[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.

{1585 - CONSTITUTION, FINAL READING}

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Delegate Howard, of Emery.

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

Mr. Keith was excused for a few days.

File No. 378 was presented, asking that a woman's suffrage clause be placed in the Constitution. From Wayne County, 250 names; from Salt Lake City, 15 names; from Uintah County, 450 names; from Rich County, 91 names; from Washington County, 9 names, from Garfield County, 133 names, by Chidester, of Garfield.

File No. 379 was presented, signed by Isaac O. Brown, and 425 others from Kane County, by Robinson, of Kane.

Ordered filed.

Mr. Roberts offered the following resolution:

Whereas, Convention rule 32 requires that at a reasonable time, to be determined by the Convention, and at least five days before final adjournment, the committee on engrossment and enrollment shall be instructed to accurately engross and enroll the Constitution, therefore, be it

Resoled by the Convention, that one hour and a half each morning shall be devoted to hearing read those articles of the Constitution which the committee on compilation and revision have prepared, and that when finally adopted by the Convention, said articles pass into the hands of the committee on engrossment and enrollment, which committee is hereby authorized to direct the engrossing clerk to engross the same on suitable material preparatory to final reading and signing of the document.

arrangement, they can then pass into the hands of the committee on enrollment and engrossment, and we will have things running parallel, and the amount of delay that the committee would be subjected to would be materially decreased. It is out of these considerations that I offer the resolution to the Convention.

Mr. THORESON. I see by the resolution that it provides that they engage some person to engross the Constitution. Is not that the duty of the clerk that we have engaged for that purpose?

The PRESIDENT. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if that is true, instruct him to proceed. I did not know what condition that was in, in fact I did not know we had an engrossing clerk. If you have an amendment to that effect, I will accept it.

The PRESIDENT. I would state that the engrossing and enrolling clerk is now trying to get the proper paper upon which to do the engrossing.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the resolution there requires that suitable material be obtained. I presume that that would be parchment if it can be had.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I am very much in favor of the resolution, and I wish to state that the chairman in behalf of the committee on compilation and arrangement_that this {1586} meets the hearty approval of that committee and we are working to this end.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I am opposed to the resolution, because I do not think it is necessary. I understand from the chairman of the committee on compilation and arrangement that all the articles that have passed this Convention are now ready to be presented to this Convention. The only thing that we are waiting for to-day is to have that calendar, cleared there, so that we can consider them, and if the calendar can be cleared this afternoon, we will go through all the Constitution that has passed the Convention this afternoon. It will then go to the engrossing clerk. There need be no delay whatever when we get the calendar cleared, and I don't think the resolution is necessary at all.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, just in explanation, I wish to state that there have been objections made to the committee on compilation making any report at all until the entire Constitution is passed. I understand by this resolution that that committee can report in part, as the compilation has passed, and the engrossment will commence immediately, and this I consider will expedite the work.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, the question has been raised whether this motion is in order, inasmuch as it involves a suspension of the rules. I move as an amendment to the motion that the rules be suspended and that the committee on compilation and arrangement be requested to report their work as fast as possible to this Convention. I think that will do away with the resolution entirely.

Now, sir, with the indulgence of the house, I wish to call attention to the necessity of some step of this kind. In the first place, for this Convention to complete the Constitution and then wait while the committee on compilation and arrangement shall complete its revision and then have five days elapse before the Convention has the Constitution finally engrossed, is unnecessary. We want to place this work in such condition that it can all be going on at the same time. The articles of the Constitution are so distinct in their nature, and I am sure have received such careful consideration by the committee on compilation and arrangement_for instance the article called the bill of rights, and perhaps the article on executive, the article on legislative, the article on judiciary, could be considered we will say one morning, and then they could go to the engrossing clerk and that work be going on, and then the next morning we could consider three or four other articles that have been finally finished at the hands of the committee on compilation and arrangement, pass upon them and let them go on to the engrossing clerk.

Mr. RICKS. I do not think that resolution contemplates that. It says after they have all been passed upon by the Convention, then it goes to the engrossing clerk.

Mr. ROBERTS. It says such articles as have been passed.

Mr. RICKS. Then I have no objection to the resolution.

Mr. LUND. I will ask if that does not read, when they are finally adopted they go to the engrossing and enrolling clerk?

