public. The fact of the business is, the trend has been in the opposite direction. They have been declaring things that are strictly private use, a public use.

Mr. PIERCE. I pick up the gauntlet which he throws down.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is out of order.

Mr. THURMAN. You can answer when I get through. I say that is the trend of judicial decisions, and the books lay it down that it is essentially a judicial question, and I maintain that this Constitutional Convention has no right to attempt to say that the property of a man shall be taken for private use, and if we are not here attempting to do that, what are we attempting to do? That is the question. If we undertake to say that mining is a public use, then the courts will declare that the right may be exercised. If it is a public use the courts will so declare it, every time. If it is a private use that we are trying to allow property to be taken for, I say we have no right to do it and it will have no effect. It has been determined time and time and again that where the legislatures of the states have declared a thing to be a public use, it is not a final determination of the question. The judiciary still have the right to say that it is or is not, and I say that the same principle will apply, if we in this Convention undertake to say that a certain thing is a public use. After all, the judiciary will have to finally settle the question. I think we ought to leave it as it is.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I think this section ought to be retained for the reason that I conceive that the section if retained will very materially aid in the development of the mining resources of our Territory, and the mining resources is one of the principal resources of the Territory. If I recollect correctly the law upon this proposition, it is this, in the state of Nevada, some time in perhaps 1872, the eminent domain law contained a clause similar to the one that we have passed in our bill of rights. Subsequently the legislature passed a law declaring that the right of eminent domain existed in favor of mines and mining property, as a public use. That came up for construction by the supreme court of the state of Nevada, and they held that the law was

constitutional under the general clause such as we have in our bill of rights. Of course, if, our courts took that construction, there would be no danger, and the right of eminent domain would exist in favor of mines and mining claims. But, sir, upon the other hand, against the decision of Nevada the weight of authority is in direct opposition to it. The question has come up in the state of California, I cannot now recall the case, in the state of Georgia, and in the state of Pennsylvania, and they have held that under such a section as we have in the eminent domain act or in the bill of rights, that the courts could not construe that mines and mining property were public uses and at the same time enjoyed the benefits of the eminent domain act, and, to place this question absolutely beyond controversy, I think it is the duty of this Convention to declare in favor of mines and leave the section in as it is reported by the committee.
{1431 - PROHIBITION}
Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will also support the substitute that is offered here. It is strange, but I have to differ with the able gentleman from Utah on the way he has laid down the law and as to the necessity and how the courts could find for the people of this country. It is strange that in 1894, in the revised constitution of New York, that that able body found it necessary to say that general laws may be passed permitting the owners or occupants of agricultural land to construct and maintain for the drainage thereof necessary drains, ditches, flumes and dykes, upon the lands under proper restrictions, etc. Now, if they found it necessary there, it is strange that the proposition should be made here that this section will not do our Constitution any good.

Mr. THURMAN. Has that been construed by the courts?

Mr. KEARNS. That, I suppose, if two parties differ on it, would necessarily have to be, but if it was an understood fact between the people themselves, it would save construction by the courts.

Mr. THURMAN. I understood you to say you differed from me in respect to what I said about the law. I said the courts would construe what is a public use and what the Legislature would do would not be final, or what this Convention could do would not be final.

Mr. KEARNS. I understood the gentleman wanted to strike out this and leave it to the courts to do this.

Mr. THURMAN. That is right under the bill of rights.

Mr. KEARNS. I am opposed to it. Also, in Colorado_coming nearer home_they find it necessary there and put it in a good deal stronger than we do. There I believe the committee on mining and irrigation is one and the same thing. They provide that all persons shall have the right of way across public and private and corporate lands for the construction of ditches, channels, flumes, and for the purpose of conveying water for the domestic, for the irrigation of agricultural lands, and for the mining and manufacturing purposes, and for the drainage, upon payment of just compensation. Now, gentlemen, I do not think there is any danger in leaving this to our future Legislatures and I hope that the amendment will prevail.

The question being taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Howard, the committee divided and by a vote of 40 ayes to 43 noes, the substitute was rejected.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to now move to strike out sections 1 and 2 of this article.

The motion was agreed to.

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

The article as reported by the minority of the committee was read.

(See journal, pages 204 and 205.)

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that when this committee arise, it report the adoption of the majority report.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Sevier, that the committee adopt the majority report and so report to the Convention when they arise.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that is the motion of Mr. Ricks. You second the motion.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion, and as an amendment I move that the recommendation of the minority be adopted. The disposition of at least some members of this committee seems to be to dispose of this question without any discussion whatever. It does not seem to me that that is the proper thing to do. It is a {1432} fact which we must all recognize, that a very large number of people in this Territory have petitioned asking us that this question of prohibition be submitted to the people as a separate article, to be inserted in the Constitution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to define my position upon this question. I am and have been a prohibitionist. I do not want to be misunderstood in regard to the position that I take. I have contended against the saloon element and existing laws which make the sale of intoxicating liquors respectable and legal, for years and years, and I do not wish now upon the floor of this committee to allow a question of this character to pass by without at least entering my protest against it. My conclusions in regard to this question have been largely the result of personal experience. I shall not attempt to discuss it at length, but, Mr. Chairman, as I have remarked from my own personal experience and observation, I have become opposed to the licensing of saloons for the disposition of intoxicating liquors. In the early part of my life, for the lack of better material, I was used as a prosecuting attorney in one of the counties in this Territory. During my experience I came in contact with many criminals. I was required to prosecute men for a great variety of offenses, and I want to say here that from my observation more than three-fourths of all the criminal cases that I ever had to deal with were the direct results of the use of intoxicating drink. I have prosecuted men for murder, for arson, for incest, for larceny, and almost without exception, when those men were brought before the bar of justice, it became apparent from the

testimony adduced that their misdeeds had been the result of the use of intoxicating liquors. I have it from the statement of an old attorney, one who has had years of practice at the bar, that out of four thousand criminal cases that have come under his direct observation, in many of which he appeared as counsel, three thousand were directly traceable to the effect of strong drink, and many of those were indirectly traceable to the same cause.

I tell you, gentlemen, that I believe that fully half the expense of our court proceedings in this new State may be abolished if you will first abolish the liquor traffic. So, from a point of economy, I am in favor of this provision, and I stand here and advocate it today, and if it shall go before the people I shall advocate it there, and I shall advocate it in the hope that it may be incorporated into this Constitution and become a part of the fundamental law. I have no faith that good results will come from local option. I have no faith that high license can abolish this s stem; but you make it a part of the constitutional law, let it be removed from politics, and I believe I know the people of Utah well enough to say that if they once make up their minds that the liquor traffic shall be abolished, it will be abolished. Why, gentlemen, every man who reads the papers knows that this thing is sapping the very foundation, undermining the corner stone of this government.

I remember reading of a young man who, in a paroxysm of drunken rage, struck down and killed his own father. And when he was arraigned for murder, it was brought out in evidence that the liquor which he had procured had robbed him of his reason and prompted the murderous blow, and that it had been obtained from a saloon hard by, the keeper of which had been licensed to dispose of that liquor by the very court before which he was being tried for murder. I remember the case of a young man who struck down and killed his bosom friend, and when the saloon- keeper in whose resort the deed had been done was placed on the witness stand, he testified that his license to dispose of that drink had been granted by {1433} the very court before which he was then being used as a witness. I remember a little child being struck down by a blow from the hands of a drunken mother, of a wife whose head was cleft in twain by an ax in the hands of a drunken husband, of one who struck down in drunken rage and killed his only brother, and these criminals, when they when dragged before the bar of justice, crying in the remorse of souls for pity, were living witnesses that they were not murderers at heart. No. The element that was responsible for those bloody deeds was a dollar's worth of the meanest whisky on earth, that a Christian had licensed a respectable citizen to place to their lips. In my own short experience, I have sat by the grave of a drunkard and looked back to a time when he was at the head of a happy household, sheltered by a roof, where plenty abounded, peace prevailed, and the happy prattle of children made the homecoming of the evening the most pleasant anticipation of the day; but this demon, this tempter, came into that household and I thought as I looked down into his narrow resting place what legacy he had bequeathed to his heartbroken wife and tattered children, his will could be written in a few short sentences: “To my heartbroken, poverty stricken wife, I bequeath the recollection of broken vows, blasted hopes, and a life of penury and woe. To my little children, I will and bequeath lives of degradation; shame, and sin, and to the rest of my kindred I bequeath the recollections of a misspent life and the monument of a drunkard's grave.” How many thousands of such wills, gentlemen, are filed before the courts of heaven every year for probate, God only knows, but we know that they are many, and I say that when a time shall come that all men receive the reward of their merits, we, who are the framers of the law, will not

be found guiltless if we shall give our sanction to the enactment of laws which make the saloon respectable and which is surely and relentlessly making criminals of otherwise good and honest men during every year that this earth turns around on its axis. I have no quarrel with men who are engaged in the liquor traffic. Under existing law's their business is made respectable, and I would not in any way interfere with them. It is a source of regret to me that I am obliged to stand here to-day and take the position which I know brings me in opposition to the ideas and the views of many good men whose judgment is equally good and perhaps better than mine, but, gentlemen, I cannot be misunderstood upon this question. I am a captive to my conscience, and my conscience prompts me to contend here in favor of the incorporation into the Constitution of the new State of this article, because I believe that the safety of our sons depends upon it.

I shall not discuss the question of the infringement of personal rights. No one here will protest against laws which look to the extermination of the opium joint. There are no such great interests involved as this committee says in its report. It applies more particularly to the Chinaman, but when you come to apply it to the free born American, then you are attacking his personal prerogatives. I want to say that I am ready to take chances and have this incorporated in our Constitution, notwithstanding the great property interests that may be at stake. What are property interests in comparison with human life? There is no other argument. I have talked with saloon men and I have never met one in my life that attempted to justify his traffic, except from a position of gain, “Gold, give us gold, no matter what the cost.” For it, men murder, rob, steal, women sell their virtue, and men place in the trembling hands of their fellows the maddening drink, when they know from their step and from their trembling hand that every drink they take is {1434} bringing them nearer to death, and not only ruining the body, but placing their souls in jeopardy. Gentlemen, I shall vote for this minority report. I shall contend for it. If your wisdom shall say that it is not right, proper, and expedient that it should be incorporated in the Constitution, all well and good. I have not much faith that it will be. I did have some little faith, some little anticipation, some hope previous to the junketing trip we took to Logan the other day, but that spoiled it all.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would ask the gentleman if he knows how many signers to these petitions asking for the submission of this article have been flied in this house?

Mr. IVINS. I understand that these petitions have been signed by a very small minority of all the people of Utah, but I stand here to-day advocating that that minority should be heard [laughter], and I hope the gentleman will not stand in opposition to me upon this question.

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to ask another question, and that is, if the reputation that this Convention has established in regard to dealing with the petitions of the people that chance to be in the minority, leads the gentleman to expect that the Convention will pay any more respect to this minority petition than it did to a certain other minority petition which the gentleman voted not to accord? [Laughter]

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I voted not to accord what the other minority asked, because I thought that they asked for the wrong thing. I vote to accord what the present minority ask, because I think that they come for the right thing.

Mr. IVINS. It was from saloons in mining camps. I do not refer, gentlemen, to little cases of misdemeanors. I refer to cases of very grave importance that came under my observation at Silver Reef and other mining camps while I was prosecuting attorney.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask the gentleman if the wine that is produced in Dixie has the effect upon individuals that he has described?

Mr. IVINS. I want to say that while I come from a country where a great deal of wine is produced, I do not drink much of it. I believe that the gentleman himself is better capable of answering that question than I am. [Laughter.]

Mr. MAESER. Mr. Chairman, although a signer of the majority report, I have come to this Convention with a full conviction within my heart to cast all my influence and all my efforts for the cause of prohibition in whatever form or shape this Convention might deem proper to advocate and promulgate that cause. I endorse every word that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Ivins), has been saying. It corresponds with my own experience and my principles. There is not a man on the floor of this Convention that has worked so long and faithfully in the cause of prohibition, I dare say, as I have done in my capacity as a teacher of the people. I have suffered personal insults times over and over again from the saloon element from trying to keep young men that have been under my charge from those influences that are so destructive, and that have been so vividly painted before us by Mr. Ivins. I say I come here with the full determination to cast my influence and all my efforts for the cause of prohibition, but this has been my first experience in legislative labors. I have never gone and entered into politics. My life has been spent in the school room exclusively, and all the labors connected therewith. My views, I must acknowledge, have {1435} been broadened somewhat. I find myself in a new field that has been to a very great extent foreign to me before, and with this, in regard to methods of dealing with matters and things, have had to undergo a change somewhat. I am just as much for prohibition as ever I was. My whole heart is fully devoted to this. I have seen the evils of the saloon element among our youth. Hundreds of cases I have had to deal with; labored hard and faithfully to rescue young men from the downward course on which the saloon element was driving them. This I have done over and over again, and perhaps more sacred work I have had to do in this respect than I wish to dwell upon on the floor of this house just now, but when I found that I had an oath given to help frame a Constitution, before all things a Constitution that would be acceptable to the people of this Territory, in order to secure statehood for Utah, this was my oath. I was not to come here only for the sake of prohibition, nor for any other special purpose, or scheme, but this was the main principle to which I was devoted by my oath here on the floor of this Convention, and I found by my close observations_you know all I have not been much of a talker on the floor of this house, but I have done a considerable amount of thinking. I found there was a great opposition to the movement of putting it into the Constitution, and not only directly in the Constitution, from this Convention, but also by separate voting of the people.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, I regard this as I do many other questions that come before this body of men, that this is the most important question_one of the most grave questions; I do not think there is any that is more important than the one that is now before us. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, here is a body of men that is chosen from all parts of the country. They are supposed to voice the mind of the people from the districts from which they come. And this is a question that is in the minds of all the people. I realize this fact, that it takes a man of stamina to meet this question, and I am proud that I seconded my esteemed friend from Washington County_that I seconded his motion to accept the minority report. I know that this is a very important {1436} question in many respects, and that I have got no feelings against men who are in the business. I presume they have chosen that business because to them it perhaps is the most paying business that they could enter into with all the surroundings. I do not wish to say anything about the matter, but here is an evil, gentlemen, as I regard it, as an evil, and I think the great majority of the people of this Territory regard this as being an evil.

Let it be ever so paying to individuals in the business. I know it touches the interest of a great percent. of the people. I realize this fact and there are many great investments that have been made, many outlays that have been gone into for the purpose of the business. There are other businesses possibly even worse and more disreputable than this, that men make money out of, but the fact is this: let them be tolerated. We propose to start out in this as nearly perfect as we can in all our fundamental principles. That is what we are aiming at. That is what we are struggling for, although many minds differ upon the principles that are set forth, but is there anything that is more important and of greater interest to the commonwealth and the people than this principle of traffic in intoxicants? Is there anything that is more_while it may pay a great revenue and results in advancing their interests, we want to look at the interests of the general whole_of all the people. Now, I endorse the minority report for this reason, the responsibility to- day is upon this body of men. A responsibility rests upon us, and now do we want to shift that responsibility and place it upon the people? I do, most emphatically. I want to shift it from off my

shoulders and place it upon the people. For that reason, I thoroughly subscribe to the minority report. What does it say? It does not ask anything unreasonable, and I am pleased to be associated with the men that had the stamina to move that we reject the majority report and accept the minority report. For this reason it was got rid of, or it seemingly was. There might have been much said. You will excuse me, gentlemen, it was seemingly got rid of very easily, I must say, for the majority of the committee shifted it off very easily. I know it takes something to reverse this idea. I realize that fact. I like a bold man, and if there is an emergency, that he has the stamina to stand up and meet an emergency. This is an emergency, and we want to take hold of it like men.

While I do not like to impair the interest of any manor any set of men in business, yet here is a great evil. It is not simply the evil in just drinking an intoxicant, that is not all the evil there is in it. Of course my friend from Washington portrayed what the results of drinking these intoxicants led to. We might spend hours here in detailing this. It is the experience all over the country, but saloons are places where, to my understanding though I am not a customer in any of them, either at home or abroad, but the great. evil amongst them is the allurements. Saloons are made most fascinating, they are made most enticing, they lead the young, not only the young men, but the youth as it were_lead them in there, and if I am able to judge of what I hear, there are not many fine examples set or virtues set forth there, but they are places that are calculated for enjoyment of that class, and consequently it is continually leading our youths and our children, as fast as they get old enough_it is leading them into those places which I think are very contaminating, and I think it is very injurious to the general public. It may not be injurious, you will excuse me_to a certain per cent. of people, but it is very injurious as a whole, and for this reason I feel thoroughly to endorse the report of the minority and give the people the privilege and the opportunity of exonerating this body of men. We {1437} do not want to bear the responsibility of saying that we have not the manhood, the stamina, to step forth and look after this matter. It is one of the most important interests. It is growing. If it is an evil, which I say it is, to a certain extent, it is an evil, and shall we leave it and not undertake to do anything to stop its progress, or shall we stand up like men and do what we can to stop such an evil that is growing in our midst? There are many evils and that is one of them. While, as I said, let me repeat, there are other avocations that perhaps are remunerative, that are of a worse and of a lower character, and let us handle these matters with wisdom and with judgment. I am not opposed to the men. Many men are in the business that are my friends, and I believe that I am their friend, in many respects, as citizens, but here is an evil, gentlemen, that we have either got to shoulder or let the people dispose of it, and that gives an opportunity for the people to take this responsibility off from our shoulders and say what they will have.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, after listening to my friend, Mr. Ivins, from Saint George, I thought that I would like to make a few remarks upon this subject. I have no doubt in my mind but what every word that he has spoken is true, and that his experience in the country from which he came has brought him into contact with men who have been guilty of these crimes, and these crimes have been traced to the improper use of intoxicating liquors. I am also with him on this proposition. If it was possible that by this Convention endorsing this minority report and that it would forever prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks in these United States and make of every man, woman, and child, water drinkers, I would be in favor of it. Some have suggested that I am

engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors. I am. I never went into that business with the idea of making money. In fact, I am one of those unfortunates who in the faithful discharge of his duty in certain directions in this Territory_was suggested_I don't know how to term it, I was promoted. The reputation that I had obtained from the faithful discharge of my duty induced my friends to try and improve my condition. I was recommended from the president's office to go to William S. Godbe and ask him to give me employment. William S. Godbe at that time was a dealer in drugs and intoxicating liquors. Up to that time possibly in all my life I had never tasted liquor. I had never smoked a dozen cigars in my life, and at that time I was thirty years of age. I have listened to this gentleman narrating these awful details of crimes that have been committed through the use of intoxicating liquors. I have never seen the effects myself. Possibly I have not been associated with the class of persons that he has been brought in contact with, and I will say, Mr. Chairman, that if this is the result_the sale of intoxicating liquors, and that became universal, it would be better that we had prohibition to-day and for all time. I do not think that we should engage in any occupation that has a tendency to destroy life, and I would think that it would be proper and right for this Convention to deal with all subjects where it can be proved in the history of the world that human lives have been sacrificed in its support.

We know if we read the history of the past that religion has had a great deal to do with the sacrifices of human life, possibly has cost more wars and bloodshed than has the sale of intoxicating liquors since the first time that the still was discovered. I never hear any gentleman say we must abolish religion because of the massacres or persecution of one class of Christians by another. I have never heard anyone attempt to stop the water that {1438} flows between Utah Lake and Salt Lake, because some people have been drowned in the river. My idea is that if we want to enforce this prohibition article, if we want to keep the people from intoxicating drinks, convert them. Convince them that it is wrong to drink it, and use it, in any form whatever, and when you have done that you don't need a prohibition article. Now, Mr. Ivins has made the remark that he knows the people of this Territory, that they are in favor of this thing, and this little minority report will accomplish it all. It will do nothing of the kind. Here is a community in these valleys that have lived here a number of years. There are men over them for whom they have the most profound respect. They would give up their lives for them. They have a book in their Doctrine and Covenants called the Word of Wisdom. If its power and influence in this Territory is not sufficient to make temperance men and prohibitionists of every man, woman and child in this Territory, I do not see how the introduction of this minority report or this article in the Constitution or out of it is going to accomplish anything of the kind. It will not do it. It will make sneaks of men. It will make honest young men to-day dishonest. I will show you one little instance, if I may be permitted. If this article is enforced, it will not stop the introduction of liquor into this Territory. There are certain kinds of business that cannot be carried on without brandy, or whisky or alcohol, alcohol, especially, in the preparation of certain medicines. Now, for instance, I will go_after this article is inserted in the Constitution and the people have voted on it that we shall have prohibition, I will go into a drug store. I will single out the Co-op., in preference to any other [laughter]. They have three or four young men in there, honest young men, sons of good families, sons of pioneers in these valleys. Their fathers have known the history of the people and have been associated with them for forty years, some of them. I go in there and I say, “Sir, give me a pint of alcohol.” This good young man, a member of the mutual improvement association, and possibly teacher in the ward [laughter], will say to me, “We don't

sell it.” “Well,” says I, “I must have it; I don't need it for a beverage; I don't drink it;” and I wish right here to say to this Convention that I do not use it either, and I do not drink whisky, but you will say to this young man, “I have a sick wife; I have sick children, I need this alcohol to burn.” The young man says, “We don't sell it.” Well, you start to go out of the store and the first thing you know you are called back; he says, “We don't sell it, but we sell liniment. I can let you have a pint of liniment.” “Well,” you say, “give me a pint of liniment.” You take it home and examine it and you find it the very article that you asked for in the first place, that the young man said he did not sell. I say you make young men liars and frauds. I say that this is wrong, to drink liquor to excess, to get drunk, to encourage gambling and all this kind of things, and if I had my way, if a man got drunk and came up on the street to annoy his neighbor or any citizen, I would put a ball and chain on his leg and make him work out his fine on the public streets; but I say it is wrong for men to say that the use of wine is altogether improper, that the use of liquors is altogether improper. I know it is not. I have had people come to me_female relief society ladies [laughter]. They say, Brother Driver, “I want a pint of wine for the sick.” I give it to them. They say, “Bless you, God bless you.” [Laughter.] The next day possibly the husband of this lady comes in and he wants a bottle of wine and I sell it to him; he says, “You are a sinner.” Now, I cannot see it. In one case if I give a bottle of wine I am a saint, in the next, if I sell it, I am a sinner. Well, now, I believe in the proper {1439} use of all things, and when they are properly used and not abused, when they are used for the purposes for which God created them, and gave men knowledge how to produce them, it is no sin or crime, and I will say one thing, that there is no more danger of men bruising their wives' heads, or killing their children, or striking down their fathers or stealing, or doing anything of the kind through the drinking of one glass of wine than there is in going to a church and hearing one minister abusing the whole community and raising an emotion in the audience that creates mobs and finally ends in a loss of life.

Now, my doctrine is, abolish everything that you can ever read of in the history of the world that has ever been the cause of one person's death and espeically those that have been the cause of the death of many thousands, and where would they be? The gentlemen say we must not take this whisky as a beverage. Why not include everything else? Why not include Jones' ale, Bass's ale, Ginnis's stout, Moritz & Keyser's beer, Hires's root beer, and everything else, and when you get through the whole of it, when you have told us what we shall not drink, be kind enough to tell us what we may drink, and then we will know where we are at. Now, I do not want to be understood in this Convention that I am speaking one word in favor of drunkenness, nor the temperate use of intoxicating liquor; but I say this one thing, that the gentlemen that have introduced this article do not know what they are doing. They are wise men, good men, benevolent men, religious men, but they do not understand the outcome of this article. They cannot prohibit it. It will be shipped into the city and all over this Territory and come back itself labeled all kinds of things, possibly vegetables, with a demijohn in the center of the box, and in all kinds of things, groceries, and everything else, and the people will have it if they need it, and my doctrine is, convert them_convert them by your example and by your precepts that they should not take it, that it is injurious to them; and I say when you have done that you will have no use to incorporate in the Constitution an article prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors for a beverage.

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

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt but that if liquor could be successfully prohibited the journals and records of crime would be greatly reduced and mankind no doubt benefitted. I believe it is stated by some of those who have studied the question that there is more money expended for the use of liquor than there is expended for the combined uses of food and clothing. All these facts, together with the myriads of people who indulge in its manufacture and in vending the same, are appalling.

At the same time, I cannot help but agree with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Maeser), who says that the question is a practical one, rather than a theoretical one. Gentlemen of the committee, will a prohibitory law in the Constitution reach the evil which is intended? It is very clear to my mind that it will not. You cannot legislate away the appetite of man. You cannot, by putting a prohibitory law upon the statute books, prevent the sale and use of alcoholic spirits.

Mr. CORAY. Could not prohibition prohibit in regard to Indians_did not the prohibitory law passed by the government prevent the sale of liquor to Indians?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That law is rather more stringently enforced than others, and yet it does not prohibit. But, gentlemen, this question is not a new one. We have experimented with {1440} it throughout the United States. Take the states of Maine, Kansas, and Iowa, and in the latter two, states such laws have proved to be complete failures.

Mr. MILLER. Will you dare to assert that the prohibitory law in Kansas is a failure?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I say in part it is.

Mr. MILLER. I deny it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Well, there is simply a difference of opinion between the gentleman and myself. I will come more nearly to the people at home, and give some little practical experience which we have had here. I, too, like the gentleman from Washington, have had occasion to prosecute many people who were charged with crime, and many crimes that have been committed have been directly traceable to the use of alcoholic spirits. But, gentlemen, there was a time in Utah when the city council had the power, and I believe they have it yet for that matter, to prohibit the sale of liquor within the territorial boundaries of the municipalities. At Provo I happened to have the honor of witnessing the prosecution against the violations of the liquor law. At that time there was a law on the statute books which permitted a person desiring liquor to go to a drug store and sign a certain register or take a certain oath that he was sick. At that time drug stores were the principal means of carrying on a successful business. They grew rich. The use of liquor did not diminish. The officers undertook in good faith and in honesty to enforce the prohibitory law and it proved to be a hollow mockery. We found young men, and old ones, so far as that is concerned, going into these places, committing perjury, declaring to the druggist that they were sick, and we found crime in those places reeking from cellar to garret, and yet with all the moral forces and the forces of the execution of the law by the officers, the whole matter was a

complete failure. I will tell you, gentlemen, why it is a failure and why it always will be in any locality, and that is this: According to the Constitution and laws of the United States, it is an interference with inter-commerce between the states to prohibit the shipping of intoxicating liquors from one state to another, so long as the packages are not broken; while the liquor is in its original package the laws of Congress require that they may be shipped from one state into another, so that whatever law we may pass here, whatever we may put into the Constitution, we cannot exclude the importation of these liquors in the Territory or new State of Utah.

Now, can any gentleman so deceive himself as to say that if liquors can be shipped into this Territory the sale of them can be prohibited? The experiment was tried at Logan. A like failure was made there. The experiment has been tried in other localities, and the only way by which this law could be made effectual would be for the nation to enact laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor, and indeed I believe it would have to be international before the execution of the law could be properly carried into effect. I believe in leaving these things to the moral agencies of the community. They do very much good in that respect, and I commend their efforts in that regard, but I do say that a law written in the Constitution of the new State would be a complete failure. It would be a hollow mockery. We would find men vending liquor, drinking it in as great quantities as they drink it to-day, where they can go openly into a place where it is sold and satisfy their thirst.