Mr. ROBERTS. It is the articles as finally adopted, as for instance say, {1587 - ABSENTEES} Monday morning we consider in the hour and a half devoted to that, the article entitled declaration of rights, the article on executive, the article on legislative. Each as it is finally accepted by the Convention then goes to the engrossing clerk and not the complete Constitution. I am sure it is the meaning and it is expressed.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, there is one amendment I would suggest. It says an hour and a half each morning. I should suggest an hour and a half each day.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no objection to that, although the morning would be a good time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I will say for the committee on compilation and revision, that about next Tuesday we shall have fifteen of the articles revised, compiled, and printed for the use of the Convention. It was thought advisable by a majority of the committee, I believe, that we should have the bill of rights, legislative, executive, and ordinance printed at the same time, so that that

there will be no conflict between any of the sections that might be introduced. It has been thought by some of the prominent members of the Convention that we could not do that, that there might be a conflict between some of the sections, and that no article should be introduced for the final passage before this body until the whole Constitution was printed before them, so that each and every member can look for himself. But I am impressed with the fact that this resolution of the gentleman from Davis County is a good one. It will certainly save us four days at the close of the Convention.

Mr. CREER. I just wish to make a suggestion, to change the word, inasmuch to whereas.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no objection.

Mr. HART. Mr, President, the resolution appears to me to be a very wise one to adopt at this time, but it also occurs to me that it will overrule rule
number 22. I think it will entirely change the latter part of that rule, and I think it should go to the committee on rules as a matter of course before the Convention passes upon it. I raise the point of order that under our rules it be referred. to the committee on rules.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I move that this be referred to the committee on rules.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I would move to amend, by suspending the rules on the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The resolution was adopted.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I desire to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, that the sergeant-at-arms be directed to spread the names of the tardy members on the bulletin board, and that the aforesaid be required to produce a reasonable excuse for said tardiness, and that in the absence of such excuse said members be reprimanded by the president for slothfulness.

Mr. BUTTON. I move to lay it on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I have a resolution I wish to offer:

Resolved, that the secretary record upon the journal of the Convention the names of all absentees and also the names of members excused by the Convention from attendance.

business for two weeks and no one was the wiser for it. He drew his four dollars per day, just the same as the member who faithfully attended upon this Convention. The situation that has confronted us the last day or two suggests {1588 - CORPORATIONS} the propriety now of enforcing the attendance of members of this Convention. There are some members that should be excused, but the Convention should pass upon the necessity of excusing them, and from this time on I am in favor of keeping a strict record of those who absent themselves, and permitting members to be absent only upon consent of the Convention.

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I concur in what the gentleman from Cache says. There seems to be a disposition now upon the part of members to stay away and go home, and a great many of the Salt Lake delegates are tardy. It is almost impossible to get some of the members here. It is the duty of every member to stay here until the work is thoroughly done.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I do not know whether that resolution is wise or not. Is it not a fact that we get along better when there are only about half of us here?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, that may be true, as suggested by Mr. Thurman, but I suggest they have no right to draw their pay.

Mr. THURMAN. We are not drawing any pay. The pay has been stopped days ago.

Mr. CHIDESTER. There may be a little to come yet and those that do attend and make the Constitution should have it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move that the resolution be tabled. The motion was rejected.

The resolution was adopted.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I move to suspend the rules, and that no members be allowed to speak more than three minutes on any question.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I would amend by making it one minute.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, either of these motions is entirely inconsistent. There will be some very important matters yet to come before this Convention, and it seems to me that it is unreasonable to say that no man shall occupy more than three minutes on this floor. I am entirely opposed to any such motion prevailing.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I have sat here and listened to members putting in resolutions and withdrawing them and spending three or four hours over them. Now, if we get this through we will have less time on these resolutions that are put in, just for somebody to make an effort.

The motion of Mr. Button was rejected.