In those localities where liquor is prohibited by law we find that the community is deprived of the revenue. Not only that, but we find that people send to distant points and receive it, and when they receive it they drink it in larger and more excessive quantities than they drink it where they can get it {1441} at will. Another thing, now, gentlemen, with respect to this question which we have before this Convention, and it is a very serious one, and that is the danger in which our Constitution will be placed if we undertake to insert this, even as a separate clause, because if that be done, already there is some dissatisfaction with what the Convention has done. People will conceive the idea that by submitting it separately it may carry and that if it does carry it will be inserted into the Constitution as a part of it, and an organized movement will be made throughout Utah to defeat the very Constitution which we are here to frame. Besides all that, the committee has stated in this report it is noth-thing but experimental at least. Insert it in the Constitution and it will be difficult to have it amended. Leave the matter to be dealt with by the future Legislatures, and if it then be found to be a mistake the Legislature can repeal it, if it ever should enact it, even upon the floor of the Legislature. With the experience that I have had upon this question I should vote first, last, and all the time against prohibition, and yet I do not desire to say that I believe in the use of these liquors in the excessive form in which very many times they are used by various individuals.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the question of prohibition from the beginning has had a very hard chance for life in the committee of committees and in the committee on schedule, future amendments, and miscellaneous, and I am glad to see that it is in such a thriving condition to- day. It is a live babe, gentlemen. It is going to grow, and in the future it will master the situation. I believe that all the arguments that have been produced so far by the opposite side amount to nothing. They are only assertions, old straw that has been threshed over in regard to this question in every state where it has been brought up. The gentleman from Weber who has just taken his

seat asks, will a prohibitory law cure the evil? I say, yes, and I wish to emphasize it that a prohibitory law with officers under oath to enforce it will cure the evil. He also made the remark that the law in Kansas was a failure. I want to inform you that even the Kansas Pacific railroad and the Sante Fe and the Rock Island recognize that law in their journey through the state, and I claim that it is not a failure in Kansas. It is true the liquor traffic is pot annihilated, but it is prohibited, and there is no crime that is annihilated by any law that has been placed upon the statute books; but I say that if a prohibitory law shall be placed in the hands of men who will see to the enforcement of it, then it will not be a failure, but it will work the object for which it was intended. I infer from some of the remarks that were made this morning, especially by the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Driver), that he has been reading some of the old cast off arguments that have been hurled at Kansas. In his remarks this morning, he stated that it would only throw the business into the drug stores and there they would use the blind tiger, and he would go in and he would call for liniment or call for beef tea or call for lemon juice, or any other name that he might call for, and the clerk would hand him out beer or whisky, or intoxicating liquor of some nature. Now, I want to state to the gentlemen upon this floor that Kansas met that and she crushed it out. She laid her hand upon the tenement, the house in which the blind tiger was run. So that the law can be enforced in regard to the blind tiger, or sage tea, or catnip tea, or liniment, or whatever you may call it. All we need at the helm is a man that will guide and direct the ship of state and see that the laws are enforced. I do not believe that the gentleman from Weber who closed the remarks this morning before recess is a very close observer. If my memory serves me right, he said that he had {1442} never seen any of the evil results from liquor that had been stated upon this floor. If my memory serves me right, I saw the gentleman one evening when he was very warm under the collar through beer.

Mr. DRIVER. No, sir, you never did.

Mr. MILLER. I heard him get up and ask a gentleman if he had ever been in the Blackhawk war.

The CHAIRMAN. We cannot permit that kind of remarks.

Mr. KIESEL. I call the gentleman to order.

Mr. DRIVER. I wish to say that is false in every particular.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Miller, in order.

Mr. DRIVER. And I want the chair to understand that it is a lie.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, Mr. Driver, that the direction of the chair must be observed.

Mr. MILLER. I did not wish to cast any reflections upon Mr. Driver. I just merely desired to call his attention to a fact that did transpire, that is all.

Mr. DRIVER. It is a dastardly lie.

Mr. MILLER. Then the gentleman says the only way to cure the evil is to convert the people convert the drunkard. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this Convention, if a man is in the grasp of habit it is impossible for him to release himself without some power coming to his aid. If a man has contracted the habit and love for intoxicating liquors, it is impossible for that man through his own individual power of will power to release himself from that habit. Hence, we that advocate prohibition do it from a humane standpoint and from a desire to help our fellowmen. Mr. Chairman, I have been brought under the damnable influence of intoxicating liquors, and as the gentleman from Davis said “I am terribly in earnest in regard to the suffrage question,” I am in earnest in regard to this. I say that it has entered the households of thousands upon thousands in our fair country, and families have been ruined. Though I do not wish to be understood, Mr. Chairman, as having anything against the gentlemen who are engaged in this business, I have not one thing in my heart against them. It is the business that if I had my way about it, and had the power to do so, I would wipe it out of existence, not only out of the United States, but out of the entire world.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I had almost hoped in the very beginning that the merits of this question might not be entered into here upon this floor. I had no thought myself of entering into merits of prohibition, inasmuch as I do not believe that this is the time or the place for that. Our petitioners who come before us, gentlemen, come asking that we insert this in the Constitution. They come to us asking that we give them the privilege of voting upon this to submit it to them as a separate proposition and allow them to be the judges whether or no they desire prohibition in the Constitution or not, and if the measure shall have passed (and I haven't the least hopes that it will), but if the measure shall pass through this committee of the whole and shall also pass through the Convention at its third reading, and shall go before the people of the Territory to be voted upon as a separate measure, then will be the time to enter into the merits of prohibition. Then will be the time to hold before the people the merits and demerits of the question. But as I also anticipated after the first speaker had taken his seat this morning, I discovered at once it would be impossible for me to make any remarks upon this without going into the merits of prohibition. In regard to the report from the majority, I look upon the majority report as meaningless_as a makeshift to evade this question_a kind of a makeshift to shift the responsibility from the committee onto the shoulders of this Convention; {1443} and now seeing we have proceeded so far, I am really glad that there have come before this committee two reports, that of a majority and a minority. Now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this being an experimental question, one would suppose from the remarks that have been made upon this floor by the opposition, that it was an experiment. They seem to know all about it, and I claim that so far as Kansas is concerned, it is not an experiment, but it is a real fact and that prohibition does prohibit. But Mr. Chairman, it did not prohibit until the people had united upon every hand to put down the evil, and until they demanded from the keepers of the law that they should protect the prohibitory law as well as all other laws upon the statute books. And I see no reason why, Mr. Chairman, prohibition may not be just as successful here in Utah as in other places. They tell us that we are peculiarly situated here, that we are set down in this intermountain region, surrounded on every side by states who have placed no restrictions upon the liquor traffic, and hence if we pass a law like this, we will become the dumping ground for the refuse of these other states.

Don't believe it; don't believe it.

I do not believe that there is a lawyer upon this floor, who is in love with his profession, but what, if he was called upon to protect the prohibitory law, would throw all his being into it and would defend it from every standpoint. If he would not, then he is not in love with his profession. It is true, there may be as there were in Kansas, county attorneys elected to that position who were scallawags. They were bought up by the element that desired to have the prohibitory law become a nuisance. But, sir, those things were removed. Now, in regard to legislation, I do not believe that any legislature in any state can legislate against this and make it a success. I claim that it must become a part of the organic law of the state, in order to be made a success. Now, gentlemen, all our petitioners ask for_in the minority report they have given you their feelings and their ideas. We do not ask you, gentlemen, to commit yourselves in regard to next November. A vote to send this before the people does not commit you. Neither is it for or against prohibition. It just merely leaves it in the hands of the people to vote it up or vote it down, and I claim that the petitioners ought to be recognized, and if I mistake not the gentleman from Davis in his determined fight to bring woman's suffrage before the people as a separate article appealed to this Convention in like manner and held up the fifteen thousand petitioners that had petitioned this body to submit woman's suffrage as a separate article. I know that the petitioners who have petitioned this body asking that prohibition be submitted as a separate article do not number less than ten thousand.

There has not one petition come into this body, sir, asking that it be not recognized, and I claim that we ought to recognize the petitioners who have thus asked us to give them recognition.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman submit to a question?

Mr. DRIVER. May I rise to a question of personal privilege?

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot rise to a question of personal privilege in committee of the whole; when we get into the Convention you can.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the gentleman if he does not recollect a petition that I myself introduced, signed by more than two thousand people from this city, asking that prohibition be neither put in the Constitution nor submitted as a separate article?

Mr. MILLER. I have no recollection of it, sir. It may have been presented when I was not present.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a fact, however.

Mr. MILLER. If that be the fact, Mr. Chairman, I recall the assertion that I made.
{1444}
Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this is a matter that demands careful attention, as I view it, of this honorable body. Petitions have come here signed by prominent men from various parts of the Territory, and while it may appear a waste of time to discuss this subject, I do not think it can be passed by without giving it the attention it deserves. I

listened with profound interest to the remarks made this forenoon by my friend from Saint George, and my emotional feelings were moved at the beautiful pictures, touching in their nature, which he drew, and I would call your attention to the fact, as stated by profound writers upon this subject, that the people of England and the United States expend enough money each year for intoxicating liquors to buy their bread and meat. They spend more money for intoxicants than would clothe them, and certainly there is no evil with which civilized people have to meet and contend greater than the drinking habit. Every building on the shores of Great Britain might be wiped out by a single calamity, every rail of her roads might be torn up and in an hour her merchant marine might be blotted from the seas and her war vessels sunk to the bottom of the ocean, and yet if her people were to be temperate and should cease to expend their hard earned earnings for this demon in disguise, they could replace them with the money saved in five years, so that the use of liquor in that country and in this has proved a greater scourge than war and famine and pestilence combined. And when we bring it down to the home, many sad pictures could be drawn that come near to our hearts here in Utah.

Twenty years ago, I remember to have seen on the quiet streets of Logan. early in the evening, the winter snow glistening in the cold moonlight, two friends struggling in a physical contest, all in good nature; one having tapped the other gently in good humor upon the cheek, angered him, because his blood was fevered with whisky. An angry speech, a few steps backward, out leaps from the scabbard the deadly pistol, and the messenger of death sped through the heart of his friend, and his heart's blood gushed upon the pure white snow. How well I remember how his slayer was tracked by night and by day for more than a week, and the angered citizens of that quiet village were wrought up in their feelings so that when the half-starved drunkard was finally caught, the patience of the people broke over all good judgment, they overrode the law, taking it into their own hands, lifted to a telegraph pole the slayer, and a leading citizen, while watching the people do a thing of which they have always been ashamed, took sick and in a few short moments dropped dead upon the streets in broad daylight. Thus three lives were lost through the use of whisky that fevered the blood, and our little town north has never forgotten that tragedy. She will never be able to wipe from her record that stain of awful triple murder. And yet, gentlemen of this Convention, how shall we meet this evil? Shall we not be consistent and reasonable in our thought and in our legislation? I think we should be. Now, permit me to give you, having in our minds this sad experience to which I have referred, our attempt at prohibition in the north. Public sentiment was wrought up through the press and from the pulpit. Ninety per cent. of the people felt just as my friend on the left has expressed himself, that that great curse should be wiped out, and they petitioned the city council to enact an ordinance that would accomplish that end. What was the result? Instead of three saloons under the eye of the guardians of the law, an attempt to prohibit the use of liquor in that town developed sixteen dives_dark cellars in which liquor was given to all classes of people surreptitiously. {1445} These dives became holes of iniquity and nightly carousals were had there, notwithstanding we doubled our police force and had spotters and spies who were employed and paid a heavy salary to root up this evil. The people's sympathies went with the illicit dealers, rather than with the law or with the detectives. Thousands of dollars were expended to put down, and as my friend on the left says, crush it out, but sumptuary laws, in my opinion, will never destroy man's agency. The white armed wife and the delicate sister may lift out of the ditch the husband or the brother, but there is agency, and if men through the exercise of that agency cannot be controlled through their moral

and religious convictions, I have grave doubts as to the accomplishment of that end by sumptuary laws. In eighteen months, under prohibition, the town of Logan lost all revenue, which is but a small point, for the people there would give half of all they have in the world if they could only accomplish prohibition in the use of liquor, opium and morphine, for they are kindred devils under the same form. But, sir, our experience in the north proved that in eighteen months of an attempt at prohibition, there were sixty-two arrests by the officers of the law and convictions for drunkenness and crimes growing directly out of the use of liquor. We employed lawyers to fight it down before the courts, we employed detectives to root it out of these dark places. All to no avail, until at last the people were as anxious to petition the city council for a high license and regulations as they were in the first instance to petition for prohibition. It was scattered all over that town and it acted just as a loathsome, contagious disease would do.

And, gentlemen, as I believe the attempt has been done recently in Salt Lake City_drive an evil off from Commercial Street and scatter it around this city as you scatter the small pox_it is better to keep it within control and under the eyes of the guardians of the law than in undertaking to prohibit, to allow it to grow up in every part of your cities. There was twice as much liquor drank in the town of Logan during an attempted prohibition as was drank before or immediately after. Sixty-two arrests, as I stated, occurred in eighteen months, but when they introduced high license_twelve hundred dollars a year, the utmost extent of the law, five saloons opened and in eighteen months under that system the arrests were twenty-seven instead of sixty-two, and now we have but three saloons in Logan. I would that we could get along without them, but those saloons are under the watchful care of the officers of the law. Our experience has taught us when there is a decrease in the use of liquor it is under the moral influences which ministers of the gospel, so called, exercise. This is their mission. That is the mission of Christian societies, young men's Christian associations. That is legitimately the field in which mutual improvement associations and Sunday school teachers should occupy their time and attention. Gentlemen of this honorable body, if we could secure prohibition in this fair and new State which we are now laying a foundation for, how gladly would I vote for it, but experience and observation lead me to this position, however I may be regarded by my friends, I shall vote for the rejection of this clause and leave it with the Legislature and with the cities.

One moment upon the proposition contained, even if it should be passed. Why should we prohibit the manufacture of these stimulants? The law will permit liquor to come into this new State, as I understand it, just as it came into the city of Logan when we were trying to prohibit. Why, it used to come in I believe from my friend from Ogden.

Mr. KIESEL. My trade increased during that time.
{1446}
Mr. THATCHER. Yes, it came there as mineral water.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You would like to have prohibition, Mr. Kiesel, would not you?

Mr. KIESEL. I have no objection on that account.

Mr. THATCHER. It came into the town as mineral water and to citizens who had great pride in

their name it would sometimes come incased in dry-goods and crockery cases; but at all events, gentlemen, I do not believe, whatever else we do, that we should seek to attempt to curtail the business in this new State of manufacturing beer or wine or alcohol. The solution of the question of the sugar factory may devolve upon that point. If we prohibit at all, let us prohibit the use, but not the manufacture. In Utah, we will rival California in our business and the beet progress may lift up our sugar factories out of their present condition of bondage and of debt. And so, gentlemen, I say I shall vote against it. I can readily understand how people in the country can be induced to vote for prohibition. The petitioner comes along, “Won't you sign this petition and won't you vote for the insertion of this particular clause?” “Why, no, I would rather not, I do not believe in it.” “What, you a Christian_you a so-called Saint, believe in drunkenness in preference to prohibition?” How few have the moral courage to refuse to sign or vote for such a proposition. I think this has nothing to do with the Constitution and I shall vote against it and leave it with the Legislature.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman_

The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak on any other gentleman's time?

Mr. HAMMOND. No, sir-ee, if I cannot get through on San Juan's time, I won't speak. [Laughter and applause.] If there was any subject that has come before this committee or the Convention, this is one I believe I should turn loose on, but I have come instructed on this subject and am the only one from San Juan. It is true the minority_quite a respectable minority, two of whom consist of one Christian and a Cherokee Indian by birth, owner of large mining interests there, and I believe he is a Christian_if we have any in San Juan, and he on my departure_he would have voted for me if he had the vote, but through some tinkering of the Utah Commission or something else that precinct was thrown out and he could not vote [laughter], but he insisted upon having a provision in the Constitution of this new State forever prohibiting the manufacture or the sale of intoxicating liquors. Now, I would like to represent that gentleman as correctly as I can. Now, other than that no voice have I heard from San Juan in regard to their position upon this question. To revert to a little of my experience in this matter, from 1832, I think, when the first wave came over from the east we_we New Yorkers are called Yankees when we get down in Virginia_there was a temperance wave came over there about that time and our great Christian people on Long Island, where we had no drunkards at all, except one gentleman by the name of Silly Billy, we used to call him_used to get him to grind up our old axes, that we would give him a pint of New England rum to turn the grindstone to grind up the axes. Other than that, I do not know of one soul that was called a drunkard in that town. After this righteous wave the people would not have cider. I returned there after twenty-one years and a half to my native town, making the entire circuit around the world and visiting nearly every climate, except the Antarctic, and my experience was this, where we had one old Silly Billy to turn the grindstone, we had scores and hundreds of them under the effort to prohibit men from getting drunk. That was my experience in my own native town, and it has been largely my experience in every {1447} state, town and city that I have traveled in from that time to this, no matter where the clime. Man, if you say to him he shall not get drunk, will break his neck finding something to get drunk with. On the Sandwich Islands another righteous wave came over there in my experience, away back in 1843. They tried to prohibit the natives from using a root which makes them drunk. It don't make

them so crazy as our rotgut whisky; they get good and boozy and lie down and go to sleep. I never saw them fight in my life. Well, through legislation instigated by our Christian friends, they actually prohibited everything of that kind, and my experience was the same there. Where we found one drunkard in former times, where there was no prohibition_free trade and sailors' rights, why we found scores and hundreds of them, full of leprosy, full of sores, full of everything that is mean. Now, I am opposed, as has been said by this gentleman, Mr. Miller_the cyclone gentleman [laughter], if I could wipe this out by one stroke of my pen that the stuff should be banished from earth, I would do it; but, sir, in doing that, I would have to wipe out corn, wheat, barley, potatoes, peaches, everything else that I know of that is good to eat, nearly. I would have to sweep the whole off the earth, for they will make it. They will manufacture it in crooked stills, and moonshine stills. I remember down here in Sanpete, not long ago, they found them making beer with a little crooked still or something or other. Well, so it would go. There is no prohibiting.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of prohibition in the strictest sense of the word. I think it is the greatest evil that exists in the world_the use of intoxicating drinks and allowing it to be publicly sold. It induces people to indulge and by licensing saloons men acquire a habit that they cannot control, and if we can come to their rescue_and it is two-thirds or three-quarters of those people that do not wish to indulge to their harm, but they cannot control themselves, and I think it is the duty of the members of this Convention and will be more to their credit than anything that they can do, to vote to submit as a separate article to the people prohibition, and let the people vote on it, and then I think if the people will vote to have it put in the Constitution it will be the best thing that the people can do, and then after that is done, it is an organic law, and the officers that are elected in the State of Utah to execute the law will execute the law as thoroughly as they will do in case of murder and theft and other crimes. It will be a success and there will be greater prosperity in Utah by this course than anything that will ever come to Utah. It leads men into vice, sorrow, trouble, and woe. Why not prohibit it? And to say that the people of Utah Territory cannot prohibit the sale of liquor here for purposes that will degrade the community, is not saying right of them. They are able, they have the wisdom, they have the energy, they have the power, if they will exercise it, but the trouble is the past experience has been the failure for the reason that they have just tried it for an experiment and they have calculated, “Well, in two years, if we do not make a success of it, why, then we can change it,” and they have just been expecting to change it when the two years come around, but if they started in with a determination to accomplish that purpose, they are able to do it, and we would receive the benefits of it. Now, I do not say that we shall not sell liquor in the country for useful purposes. I believe it is right to have it for sale, and I can tell you one thing, gentlemen of the committee, that if officers are on the lookout, as they are sworn to be, to execute the law and do their duty, the men that indulge in drink and that get up these private {1448} places to gather together and indulge in drink, and men sell in a private way, they will find the marks that will lead them to those places, because men that drink do not always keep straight, and there will be such conditions that officers can ferret out these evils, and it is only saying of us what is not true to say that we cannot handle this matter, to say that the people of Utah Territory cannot handle this matter; I think it is underestimating them; they are able to do it, and to do it in a way that will be a benefit to the people of Utah at large. Where will you find a man that has been working hard and laid up quite a small amount of money, then because of these saloons that are open to the

public, why he, because he cannot control himself, will go in there and then spend his money, in a day what he has been six months earning, and then it just leads men into vice, into gambling, running chances they will not otherwise indulge in; and if we can come to the rescue of such men, and hinder them by laws that are enacted and executed here, we are doing the community at large a great benefit, and I will never admit that we cannot handle this matter. As I said before, we have only just tried it as an experiment and we have been just calculating that after we tried it about so long, it will be a failure. If the officers looked after this gentleman over here, whom I have no fault to find with in the least, when his business as he claims was increasing during the time prohibition was in force in Logan, why he would have been stopped in that matter and his business would have been cut short instead of increasing.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to say but a very few words on this subject, and wish what I do say to be said in candor. I do not wish to create any excitement or hope there won't be, although it is quite an exciting question, I admit. I, of course, have given encouragement to the prohibitionists. They have come to me and wanted to know if I was for prohibition. I have told them invariably that I was a strong prohibitionist and am still to-day, and I am not alone in it. The great Lawgiver of the universe is a prohibitionist, and He has made some of the strongest laws of prohibition that we have on record in the great constitution_that is considered the great constitution of the Christian world, the Bible. There are ten commandments that prohibit murder, stealing, drunkenness and all manner of vice and crimes, and I tell you, gentlemen, there is a penalty in every one of them and the penalty will be inflicted and we can pass laws to prohibit and will have a right to, but I am opposed to passing any law in this Convention. I do not propose to lumber up our Constitution with anything of the kind. That should apply to the Legislature. That is where it belongs. We can pass laws and so can the Legislature, to prohibit, but will it prohibit? And the way the great Lawgiver, whom we claim has all power, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, why does not He wipe out all this business of sin, of violating the ten commandments? Why don't He wipe it out? He can do it. He is able to do it; He don't choose to. He chooses to give every one their agency and we can make a law to prohibit people making liquor and selling liquor, and so on, but I can tell you it will cost millions, But we can do a great deal towards encouraging the good work and the good Christians. I say go on and use all your influence you can to prohibit, and say I, when you come to make laws to prohibit you cannot do it, but it is right and just we should make laws_the future Legislature should make laws and they should place the highest license that it is possible for the people to endure, and through that license they will succeed a great deal in putting down that terrible sin and evil, and as I have told the prohibitionists in public {1449} and private, the best thing and the nearest thing to prohibition is to establish and enact woman's suffrage law. That will do the most for it, for nearly every woman in the country with few exceptions_I am sorry to say it_but with few exceptions they will vote for men that will pass measures and use their influence against the selling and using of intoxicating liquors. Nearly every man on this floor that believes in and encourages liquor_still they are opposed to prohibition, because they know what they will do, so, I say now, gentlemen, and I say it to the ladies, if they will hear it, if you want to get prohibition, you sustain woman's suffrage, for I can tell you they are the individuals that will vote against the selling of intoxicants. We have had that portrayed here by gentlemen, the sufferings of women and children, and they feel it, and they know how it goes, and they will use their influence to put them down. And, now, gentlemen, we want to let this proposition business pass by. I feel as

though we should not spend our time on this. Let the Legislature pass as stringent laws as they can to prohibit, and it will accomplish more than we can accomplish here in this Convention. We do not want to encumber our Constitution. We do not want to send it abroad with that proviso in it. Let them go free and untrammeled. We want all the votes we can, for I am anxious to have a State and I expect to get it, and I ex-expect there will be opposition to it and if we encumber it up with provisions of that kind we will find heavy opposition. I do not wish to take up your time. I wanted to throw out a few remarks of my feelings in regard to that matter, as I am committed to prohibition, but not to insert it in the Constitution. I cannot do it, so I leave it, gentlemen, with you.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I have had some experience in observing the evils of the liquor business and the benefits to be derived from prohibition. I am in favor of anything that I could be convinced would mitigate or lessen the evil of intemperance. I have felt to give considerable consideration and weight to the petitions which have been sent in here asking for the submission of that question in a separate article, and I have been somewhat undecided in my mind which way I would vote. But what I have seen here to-day and witnessed has pretty nearly decided me. I have thought that the people should have the privilege of voting and the majority to say how it should go, but when I consider the condition that we have to confront and when I have witnessed what I have here to-day on this floor, the excitement that might be raised upon this question, were it submitted to the people and become a part of the campaign, has pretty nearly decided me which way I will vote. Now, I am in favor of prohibition, or at least I want to do anything that will lessen drunkenness, and I have about concluded that high license will do that for this reason: If it is prohibited people will drink it all the same, but it will be cheaper. If there is a high license, I have reason to believe that they will drink more water, because men will not sell the whisky straight. I was speaking to one of my friends who was in the whisky business a year or two ago, and I tried to get some little information as to the amount of profits that he made on the traffic of liquor. It was in a little outside town. It was nothing of course to compare with Salt Lake City or any of these mining camps, but it was a quiet little town where farmers live, and he said that his profits or his sales were about twenty-five dollars a day, and said he, “you know that is most all profit.” Well, now, I did not know that, but I was glad to hear it, because I understood from that that he was selling water instead of whisky, and I think that was the best thing that he could do for the community. {1450} I do not want by any action of mine or any vote that I may give, to increase drunkenness, neither do I want to create in the coming campaign such an exhibition in every political meeting that may be called as we have seen here to-day. Mr. Hammond called it a cyclone. Well, I am a peaceable sort of a man and it always annoys me to get into a hubbub, and I have avoided political campaigns as a rule, but I would like to see the campaign that we enter into hereafter to ratify this Constitution carried on peaceably, without any hubbub, or any noise, or confusion.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not design to go over any ground that has been gone over in this matter, but I wish to accord to everybody their rights, as near as possible. I consider it the right of every person that has the right of suffrage within this Territory, to vote yes or no on prohibition, as a separate article, when the Constitution shall be submitted to the people for ratification, and this is the principle upon which I intend to vote, not that I am a prohibitionist. I am not in any way. I believe in the broadest free will and agency of man. He can

do as he pleases, good or evil, right or wrong, but he must abide the consequences. I happen to be the man that started the high license business. In the city council a good many years ago I moved to adopt that principle, and it was two weeks at that time_we only met once a week at that time, and it was two weeks before I got a second to that idea, and then it was referred to me to present a bill, and when I presented a bill, or rather when I got the opportunity of arguing that point, it was referred to me; I got up a bill and it subserved its purpose and object very well for many years. And I suppose perhaps from what I learned when I traveled afterwards, some twenty-five years ago, in the New England states, that almost every gentleman I met_it is a great temperance country there_asked the question how we controlled the liquor traffic in Utah, and I informed them how we were doing it at that time, and they all acknowledged that it was better than they succeeded themselves and they had voted prohibition_some of them at least, as state measures.

Now, I am going to vote_and I am going to do it because I want to believe that every man who is a registered voter in this Territory has the right to vote yes or no on that or any other question_any other important question, or on any question, so far as that is concerned, as directly as possible, and not through us. I do not consider that I have a right as a member of this Convention to say that he shall not have a right. It is not my privilege, that is the way I look at it. I do not know how men take these things, but I became qualified here to do my duty. I am under obligations here to do my duty to the people of this Territory, not only my constituents, but when a point of this kind comes up, or a question or a proposition, it is my duty to accord to them the right that they inherited by virtue of the form of our government. That is the idea. Men believe that the government is for the people and by the people, and so on. Why, they are the people, they are the sovereigns, and they have the right to vote yes or no. That is the reason I am going to vote for it. I do not know how can men look at this thing that are conscientious unless they look at it in that light. Now, a great many men talk about expediency. I do not care anything about your expediency when it comes to the rights of man. I am for the rights of man all the time, everywhere, and every place; that is what I go upon. Either vote it up or vote it down, but it is their privilege to vote and I shall not look at it in any other light. I cannot possibly look at it in any other light. The people have the right to vote upon it. That is the way I look at things. I have heard men say {1451} that the priest and the mother made the conscience of men; well, I think we better, some of us_some people in this country, I think they had better_

The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired, Mr. Raleigh.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could see this matter in the light that some of the men here who have been talking see it. Gentlemen, I cannot say what has been said of one gentleman on this floor, that he is and has been for a long time a prohibitionist. I am not here to argue the question of prohibition, and I do not know that you will know what my opinion upon that question is. I think that prohibition. is not on trial to-day. There is a deeper principle than that that is on trial to-day, gentlemen. The people of Utah have not asked you to decide the question of prohibition. They have never said to you, you decide and determine this question. They say to you, “Let us decide this question.” We are not the people, gentlemen. Don't forget for a moment that proposition. We are but the agents of the people. We are not here to do our will, but we are here to do the will of the people. Whenever legislators get the idea that they are the people and that in them lies the sovereign power, it is time to step down and out. Don't you know,

gentlemen, that that is the mistake to-day? That in these United States the people have a growing distrust of the legislators? They have a growing distrust from the simple fact they send them to a position, and they forget the will of the people who sent them there. You have heard that cry growing up for the last two years against the legislators of our general government, that they forget the wants of the people and the wishes of the people; that they stand there to do their wishes and the bidding of the mighty corporations and to bow at the power and throne of money.

Now, gentlemen, the question that confronts us to-day is, in the beginning of the State of Utah, are we to teach the people that lesson? The people say, let us vote upon this. Let us decide this question. You let this alone and keep your hands off of it. It is none of your business. I admit that. And I am glad the people say it. I do not want to decide this question. By no vote of mine would I vote to-day to put that article in the Constitution; but I do say that upon all great principles, when it is possible that the people can express directly their will, they ought to have that right and that privilege to do it, and you dare to deny that proposition_any man on this floor, then he denies a fundamental principle that underlies the American government. Looking down from that picture_that kindly, benign face, from those lips fell one sentence that has become immortal, “this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” and whenever we forget that principle we forget the principle that underlies every institution of America_every one. That is the principle upon which I stand here. I want to say with reference to this majority report that I think it is the frankest, most manly report that I have seen; that report says that this is a question that ought not to be dealt hastily with. Now, what question? The question of submitting this to the people ought not to be dealt hastily with? Why, in that action there is this, that you are afraid of the people; you do not dare to trust the people; you cannot get away from it. Right in that committee report it says, it should not be dealt with hastily; they say that they had under discussion the question of submitting this to a separate vote of the people. Why, gentlemen, if the people say “keep it out, keep it out,” or if they say, “put it in there,” why it is the will of the people and they ought to control in this matter, by all means. Why, if I were to vote for that majority report, I would {1452} have to throttle the voice of this coming new State on the first proposition that they have asked to be heard upon. I would have to say to them, “You do not know enough about this. You do not understand this business; we have grown large since you elected us. We came up from your side, and knew no more than you did then, but we have grown wonderfully wise in a few days, and now we say that you do not know enough to consider this and you cannot be trusted in that matter.” That is exactly our position to-day. It is a question whether or not by our vote here we shall turn down the will of the people. Suppose this should be submitted and it should be defeated, what vested rights would be disturbed? What great enterprise would be overturned? What great amount of property would be disturbed? None whatever, and yet that report says that this involves all these questions and must not be hastily dealt with. It is six months almost until this Constitution will be voted upon. Have not the people the time in which they can decide and make up their minds and vote intelligently upon this proposition? I am in favor of the people every time, I do not care what proposition it is. Whenever it comes to the question, that can be referred to them. What we have heard all the time here as the sovereign power of the State_let it go to that tribunal and let us abide there and let us not make the people think that these are high sounding phrases that were made up for platform occasions, in conventions bidding for votes, and all that kind of thing, but that it is in this State a fundamental principle_that the people shall be heard, and their voice is from the sovereigns in

that regard. But a few days ago there were a great many petitions came rolling in here on another proposition asking to be permitted to vote upon that proposition. We have irrevocably said, “You cannot do that. We have made our vows to our political cause and we must pay those vows and we still pay them. We promised when you elected us here that we would put woman's suffrage in the Constitution, and although you want to absolve us from that promise, we cannot take it back, even if you were mistaken. We cannot do that thing.” But there are no political pledges here, gentlemen. Here is a place where you meet the people face to face upon this proposition. And now, do we purpose in this Convention to say to them a second time, without any pledges upon us, without any duties to be performed in that regard_“You cannot be heard, you do not know enough?” Then, when we meet in Convention it will be sufficient for us to say, this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and when we get on the stump we will say the same thing; when we get elected we will say, “This is a government of demagogues to control the people,” and that will be exactly true. Whenever we cease to listen to that voice that comes up from our constituents, we are no longer worthy of sitting as their agents, because the agent is not greater than his principal. Therefore, gentlemen, I shall not vote for the majority report. That much I will say. As to the minority report, the result will show whether I will vote for that or not.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments upon this question with so much interest, in hearing gentlemen give their various experiences on the floor, that I would like to add a word upon this important question. I remember that when I was but a boy in the quiet little town in which I still reside, that in the merriment of childhood our schools had been collected together for the purpose of participating in what we termed the celebration of a Christmas tree upon a beautiful Christmas eve. While we were there in beautiful merriment, with one of our noble citizens among the {1453} throng, seeking to make happy those that had gathered, that a ruffian appeared upon the scene whose cowardly form and brain had been maddened by intoxicants, and raised a disturbance at that time, and the result was that he shot down before our eyes one whom we had learned to love through his kindness and affection. That picture was imprinted upon my heart and I felt that if it was in my power, that never should a scene occur like that again by reason of intoxicants. The merriment of that happy throng turned into grief and sadness. That loving husband and kind teacher was a corpse before our eyes. The anguish of his loving wife beamed forth upon the hearts of all who were present, and in consequence of the convictions that were made upon me upon that occasion and others while it was my good fortune to mingle as a member of the city council, where I reside, I have stood as it were when I was a beardless boy beating back the inroads that were sought to be made upon the breaking down of the non-license system in our city. I was successful for the period of years that I served there in combattingback the licensing of saloons in our city. I was called away, however, for a period and when I returned, changes had taken place. High license had been instituted, and I have been forced to the conclusion that perhaps in all those years of my anxiety and zeal I had been mistaken, and in recalling back that sad scene which to-day causes my heart to throb with anguish, I call those scenes to remember that was in the day of prohibition.

It has been said here that we ought to leave this matter to the people. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that my contract with the people, as I understand it, was laid down by them in their platform when they presented before me their contract and I

accepted of my nomination upon that. Upon the 6th day of November they fulfilled their part of that contract and they sent me up here to this Convention, and I expect to fill mine to the very letter in my poor judgment. I may deviate from it, but as I shall have the light portrayed before me I shall follow out that contract to the very letter. And this question that is now presented before us was not one that entered into that contract. I am willing that the people should be heard upon this question. I am willing that when we shall finish this Constitution, when it shall roll forth from our hands to go before the people, I am willing that they should make a declaration in their coming platform and that the man that places himself upon that platform shall either stand or, fall, and they may put in a demand that the officers who shall constitute our coming Legislature shall be men who will guarantee unto them by the laws of our country and of the new State that prohibition shall be inaugurated; but if that shall be done, then I shall ask the right, as an American freeman to say whether I am willing to accept a nomination if it should be tendered to me upon that platform or no. I will state briefly my position upon this question. I say that from all I have been able to glean by observation and hearing, that prohibition under the existing laws is a failure in the broad sense of the word; that states cannot control this system under the present inter-commerce laws of these United States. That cities have tried in vain, by employing detectives, by putting spotters on the trails of offenders; when they have followed those men to a successful issue and brought them before the bar of justice, the courts have refused to execute the laws that have the desired effect in stopping the traffic. I am in favor that there should be laws enacted whereby each district_each particular locality shall have the right to say that within the borders and confines of that particular part of the country where they reside {1454} and they control, that if the majority of the people residing therein are in favor of putting the hard hand of the law upon the traffic of liquor that they shall have the right to say so. I would be in favor of making it a penal offense_I would be willing to fix the maximum limit or punishment of offenders, and that be imprisonment, when the people in a particular locality shall declare in favor of prohibition. I would fix a maximum and I would make it a penal law that the judge who refused to enforce that that he should be deprived of his office, because he did not do it; because I believe that the will of the people should be the mandate of heaven in these questions where their vital interests are at stake. But perhaps the interest of Salt Lake City would not be the interest of Lehi, where I hail from, and for that reason, I am in favor that this matter should be submitted to the Legislature; let us go before the people upon our own respective platforms, either for or against it, either for it in part, or against it in part, if we so desire. I mean by that that we shall go before them on the platform of local option laws, that where any particular locality decide by the majority of the people that they are not for prohibition I am willing that it should be submitted, and we will go before the people with that issue and then when we shall go to the Legislature; the people will have the right to demand of us as their servants that we shall carry out to the very letter the law, without turning to the right or the left, the agreements of our contract that we have made with them when we asked their suffrages for us.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with much interest to the many speakers and expecting to hear from some of them some remarks in relation to the prohibitive proclivities of the constituencies from which they hail. I will say that I come from a prohibition town, and unlike my friend and worthy colleague from Provo, I also come as a prohibitionist, and I hope to return a prohibitionist. I do not expect to be converted to any other cause. In Springville we have had prohibition for a period of a score of years or nearly so, and it has worked well with us_a

portion of the time not so well, but to-day and for a number of years in the past it has done well. I think that we there, having a population of some three thousand people, have a peaceable, quiet little city. We have made no particular wealth out of high license or licenses at all. We have no particularly large and spacious buildings or improvements upon high roads, or anything of that character that has grown out of the license money, but we have an improvement that is very noticeable in the happy homes of the many dwellers in the town from which I come. Their sons and daughters have not places to go to as are found on the north and on the south of our little town. It may be said and has been said that where prohibition reigns the dive is a necessary evil, and is a concomitant with that character of legislation. I will say that four, five, six, and eight years ago, we had the dive continuously under prohibition, and the whole fault was in the character of officers; not but what we had good officers, but those officers were usually men that would take a drink frequently themselves, and at that particular time we had judges that were not so favorable to the enforcement of prohibition laws in the first district as we have had latterly. I say to-day, that the officers under prohibition enforced the law, and I challenge the finding of any of those dives or by-places in Springville to-day. We have not got them, unless they have been established within the last two weeks. The last man that has been running a business of that character now for the second time is serving an eighty-day sentence in the jail. I believe in the principles of prohibition. I {1455} come here representing a constituency of Springville more particularly, while I am of Utah County. They said to me in numbers in presenting an application from a religious association asking how I stood on the prohibition question, whether favorable to submitting it is an article or a part of the Constitution to be voted upon. I passed the matter around among the leading men from my town, and they invariably made this remark, “That is a question, like all other questions of innovations of a public character and of as great a character as that is in its magnitude, that should certainly be submitted to the people to be voted upon.” And we stand here this afternoon claiming that that question should be submitted to the people. As the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Bowdle) has stated, we are not here for the purpose of deciding upon the question of prohibition. We are only here to permit that question to go to the people or not to go to the people. It is our right, it is our privilege and our bounden duty.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairmam [*note*], this seems to have turned into a testimony meeting to some extent, and I arise to give my testimony. I was raised in the good old state of Vermont. It is a prohibition state, and sir, I state to you, and gentlemen of this Convention, that I never in my life saw a drunken man in that state until I had arrived at man's estate, and if you want an instance where the prohibition law is enforced, turn to the state of Vermont. I did not intend to speak upon this question, upon the merits of the question. I do not think the question is before us in that light. It is not a question that needs to be discussed upon the merits, but when the gentlemen discuss it upon the merits I desire to say a few words upon that proposition. Gentlemen of the Convention, one of the very first articles that we passed in this Constitutional Convention, was an article upon the declaration of rights, following out the principle laid down in Magna Charta, and the principles in our own Declaration of Independence, that the right of petition shall never be ignored, and we have in our article on the declaration of rights declared in favor of the right of petition. I understand that there are some ten or twelve thousand signers to petitions that have come up before this Convention, asking for the submission of the question as a separate proposition. I have listened these many long days to see whether there was any opposition to this question, and I have not yet seen one single signature or petition in opposition

to this question. So I say, gentlemen, that as far as we know it is the will of the people of this Territory that this question shall be submitted to them, and I for one, without stating how I shall vote upon this, say that I shall vote for the minority report to submit it as a separate proposition.

In answer to the argument made by the gentleman from Cache County, Mr. Thatcher, in regard to the original package decision, I desire to call this Convention's attention to the decision in that case. The original package decision was rendered in the United States Supreme Court (135th U. S., page 1000 after that original package decision was rendered the original packages came into the state of Kansas from other states, and into the state of Iowa from other states, but in order to meet that, on the 8th day of June, 1890, the Congress of the United States passed what is known as the Wilson law, and the case went up which was decided by the United States Supreme Court in re rera140 United States, page 545, that held that law was constitutional and valid and that it could be enforced in the state of Kansas. So I say that as far as this question now stands, it is the duty of this Convention to submit the question to the vote of the people.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The recent {1456} of Congress is not such as to prohibit commerce between the states on this particular question, is it?

Mr. PIERCE. No; I understand not.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Then we could pass no law in the State which would prohibit the importation into the State?

Mr. PIERCE. That law was enacted for the very purpose that when the original package arrived in the state of Kansas the state of Kansas could confiscate it under its own local law, and that was the decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is true. This article which you propose to submit separately to the vote of the people prohibits the importation of these things into the State?

Mr. PIERCE. I have not examined the article very carefully. I believe the present status of the question requires us to submit it to the voice of the people.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that we cannot altogether ignore the petitions, when they have come five to one in favor of our consideration of this matter. There are two questions that stare us in the face, that is the high license or the prohibition. The high license is simply robbing the starving children of the drunkard, that the saloon keeper is pocketing the money from the children and giving him poor whisky in return at a very high price. It is true there is perhaps one virtue in it, and that is that the rotten stuff that they drink will kill the drunkard off all the sooner, but in doing so it is robbing the children at home of that that they might have if the liquor was put down at a low rate. Now, in relation to prohibition not being a virtue, and more arrests would be made, I will have to call your attention to the early days of Montana. I was up there at the opening of the gold mines or soon after, and I found myself in a wild country_in a lawless country where crimes were committed without any restraint whatever, until the people that lived there_the honorable part, took the law in their own hands and enforced it, and it was

the same as prohibition probably would bring; there were more or less, for they hung some thirty- six men in one season, but they did not give it up at that, and to-day you can go through that country and the laws of the land are acknowledged. They protect the traveler and he can travel in safety where he could not have done at that time, and this is the way that I would view with the limited knowledge that I have in relation to prohibition.

It is possible to me that if the law was against the sale and the manufacture of intoxicants in any state that for a short time there would be more drinking done, simply because they would feel that they would do it for revenge, and for spite work, because they were deprived of having their own way; but a legitimate time_I think I would be safe in saying that there would be a limit and a restriction upon those things and the benefit would be derived by the little children, when the drunkard comes into the house reeling to and fro, having to run and scatter and hide from their earthly parent, they would be clothed better and he would come in now and then with a smile upon his face. And laying this aside, as I said before, when there is five to one that come in for us to consider this question and we are the servants of the people, and that the laws are made by the people and for the people, I consider that there is but one thing for us to do to-day, as I did when the majority came and asked us to put the suffrage clause in the Constitution. The majority asked for it, and I felt duty bound to do so on that account. Therefore, I cast my vote in that direction, and I am willing under the circumstances to cast my vote again, for the majority of the people have asked for this thing.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I {1457} have but a little to say. I will say, however, that I am from Kentucky, while men are giving their experiences as to birthplaces as affecting this question; but that is not the only reason that I have for proposing to vote for the majority report. I wish to stand on this question as I have tried to stand on about every question that has been submitted to this committee, and that is, that those matters which are more proper to be left or can more properly be left to the Legislature for their action, should be left there and not inserted in this Constitution. If a mistake is made by the Legislature in enacting a law, that mistake can be corrected as quickly as the Legislature can be convened. If a mistake is made by this Convention, we all know from the nature of the act that we are adopting here about how much expense and trouble and inconvenience it will be to rectify it. I feel that this ought not to be made an issue next fall in connection with this Constitution. The Legislature can deal with it. It has been decided by the law of the land_by the judiciary every w here, that they have the absolute control of the question of the sale of liquor, and I am in favor that the matter be left to the Legislature, and the people can elect their representatives to carry out their will.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, I shall vote against submitting this to the people, and say that I am just as pronounced against prohibition as I was in favor of woman's suffrage to give to our fellow creatures their liberties. I maintain prohibition interferes with them, and this is one reason that I shall vote against it. I might name a great many incidents in my experience regarding the use of liquor, and the evils that have grown out of it right in my own dear family associations, but I maintain that it interferes with the agency of man to undertake to prohibit it in this way. I will have to sustain any action of the Legislature that will make it local option and high license. I believe by this that any city, town, or settlement through this Territory can govern their own affairs. I do not find any great evil from the liquor traffic here in Salt Lake, not nearly

as much as I find in the smaller settlements. There I notice that the young men, having no particular attraction in the way of lecture halls, of theaters, or anything of this kind to draw them in the evening to entertain them, they naturally associate in the saloons, and young men who are naturally addicted to the use of liquor learn to drink in this way. But if the city councils or the presidents of towns go to work and enact such laws as shall restrain the saloons and keep the minors out, allowing them to sell the beverage in a respectable house, I do not believe there will be very much harm. come out of it. And as to the manufacture, gentlemen, I do hope that we will not take any action to interfere with the manufacture of anything in this Territory. It is an evident fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of people out of employment, and I believe there are thousands and thousands of dollars that are paid out annually here to our employesand for the materials that are grown on the soil, for making this product, and even if we prohibit the drinking of it or the selling of it, let us not prohibit the manufacture of it.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two in reply to my honored friend and fellow-laborer from Weber County, Honorable Lorin Farr. I think if I understood him right he quoted scripture, that the mandates of the Almighty were for prohibition. Now, I submit that if the Lord could not prohibit so that His good old servant Noah in his ark would not plant a vineyard and get drunk, what is the use of us trying to legislate against it? Now, local option is my doctrine and local self-government. {1458} If San Juan wants to get drunk, like a fool, let them do, it. If Salt Lake City, the great over-grown brother of mine, wants to sell whisky, and drink it, and get drunk, with their high schools and colleges_excuse me, university, and all these things, I am in favor of their having it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to the report made by the minority of the committee in the article they propose to submit for separate vote of the people. They say not only that the manufacture for sale or gift as a beverage of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited, but no person, association, or corporation shall import any of the same for sale or gift, or sell or offer to keep the same for sale or gift, barter or trade, as a beverage. In that particular, sir, I think at least the minority have undertaken to do something that is impossible for them to do; in other words that we cannot, under the decision of the supreme court of the United States, prohibit the importation into this State of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and I would ask gentlemen who intend to vote fol. the submission of this clause to take that matter under consideration. I think it is something you cannot do. In considering a question of this character I cannot for the life of me understand how you can consider it separate and apart from the merits of the question. The merits of the question are inevitably involved in it, and necessarily ought to be, because upon the merits of the question depend the propriety of either putting it directly into the Constitution or permitting the people by their vote to put it into the Constitution; and I hold, sir, that the majority report of the committee is correct, wherein it states that prohibition is but an experiment, not only in the way of legislative enactment, but also by constitutional provision. I think it was only last s ear that the good people of the state of Iowa rooted out of their constitution the prohibitory clause on this subject. I lived for some length of time myself in the state of Iowa, when that was a prohibition state by legislative enactment, and I know not what the experience of other gentlemen may be in prohibition states, but I wish to declare that I know that in that state prohibition was nothing but a hollow mockery, and the very fact that the people have but recently even repudiated the constitutional prohibition, is very strong evidence to me that this matter is but in its

experimental condition and that we cannot afford to undertake that experiment by constitutional provision; and as stated in the majority report, if tried at all, it should be undertaken by legislative enactment.

Now, sir, I am of the opinion that there are things worse than even intemperance in the use of intoxicating liquors, and one of those things worse than the intemperate use of intoxicants is the demoralization which conies to a community which threatens civil government itself, and that is disrespect and disregard of law. Such is the nature of this question that it is not a difficult matter to evade the law, and wherever it has been tried, men have evaded the law and that successfully_more successfully in respect to sump-tary laws than in respect to other kinds of law. I say that it is easy to evade this class of law, and when you teach a community or when you create conditions which lead a community to disregard law, you create a greater evil even than the evil you attempt to crush by law. And for this reason I do not want to engraft into the Constitution this prohibition clause. I believe it is the right of this Convention to determine what to put into a Constitution and what would be more proper to leave to the Legislature, and for that reason I think it is quite competent for this Constitutional Convention to say to the people, notwithstanding the petitions {1459} that are before us, that it is not a proper matter to insert into the Constitution. I believe, sir, that that right and power is here in this Convention and that it is a proper exercise of that kind of judgment. Now, sir, prohibition being an experiment, and for the most part an experiment that has failed, in my judgment_other gentlemen of course may differ from that, but it is a difference in judgment, but being an experiment that has failed, I hold that there is nothing binding upon us to attempt it by constitutional provision.

There is no gentleman upon this floor but what is aware of the evil of intemperance. It is not because I am in favor of patronizing saloons and that I have no regard for the evils of intemperance, that I am connected with those gentlemen who made the majority report on this question, but my observation teaches me that the proposed remedy for that evil is not equal to the task proposed for it. I am against it. It is for that reason that I shall vote against submitting this clause for a separate article on prohibition. There is another question connected with this subject, and that is recognizing the impracticability of prohibition either by constitutional provision or legislative enactment. In consequence of our being surrounded by states and territories where they may manufacture and sell these intoxicants as beverages in spite of all that we could do, they would import these beverages into our Territory and they would be sold, and the result would be that we would not materially lessen the evil, but we would pay out a revenue to surrounding states and territories that we absolutely need here in our own new State. And I cannot close my eyes to the fact that it would be increasing the burdens of taxation upon the people of this Territory and at the same time not curing the evil at which this prohibition clause is leveled. Now, these are considerations from which we cannot remove ourselves, and I think it is competent and proper for this Convention to favor the adoption of the majority report of this committee on this issue. I believe that we can better control this question_this evil of intemperance by locating it where we know the evil is and where it can be under the guardianship of the law and strictly regulated, instead of having blind institutions about us producing evil and yet we know not the source of that evil. I am firmly convinced that you cannot legislate men into morality. I am persuaded that it is impossible to make men temperate by legislative enactment. I do not close my eyes to the fact that there are other forces in the world than legislative enactment

and congressional provision. Why, sir, I want ministers of the gospel to have something to do, and there are better forces to be arrayed against this evil than legislative enactment. I believe in the liberty of the individual, and if you want to know how dear to me the liberty of the individual is, I want to tell you that, quite contrary from the position taken upon the floor here this morning by the gentleman from Sevier County, notwithstanding all the array of blood curdling incidents that may be related as growing out of the acts of men under the influence of intoxicating liquors, notwithstanding all that, so dear to me is the liberty of the individual that I would pay that price for it, and if I could, I would not destroy the liberty and agency of man.

Mr. MILLER. May I ask the gentleman a question? How about the weaker ones_the wives and children of the unfortunate men?

Mr. ROBERTS. You may add that to the list also, if you will. I recognize, sir, that Omnipotence has the power to blot this thing out of existence and yet He withholds His hand. He permits it to exist. You will see, therefore, gentlemen, that I am prepared to vote against the amendment which adopts the {1460} minority report, and in favor of the motion to adopt the majority report.

Mr. BOWDLE. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I either misunderstood him or else that was simply a slip of his tongue, did you state that there was ever a prohibitory clause in the constitution of Iowa?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is my understanding, sir, that there was.

Mr. BOWDLE. Don't you recollect that the prohibitory clause was submitted_was supposed to be carried to the supreme court, afterward decided that it was not, through a clerical error or something of the kind, and it has only been statutory all the time.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; my understanding is that prohibition by constitutional provision was rejected by the people after it had operated for some time.

Mr. BOWDLE. You will find that is wrong.

Mr. L. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have not occupied a great deal of time on this floor, but I have thought a great deal. I sense that it is not popular to take the side on the floor here that I expect or undertake or intend to take. I do not know how popular it will be with my people or constituents from where I come, but I realize that we have petitions before us of over ten thousand people of this Territory. They have asked us to submit this question to the people on a separate article to come before them with the Constitution. Now, the question is with this Convention whether they will ignore these ten thousand people's request. There is no one that has asked us to do to the contrary. There are a great many_but a minority, so far as I understand, that have asked us to insert it in the Constitution. We have carried one subject_a difficult one, as it were, over a great gulf successfully. Now, we are on the verge of another gulf again with another subject or another question. Now, it is the question, shall we successfully carry that over a gulch or shall we land it in the mire? This is now the question before us, as I understand it. We have a right to ignore the petitions of the people if we so say and the majority of this Convention say so. Now, I will say

here I am not a very strong prohibitionist. If time permitted me to make a few personal remarks_but I suppose it will not unless some gentlemen had time to spare. It may be they will all want to speak. Perhaps they all have spoken or very nearly so, or at least signed their time away.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. I give you my time, sir.

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks. The question of prohibition came up in my own town a few years ago. We had prohibitory ordinances. Our neighbors on the north about six miles away_Mount Pleasant, they had a license system. On the west of us, some five or six miles they had a license system: our boys had such a very nice chance, they could take their girls and ride over in the wagons or buggies and go up to our neighboring town and get drunk. The girls wouldn't, but they did it anyway when they were alone. That I do know. And they would come back as it were and raise hell. [Laughter.] Our police force was weak. The city hadn't the means to pay them to keep order and good peace, and it came up before the city council. I happened to be mayor of the city at the time. I was opposed to the license system. I am a prohibitionist personally, soul and body, for I do not believe in drinking liquor. I never had from a young man. I made a determination before I became in my teens that I would never drink liquor or chew tobacco, and have stuck to it, and all the liquor that I ever drank in my life could be placed in a quart cup, I believe, but when the question came up as to whether we should license in our town or not, the council took this matter under advice, and when the people found that the council had it under {1461} advice they sent in a whole flock of petitions asking us to let that matter alone, not to license liquor saloons in Spring City. Well, we considered it very carefully for several sessions, and we came to the conclusion finally_why, to say if we ignored the petitions of the people_I must say we did, for it was a fact we did it. But we were forced almost to do it under conditions under which we were placed. We had the evil of it and derived no benefit from it, but I do hope that this Convention will take this matter or look upon this matter in another view.

I believe that the prohibition system can be governed under statehood far better than it can as it were in localities. It is useless that one town a few miles from another town can prohibit, and the other selling liquor. This is a useless thing, but under statehood, I believe it should be tried. I am willing for one to try it and I am willing to risk it, and when the people to-day_they have sent their tens of thousands of petitions to this Convention. I believe they should not be ignored, and for my part, I am willing risk it and take the consequences. That is the way I stand at the present time. Then, I cannot see that we can do any better than this, but as I said before, I do not believe_but I hope I am happily disappointed_I do not believe that we will be able to carry this question over a gulch, but it will sink. That is about the way that I feel, but it will not be because I will sink it, for I will adopt this or I will submit my will to the petitions and will of the people, and I will vote to submit it to them at the next election as a separate article with the Constitution.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in the speeches that have been made pro and con on this great question. I think it is the question of the day, gentlemen, and Mr. Chairman, I am fully convinced from a life time experience that prohibition can be carried out but not complete; but I do not believe it can be carried out that far that it will improve upon the conditions of the human family to-day in every nation. I believe in prohibition, from the degradation and misery that I have seen in the world as well as I have seen in this city, and I

believe that we, as a people, above all other people, claiming and professing as we do, should be a unit in establishing this in our new State. Some argue that it cannot be done. That is very true; laws are enacted in every land against thieving and against shedding of blood, that does not stop it. But I am inclined to believe that it reduces it a great deal more. I believe that the law that exists against stealing prevents hundreds and thousands of men under a load from committing crimes, hence, I believe that it will pay us well to try the experiment as long as the people are asking for it. They have not asked us to place it in the Constitution. But they have asked us to submit it for the majority to rule in this, and I believe that is right.

We, on this floor, claim that the majority has a right, and the people only ask for a right, to submit and place it before the public to choose for or against. Then they are responsible for it. It has been argued on this floor that a great deal of property is invested. That is very true, but I have come to the conclusion, gentlemen, and Mr. Chairman, that if we were in a condition financially, it would pay us as a people to purchase these breweries and saloons and it would be a mighty good speculation. That is what I believe. It is not so much for those who are advanced in age, who have become chronic to this custom of drinking, but it is the youth_our children, our sons, that is where the evil comes. Imitation and invitation in every possible way, to invite them to the saloon and to the billiard table and to the gambling, before their judgments are matured, that {1462} is where the evil comes. I have no objection to the old heads who have been accustomed to it, and let them drink to their fill, until they are satisfied, but I claim that something should be done to prevent this evil that is sapping the foundation of Utah as well. I remember living in this city when there was not a saloon in this town, when a drunkard would not be seen from one year's end to the other, but since civilization has reached us now we find them on every corner of the street, and there are open doors to invite our youth there, and there is where they are ruined before they mature in better judgment. And for that reason I am in favor to_you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, if we cannot get this I would like to get something next to it. If it comes to enactment of the Legislature, I would like to see it placed in the hands of each incorporation to handle that themselves and be subject and liable for their conduct and their actions. I understand that there are such customs in other nations where the city takes this matter in their own hands where they open a saloon, but not a seat, nor a chair nor a lounge inside of that room. If they are thirsty, come in and take a drink and go about their business, and the corporations are liable and subject for all disorder or mismanagement in that regard.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I did not anticipate saying anything on this question, because I did not anticipate it was going to assume such proportions as it has seemed to have done. When we enter on the field of prohibition, it seems to me that it opens into a very wide space, and if the measure which is introduced by the minority report should prevail, it seems like it would bring a question before the people to prohibit the use of a certain article. Now, in my experience, I have noticed that the use is not what we should wish to prohibit, but it is the misuse which we wish to prohibit. If the misuse of the article brings disastrous results, if it brings injury to the individual and to those that he is associated with, and by reason of this fact we are to prohibit its use in every form and in every shape, to what extent can we apply this principle?

I remember not long since of seeing a railway train going down a certain incline with irrestibleforce and run into another. I saw a human being under that wreck, bones broken and life

destroyed, to that extent that it made the blood curdle, and by reason of the misuse of this element which had been brought into use. If we can apply it to one principle or one element, we can apply it to another principle and another element, and to what extent might we then apply the rule that we expect to apply unto this one article? Should we take time to go into the discussion of this question, we can point out element after element and property after property that has brought misery and destruction_misery to life and destruction to life and property all over the universe. And by reason of this should we then prohibit its use? Mr. Chairman, it is just as consistent in my mind to pass a law here to prohibit the production or the raising of the article from which that liquor is made as it is to undertake to prohibit the manufacture of it, just exactly. I believe that man is endowed with certain agencies, and I look upon him as a higher being than the mere worm that creeps upon the face of the earth. That he is here for a special purpose and the only way that he can develop that particular purpose is in the exercise of his agency, and then you begin to prohibit the exercise of that and you deprive him of rendering an accountability unto that life which gave him life. So that the question which we have under consideration is broader in its sphere than the mere taking of a glass of whisky or beer. It enters into man's very existence and it takes him from the time that he came {1463} here through all eternity, and if you destroy his agency in one sphere how is he going to develop unto his associates and unto the life that gave him existence an opportunity to be like the metal that has been extracted from the hill_tried and refined, so that when he is brought before his Maker, he reflects His own image? It is a principle that I shall oppose the minority report. If I should allow my sympathies to be drawn out and given expression to what I have seen as the results of the misuse of this in this land and in other lands, I could also say that I have seen in regard to the misuse of other properties and other elements. I remember once upon the borders of Wales of seeing a train coming out with seven passenger cars, all loaded with tourists, many of them from America, many of them from other parts of the world, and it was going up an incline and in the midst of a hill it ran into an oil train_

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, you are annoying the speaker.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to one point that has been touched upon. I claim to have a great deal of experience in the matter of prohibition for something near fifteen or twenty years. They attempted to establish prohibition in our city, and I was police magistrate for a number of years and then afterwards city attorney, but I have seen more perjury committed in cases that were brought up under prohibition, altogether, than I ever saw combined in anything else. I have seen young men who would tell me that “If you put me upon the witness stand you cannot get the truth out of me.” I have seen attorneys come into our town and go to work and take our own witnesses and take them into a place or dive where liquor was sold and tell them what to say, and they would come right into court and swear exactly as he told them, every word of it was a lie, until I became almost disgusted with humanity. Therefore, if we want a new State predicated upon principles of honor, let us avoid this one thing. If you undertake to remove this question from the legitimate channels with the individual agency that exists, and there you simply relegate it back then to this that I refer to, for they will swear falsely every time.

I remember a case where the chairman of this committee prosecuted here. and the officers of our county through their vigilance had the testimony as perfect and solid as it could be; they were the

aborigines of our country here who came in, and they told the truth, but the white man made himself a slave to the vendor of liquor and they perjured their souls, whereas the Indians who had not been tutored in this did not do so. Not only that, but talk about petitions, why we had petitions from respectable men, too; there is one certain case I am reminded of where two men held prominent positions in the dominant church here in this Territory, and the one swore he got the liquor and the other swore he did not, and the result was the man who swore he did not, although he did get the liquor, why the jury believed him and the case went against the, city, after it had gone to the district court. Many instances I could tell of where witnesses were taken out of the Territory in prohibition cases into other states, and when cases were about to be decided upon the witnesses were frittered away. So I say upon this point let us rely more upon the conversion and upon the honor and upon the natural instincts that men have rather than perverted ones. And, gentlemen, if you attempt prohibition, there is more danger of changing or perverting these natural instincts and attributes than there is otherwise. Now, I expect I shall be relegated because quite a number of prominent citizens of our town sent in their petitions asking me to present {1464 - CORPORATIONS} them and I did so, but I am firmly convinced by twenty years' experience, notwithstanding the gentleman who spoke in favor of the minority, who lives in the town next to it. How is it, only the other day the young men came to the town there and beat our marshal with some kind of a weapon and also some citizens came from Springville, too? We had to take the brunt of this. Now, these are the practical facts of the subject. I have had as much experience on this matter as any other man on this floor. And, gentlemen, it cannot be carried out. You cannot do it. I believe in being aggressive, however, and if you saloon men have all the advantages when you frame your laws and be aggressive also, but you cannot enforce a prohibitory law. It is contrary to nature itself.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. Chairman, when Horace Greeley was asked in regard to the slavery question and the Clay-Missouri compromises, he made the assertion that there was no such a thing as a compromise between good and evil, between right and wrong, and I submit, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this Convention, that there are very few members here but what will concede that the whisky business in its different ramifications is ninety-five per cent condemned through wrong_materially wrong, and therefore, I think it is the duty of any honorable man to stand up here and combat those institutions. Connected with the whisky business there is the demi-monde and the gambler. They are one and inseparable. They are triplets, from the same mother, and I think when a man fights one he is fighting the interests of the other, and any man or any set of men who will stand up here and defend the whisky business, I consider their just reward will be to live to see their children and their grandchildren gamblers, drunkards, illegitimate, and prostitutes.

Mr. BOYER. I want to ask Mr. Creer a question, whether or not the liquor that was used in this drunken row by the party from Springville was not obtained at the saloon at Spanish Fork?

Mr. CREER. Certainly it was; yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of the minority report. I believe that in refusing to accede to the petitions that have been presented, I am not denying the right of petition, because I believe the sentiment of my constituents is that it should not at this time be presented to the

people. I think after the Constitution has been adopted, if at any time they desire to make this an issue, they can present it to the people and the people will have more time to carefully consider it upon its merits. I shall, therefore, vote for the majority report.

The motion to adopt the minority report was rejected.

The motion to adopt the majority report was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled corporations other than municipal.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, have I permission to make a few remarks before the clerk proceeds to read? My purpose is to explain certain matters as we go on with this article to the committee.

Mr. BOWDLE. I suggest this will come up properly when we reach the article.

The CHAIRMAN. At the end of each section.

Mr. JAMES. It was in reference to some amendments that may not take place during the reading of the article, and I wish to call the attention of the committee to them so that they would not amend one article that would come in conflict with others after it would be amended as proposed by the committee, since the report was made from opinion that has been gathered by the committee.
{1465}
The CHAIRMAN. There seems to be objection to it, and if there is you will have to wait until the amendments are proposed.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 1 be stricken out.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I move that we strike out all after the word acts, in line 3.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, the reason I would move to strike out the section is that the legislative article, section 31, provides for just such a case as this. Here it is that corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act. That is a general law in the legislative act, and it seems that there is nothing in this section that is not covered by that general law. Then the principle that all laws relating to corporations may be altered, amended, or repealed by the Legislature, etc., is a principle of general law, which we do not need in a constitution.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I trust the section will not be struck out. It may possibly be covered, but if it is, the committee on revision, who will have this whole matter in their hands,

can decide where they will retain it, whether here or in the legislative article. I think we ought to make this complete as we go along and leave that kind of business to the committee on revision.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would ask Mr. Pierce why he wants the balance of the section struck out. He did not make any explanation at all about that.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it serves any purpose. It is pure legislation. The laws relating to corporations can be amended, altered, or repealed at any time by the Legislature. Then, there is another provision in our Constitution that we have passed which prohibits the granting of unlimited charters, and it seems to me that the second clause of the section is purely a subject of legislation, and the first clause of the section is covered by our Constitution.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I believe it will be proper for me to make a few remarks right here, and I hope the Convention will indulge me for a few moments, for the reason that I am anxious that the best thing shall be done by this Convention that it is possible for it to do in the interests of the people as well as the interests of corporations. Mr. President, this matter has been under consultation by a committee for over forty days_a committee of gentlemen, Mr. President, that you appointed that have come together whenever it was possible for them to meet and when the chairman has asked them to meet with him and consult upon this article. The committee for some reason or another_an impression has gone out in the public that this committee was hostile to corporations and other institutions in this community. I want to say that there never was a greater mistake made. I have not seen one instance or one idea from any gentleman upon that committee, only conscientious action in behalf of the people that he represented in this Convention.

The matter which guided the action of the committee regarding these matters was that of the conventions that have been held in the United States since we became a nation. If you will go back to the early conventions_1778 was about the time they began. You will find that there was but little attention paid to corporations or matters of this kind. As times progressed and our country grew and these matters became important in the nation, you find they commenced to be noticed in the constitutions of the United States. And as time passed along and we come along down to the late period, which we now represent, you find all our later {1466} constitutions have taken hold of this matter and have dealt with it most thoroughly, and they have been our guides in our actions. This committee has, in all instances, so far as they possibly could, been governed by great examples that have been set them in these new states that have come into the Union recently. Now, I want to say so far as striking this section out is concerned, to me it is a most remarkable surprise, and when the gentleman gets up on this floor and says it is pure legislation, I have a wonder in my mind where he draws the line and where he makes a distinction between legislation and constitutional provision. It says what the Legislature may do. Does it legislate? Does not it leave it open to specify and set forth for the people in your State what the law shall be in this provision? And if we are going to take up an article that you find in Washington, California, Montana, Idaho, and every state that has come into the Union in the past fifteen or twenty or more years, and strike it out simply because it has been fashionable here on the streets and other places in the last few days to raise a question about the work and the acts of this committee, you might as well strike the whole article out and be done with it, gentlemen, because it only makes child's play of this committee for the last forty days.

We_yes, we may all congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its close. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has been indeed a trying hour for the republic, but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in the hands of the few and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of wars. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the first sentence in this section has been incorporated in the legislative article, but certainly the latter part of it has not been. And this is the proper

place for this sentence anyway. The latter part of this section will permit legislatures to control and restrict corporate power. There has been a contest in the courts of this country ever since the decision of the celebrated Dartmouth College case, in about the year 1812, in which Mr. Webster, the great orator, pleaded so eloquently for his alma mater_ever since that case which decided that a charter was a contract between the power granting the charter and the corporation to which the franchise or privilege was granted, there has been an effort on the part of the courts to get away from that decision. There has been an actual attempt upon the part of the courts of the United States to relieve themselves from the position that the Dartmouth College case decision placed upon them. Under the Constitution of the United States the respective states were prohibited from passing any laws impairing the obligations of contracts, and as a charter privilege was construed to be a contract, when the legislature once granted a corporate privilege, under the decisonof that case the state itself no longer had any power over the corporation. I think, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that we should solve this question here, and that we should put the corporation under the control of the State, and simply because you give them a corporate privilege a franchise at one time, if they abuse that, and if there is any necessity of recalling, restricting, and controlling that, I think the State should have the full power to do so, and this is all this section gives to the State.

The motion to strike out was rejected.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the words “at any time,” commencing at the latter end of line 4, be stricken out. I think they are not necessary there.

(No second).

Section 2 was read.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman the object of the latter part of this section, “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” about being compelled to file in the office of the secretary an acceptance?

Mr. JAMES. That is to put all corporations, as far as we possibly can, upon an equal footing, that they shall accept the laws as provided under this Constitution.

Mr. BOWDLE. I want to ask the chairman of that committee a question. Would that, as the committee understood {1468} it, modify the charter of existing corporations?

Mr. JAMES. No, sir; but all corporations' charters expire in a certain length of time, and then they will have to come under it.

Mr. BOWDLE. They would anyhow, would they not?

Section 3 was read.

Mr. SHARP. I move to amend this section by inserting after the word “not,” in the first line, the

words “by special act.”

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, that is provided for in other parts of the Constitution.

The motion was rejected.

Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were read.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 8 be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 9 was read.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 9.

Mr. MALONEY. I would like to know what ground' the gentleman asks that that be stricken out on?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, it is legislation pure and simple.

Mr. RICKS. I cannot see anything to be gained by that. And it seems to me it is pure legislation.

Mr. MALONEY. Then, Mr. Chairman, the Legislature may incorporate companies to run street cars, lay their tracks down through the streets and highways of Salt Lake City, electrical plants operating, to put their poles where they please without the authority of the city at all. I say that the city authorities should first be consulted, they should have the say as to whether or not any corporations shall be entitled to the franchise of the street.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Ricks, do you understand that that simply is a limitation upon the Legislature so that it cannot permit these things without the consent of the city authorities?

Mr. RICKS. Yes, sir; I understand that.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Do you believe that the Legislature ought to grant these rights without the consent of the city authorities?

Mr. RICKS. No. sir; I do not think they ought to. I do not think they will even if that be stricken out.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, there is a section in the Montana constitution just like this. That was submitted to Mr. Thayer, a constitutional lawyer, and I see he has stricken it out of the Montana constitution. It is pure legislation. Mr. Thayer is the constitutional lawyer of Harvard college.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to it going out if it was struck out of Montana.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I think it ought to remain in here. I do not think that the Legislature ought to have the right to say that there shall be railroads, telephone lines, or anything else of that description located and passed through these cities without the authorities being consulted and their consent obtained, and I hope this will remain in here.

Mr. BOWDLE. I will ask the chairman of the committee_as I understand this article_section 1, the word “may,” that will be construed to be “must;” that is, corporations must be permitted, if permitted at all, under general laws, and shall not. be created by special acts. Would not that limit the Legislature from passing any special legislation of this kind?

Mr. CREER. It may not be special legislation.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Suppose the Legislature says that these companies should run through all the cities alike in this way, without the consent of the city authorities. That would be a general law, wouldn't it?

Mr. BOWDLE. It would be a general law, it is true.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, a portion of that section seems to me is {1469} very consistent and the proper thing to retain here, and there is a portion of it that seems to me might work against the commonwealth. And, therefore, I would move to strike out the word “telegraph,” in the third line, and the word “telephone.” There might be a case in which the telegraph line was coming to a city with a view of extending it through and going on to some other section of the country, and it was not local in its character. It was simply a continuous line, and if the city authorities took a notion they could make objections to this provision and an inconvenience that the Legislature should not be hampered with in that particular.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the proposition offered by the last speaker, because if it were a telegraph line, there is not one case out of a hundred where they could not, if they saw fit, go around a town if they needed to, and I think if they get into the town, it should be under the regulation of the corporate authorities wherever they are. I am in favor of the section as it stands.

The motion of Mr. Eldredge was rejected.

The motion to strike out the section was rejected.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment to section 9; strike out in lines 1, 2, and 3, the words “by the legislative assembly.”

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Howard, the committee divided and by a vote of 35 ayes to 27 noes, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. CORAY. I would like to ask for information if the law at present does not provide for that same thing? I do not see any necessity of putting it in the Constitution.

Section 11 was read.

Mr. ROBERTS.    Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute I wish to offer for section 11:

No corporation shall have power to engage in more than one general line or department of business, which line of business shall be distinctly specified in its charter of incorporation.

Mr. CANNON. May I ask the gentleman a question? Will you kindly name one of the foreign corporations that you have in mind that would be affected by this provision that you now introduce?

Mr. SQUIRES. May I ask the gentleman a question? Do you believe that the operation of this section will be against the organization recently formed in this Territory known as the Utah company?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I understand that corporation to be already in existence and I do not believe that any provision In the Constitution could have an ex-post facto operation. I do not think that it touches that company at all.

(Mr. Hart was here called to the chair).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the substitute offered, for the reason that I believe that it would prohibit some of the institutions that now exist from being conducted, that I believe have been of great benefit to the people of Utah. As I understand it, for instance, it would prevent a manufacturing and merchandising establishment operating. If we were to take the case of the Z. C. M. I., one of the largest corporations within our borders, and one which I believe has been a benefit, not only to the stockholders, but to the people of Utah generally. It comprises departments that embrace several branches of business, not only all branches of merchandising, but also manufacturing in many lines. As I understand, the substitute would prohibit that incorporation or a similar corporation from operating as it has done in the past. I understand, of course, it would not apply to those corporations now doing business until their charters shall expire, but the principle is the same. Again, the foreign corporations to which the gentleman refers_while he was speaking I tried to think of one that could be affected by this substitute. I am in favor of doing what we can to protect the people from trusts of various kinds, but I could not recall one, and hence I questioned the gentleman, asking him if he had any in mind, thinking of those different trusts, the sugar trust, the Standard Oil trust, the lead trust, and others; each one operates in a special line and could not be affected at all by the substitute offered by the gentleman, and I believe that the original section as reported by the committee should be adopted.
{1471}
Mr. HAMMOND. I would like to ask a question. The case comes to my mind of the Pullman Car Company, where, if I remember right, the attorney general went after them and tried to annul their charter because they had gone into land purchasing and building churches and houses, and a great many business operations other than that to which their charter empowered them as car builders. I remember something of that. I don't know whether it touches this case, but I think that is in point.

Mr. JAMES. You will observe that section 11 stipulates that no corporation shall engage in any business other than that expressly authorized in its charter. Now, a charter cannot be obtained without going to the Legislature. Now, if an incorporation cannot engage in any other business only what is set forth in its charter, the Legislature knows what they are granting them a charter for whenever they apply for it and when they grant it. Consequently you see the protection to the

people in the shape it is in. I want to say in answer to Mr. Roberts's amendment, I considered the section that he has offered for amendment here and considered this one, and so did all other members of the committee. Now, we were afraid that we might go a little too far, and while we thought that this section in the shape that it was in would protect the people sufficiently, we did not want to go far enough to interfere with some condition of things that might arise where a charter was applied for something like this. Supposing the gentleman up in his county desired to build a railroad to some coal field somewhere, and he might incidentally find some little business for the road outside of hauling his coal, but he would be desirous of going to the Legislature and asking for a charter to build a road to those coal fields, and express in his charter to mine and ship coal from those coal mines, which belonged to him. Now, we don't want to go far enough to shut out the opportunity of his including that in his charter, and if the Legislature see fit to grant him a charter to carry on that business in that shape, he might get a charter of that kind without danger to anybody.

Mr. CREER. Do you understand that they would have to apply to the Legislature to get a charter?

Mr. JAMES. Why, certainly, he would not get a charter without he went to the Legislature. Well, it might be a municipal charter.

Mr. CREER. And a private charter for a private corporation, would he have to apply to the Legislature to get that? I understand section 1 says general laws shall be passed.

Mr. JAMES. Exactly so, but it would come from the Legislature.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this substitute. I think it will work a great injury, should we be allowed to supplant the present section. It will work a great hardship, as the gentleman from Salt Lake has said. There are companies in this Territory that have done a great amount of good by introducing one, perhaps two, or maybe three_anyway I am connected with an institution that I can say has worked no possible harm whatever. In its charter it is provided that it may enter into mercantile and manufacturing business. Now, unless it had been separated in that way_that is, unless it had received its impetus from this organization, we would not have the manufacture of boots and shoes which we now have in our city. We more than supply the inhabitants of that city with a little manufacturing we have there of boots and shoes. We are running in connection with that a grist mill, and rolling mill. Now, what possible harm could there be in that? Should this substitute obtain, that would shut off from that, not only in this line, but also it seems to me in mining business, both in coal and the precious {1472} metals. They would not be allowed to run a railroad nor to operate their coal mines, and so in regard to other, mines. But it seems to me, to confine this to a particular object, it would deprive the people of this Territory or State of the advantages of the investment of capital that could not be got otherwise than by corporations.

Mr. THURMAN. Would it not be better if of necessity you wanted to engage in two lines of business to form a new corporation and work it in harmony with the others?

Mr. CREER. Where is the harm in incorporating in both, so far as that is concerned? It seems to

me there is nothing that is contrary to the provisions of the one in the other. That is in manufacturing and in commerce or in trade. Now, this would deprive a woollen factory from buying any little manufactory to manufacture their goods. Many industries that might be considered under the law as it now stands would be cut off by this and could not be properly introduced_many things. It seems to me that it simply turns the wheels of progress backwards. Nearly all the industries that we have established in our Territory up to the present time have been established on this principle, and I think it is dangerous to deviate from this route.

Mr. EVANS Weber). Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Roberts means in this, articles of incorporation, and I think Mr. Mr. James also, in section 11, meant to say articles of incorporation. I want to say I favor the section as reported by Mr. James, but it is not as complete, in my judgment, as the substitute offered by Mr. Roberts. The substitute is more restrictive and will give better results. Now, gentlemen, speaking about the Z. C. M. L, there is no difficulty about each one of those institutions incorporating separately. The shoe industry could incorporate for that purpose; the general mercantile business, for the sale of goods, for another purpose, and the benefit of that is this, that each corporation then stands upon its own footing. People doing business. with it will know exactly what its resources are, will know exactly what its profits are, and all about it, separate and apart one from the other. And it is the same with the grist mill spoken. of by the gentleman from Utah, and the mercantile establishment, they are connected together there; they could be easily incorporated separately and the business could be kept separate. You would know exactly the condition of each, the profits, expenses, and everything connected with it.

But, gentlemen, these are very small things indeed, so far as this question is concerned. They are small things as compared with what is intended to be reached by the substitute offered by Mr. Roberts. If that substitute be not adopted, then the section will undoubtedly be adopted as we now have it. That will permit an incorporation to simply name in its articles of incorporation all the manifold classes of business that might be carried on. That is, a live, strong foreign corporation could come into our new State and file articles of incorporation under our general laws, saying, “we will incorporate for the purpose of carrying on the real estate business, for the purpose of carrying on a railroad business, for the purpose of manufacturing, mining, and everything else,” and right there is what this substitute is intended to restrict and prevent_corporate power from taking possession of our new State and controlling its entire business and leaving the people to hold an empty sack.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would you prevent this same power from coming in and taking out articles of incorporation in all these lines of business separately?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It may do that, it may do that; but there is another article here which prevents combinations for the purpose of controlling {1473} prices, etc. But one of the other real benefits is for the purpose of permitting the public to ascertain the financial status of each corporation. That overshadows a good many other considerations, so that the creditor, when he is dealing with these corporations, knows exactly what their profits are, what their expenses are, and all these things incident to the running of the business. It certainly can do nobody any harm, not even those institutions mentioned, and might result in a vast amount of good.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Nothing wrong about it, but I think if the shoe institution did not sustain itself they would not run it at a loss. No business man does that.

Mr. CREER. During their inception or the infancy of these institutions they have to run at a loss.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Then you say it runs at the expense of the general mercantile business?

Mr. CREER. Yes.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Then, what prevents the general mercantile business from giving a portion of its dividends to the shoe factory? Nothing whatever; they should he run separately, but you permit a combination of them and there is trouble.

Mr. SNOW. I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Evans. If they were incorporated separately, would it not require a separate board of directors?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think not.

Mr. SNOW. Could they act as officers for each corporation?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think so.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Would it not also increase the machinery to carry on the two separate businesses_but would not it increase the expense of the institution, being that they were all under one head, only had to get up separate corporations for each individual business?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You must realize that a corporation is in law a person. It has the right to contract with another corporation just the same as you and I have the right to contract together, and there is, no reason why the expense should be increased at all. It is simply a safeguard so that we will each know just how our business stands.

Mr. CREER. Supposing that a certain portion of the stockholders should object to subscribing a portion of the dividends to the other?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is a mere sham pretense, and nothing else, when you say the business is going to be run continually at a loss.

Mr. CREER. I don't say continually.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The corporation might loan its credit.

Mr. THATCHER. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? If this substitute shall be voted down then your argument is just as much against the original section, because that expresses clearly that corporations shall not be formed except when express-_

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). I have not taken the original. I am opposed to the substitute and I may be opposed to the other. I cannot tell until I get to it, but I am opposed to that. I notice that men that start into business start perhaps on a small scale, but as they move along there is something that will assist them in keeping vitality in their corporations, whereas if they are limited to prescribe every identical thing in their franchises or in their constitution, perhaps it' would be calculated to discourage, and they would come to a break down and would not be in a condition to move ahead, but if they had already the privilege of doing something else_to illustrate, you go into a woollen factory and you might conclude that you could not only manufacture woollen, but you might also produce wool and ship it and sell it for the purpose of keeping up your expenses, whereas if you were confined to simply manufacturing in a woollen factory and prohibited from buying wool or going into something that would assist in the maintenance of that institution, it would be very detrimental.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the substitute for section 11 on the ground that we want to encourage all the industries of manufacturing that we possibly can, to create all the labor and modes of travel that we can. If I understand the substitute, it is to prevent incorporating into one more than one article or subject. We know well that in manufacturing there are many things that can be manufactured. We will take, for instance, the sugar factory. If that corporation was for manufacturing sugar alone, it would prevent that company manufacturing two or three other articles from the residue of that factory. They could be incorporated under one head_

Mr. THURMAN. What else can you manufacture from the sugar, anyway?

Mr. MORRIS. Vinegar, alcohol_

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I cannot favor the substitute offered by my friend, Mr. Roberts, because I believe it is too far-reaching. Holding the position I do in connection with the Z. C. M. I., I know something of its workings, and were they compelled to separate their business, incorporate under two separate corporations, I feel confident that it would work a very serious hardship. Now, the question would arise with the shareholders, perhaps, and some would say, “I don't want to have anything to do with the manufacturing department.” Now, we are all stockholders, that is, those that own stock in the institution. They own it to-day in the mercantile and manufacturing interests alike, and to say that they shall be divided, why, is something that I think would work a very great injury. I do believe that we should do all we can to foster home industries. That is what we want here at home right here in our midst, is to foster home industries. {1475} Give them all the aid and encouragement we can. Now, from what I know of the manufacturing interests of the Z. C. M. I., I doubt very much if it could have existed alone without the mercantile interest standing at its back. Now, if that be the case, shall we support that so that this manufacturing industry shall go down? They are employing probably two or three hundred individuals. Shall it go down? I fear that it would if the gentleman's substitute is adopted, because if I understand section 2 aright_perhaps I do not_it compels corporations to accept the provisions of this Constitution if they are to get the benefit of them. That is the understanding I have of it. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but I am willing to stand corrected.

But, sir, I speak in defense of home industries and I cannot favor the substitute for the reasons that I have stated. Were we to do away with our home manufacture, hundreds of persons now employed would be thrown out of employment, and what would be the result? I think we would discourage capital from coming in here and establishing home industries. I do not want to take up the time here, but simply to say in our efforts here and in our doings here, let us do what we can to establish home industry, and nothing that will pull one of them down.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, after this good republican speech from my good democratic friend from Davis, and owing to the lateness of the hour, I shall not occupy but a very few minutes. I can see one particular consideration in which the operation of this section would be detrimental. Under the provision of this section no corporation could incorporate for mining and milling purposes together.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Do not you think that would be the same general purpose?

Mr. SQUIRES. I should say not. Mining and milling are two separate occupations. They are just as much distinct as any other two lines of business_and smelting. I think in the protection of the mining interests of this Territory, I should object seriously to the adoption of any such section requiring men to be at the trouble and expense of forming two corporations to do that particular business which ought to be together.

Mr. THURMAN. May I ask you a question? Is not the object of mining solely to extract the mineral wealth and get it into marketable shape?

Mr. THURMAN. Is not that the purpose of it, and does not everything that will tend to do that form a part of that general line of business?

Mr. SQUIRES. I believe not. I should say that the construction to be placed upon the substitute would separate the mining and milling industries; I do not want to take ally chances on it. I believe, gentlemen, that the section as it stands in this article gives sufficient protection to the people, and I believe it should be adopted.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask Mr. Squires a question: what protection the section, as reported from the committee, gives to the people?

Mr. SQUIRES. Well, the corporation would not be able to engage in any business except that specified in its articles of incorporation.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask him if there is anything in the section as reported from the committee that would prevent any corporation from engaging in ten, fifteen, or twenty different lines of business, if they chose to specify that number of lines of business in their articles of incorporation?

Mr. SQUIRES. There is not, if they were fortunate enough in securing their charter and articles of incorporation that would give them that privilege; but under the operation of his own section as admitted by the gentleman from {1476 - MOTIONS} Weber, they can engage in all those different lines of business, so that that corporate capacity could go in here and be worked just in that line as indicated. I do not see what would be gained.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the gentleman another question, and that is, if the article that I gave notice would follow this one, looking to the prevention of the consolidation or combination of corporations, in connection with this article, would not prevent what he says here might be done under the substitute offered?

Mr. SQUIRES. It might not be a combination of all those different enterprises, but each one can be conducted separately under the same general board of directors.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late, and I think this a very important subject that should not be passed upon hastily. I move that the committee now arise and report progress.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an explanation to this committee before we arise, if it is in order. I have just learned that in my remarks they were construed as insinuating that I had seen Mr. Driver under the influence of liquor; such was not my intention. I believe I prefaced those remarks by saying that I did not think Mr. Driver was a close observer. I thought I had seen him hot under the collar. By that I suppose he thought I intended to insinuate that I had seen him drunk; but if I had been allowed to finish my remarks, I should have finished this way, because of a man under the influence of liquor.

The committee then arose and reported as follows:

Your committee of the whole have had under consideration the article on mines and mining, and report the same back with the article stricken out. They have also had under consideration the article of the two committees, minority and majority, of the committee on schedule, future amendments, and miscellaneous, and recommend that no action be taken on that subject.

On motion, the Convention then, at 6 o'clock p. m., adjourned.