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

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment of this committee yesterday evening_I will be as brief as I possibly can, in calling the attention of the Convention to this matter. The reason why I offered to strike out the first section, which I was explaining yesterday afternoon, at the time of the adjournment, was as I explained to you yesterday; we found that there was a vast difference between insurance companies. We found that fire insurance companies had not created a dissatisfaction that life insurance companies had created. We found further that fire insurance companies had not been the cause of impositions upon the public that life insurance companies had. We found further that a uniform deposit as a guaranty fund for the protection of policy holders was not practicable, for the reason that one company may have a capitalization so that it is able to do a hundred thousand dollars' worth of business in a year and another may not be able to do twenty-five, although each company may be absolutely sound. For that reason, I concluded that the best thing I could do was to draw up this {1589} resolution which you have before you, and have it presented to the Convention, so that the Legislature might fix some sum as a guaranty fund for the protection of the policy holders, and that therefore that guaranty fund might be increased in proportion to the amount of business engaged in our community by these companies. In answer to Judge Maloney yesterday evening as to why I did not strike out the words “fire insurance,” and fix a hundred thousand dollars for life insurance, it was this very reason. Some very good companies would be unable to do any business at all, and it would practically put the business into the hands of a monopoly. For that reason I offered this resolution. I do not believe that there is any class of business in Utah that deserves the attention of the Legislature any more than this insurance business, and I believe we ought to pass this resolution, and if it is not strong enough, make it stronger. I do not say that I have made that resolution as perfect and as strong as it should be. I have simply done the best I can, and I hope if any members of this Convention can see any opportunity to improve that resolution, they will take up the opportunity. Insurance companies to-day are controlled by combines just as complete as any combine can be. The sugar trust, the trust with its oil and with its white lead, and a dozen other combinations are no more complete combines than this business, and I am sorry for the insurance men of this town, after having investigated the business, that do not dare to come to me and write a policy without the consent of the combine in San Francisco. I say, when men are tied up hand and foot in that sort of manner, it is time that this Convention put the matter in shape so that the Legislature can take it up and deal with it intelligently and so as to correct these evils as far as possible. It cannot be done in this Convention. It is a detailed proposition of legislation that we cannot go into and we cannot handle it, but let us do the best we can.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the substitute. I want to know what good it is to the policy holders for the company to be subject to the control of the Legislature of Utah, what officer is to look after this land, see the value of it, see whether or not it is encumbered or not. I

say the resolution is not worth the paper it is written on, and if that is the only security that policy holders are to have in this Territory, we might as well not have any. Now, I am opposed to it from the beginning to the end. This committee unanimously passed upon this section 26. I do not care whether it applies to fire insurance companies or not. It is originally intended to reach life and accident companies, and not fire companies. There is no complaint here against fire insurance companies. I am unable to see why the chairman of this committee now moves to strike out more of the sections of the article than any of the other delegates in this Convention.

Mr. JAMES. Do not you admit, Judge Maloney, that that section has got to be amended as it stands before this committee?

Mr. MALONEY. Just amend it so that it applies to life insurance companies.

Mr. JAMES. Then amend it as you please. I will support you.

Mr. MALONEY. Then, I will move an amendment, to insert the words, “life or accident.” Then it lets out all the fire companies. I have never had any complaint against them.

Mr. BOWDLE. I want to ask Mr. James a question, if this section was stricken out, would not the Legislature have complete control of the whole business?

Mr. JAMES. Why, I think that question answers itself. We understand {1590} that it does. Is there anything then that compels the Legislature to give this matter attention, I ask you, to prevent this robbery that is going on by these wildcat companies? The insurance men do not object to the legislalationthat will keep insurance business on a safe basis. They ask to have it done. In answer to Mr. Maloney, so far as the insurance companies are con-concerned [*note*], the strongest insurance companies in this town admit that something should be done. To Mr. Evans and me, the man that does one-third of the business in this town, admitted that a deposit should be required of fire companies.

Mr. BOWDLE. As I understand this substitute, there is no amount fixed. It simply says to the Legislature, you must do something. It may be a dollar bond or a ten dollar bond. That would be the interpretation would, it not_leaving it perfectly optional with the Legislature?

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Maloney a question. I think I understood your amendment that life and accident insurance companies would be required to put up a deposit say of a hundred thousand dollars?

Mr. MALONEY. Yes, sir, I understand that the main companies of Utah have made no objection to it at all.

Mr. EICHNOR. I do not want to be understood as objecting. I had enough of railroad companies yesterday, but will your amendment preclude or nullify any insurance that was taken out, outside of the State of Utah, and the person should happen to move into the State?

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say one or two words in opposition to the substitute. I hope the substitute will not prevail. I think it is useless in every sense of the word. If we want to do something, if something must be done, let us do it here. Whatever must be done should not be left to the Legislature. The Legislature would have full power to do all this business anyway. I am in favor of the amendment, when it is in order, proposed by the gentleman from Weber. I do not know that a hundred thousand dollars is the proper amount. If it is too much, cut it down, but as far as the principle goes, I am in favor of it.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this question just spoken of by Mr. Thurman of the sum to be deposited by these companies_ought it not to be left so that it can be fixed in proportion to the amount of business transacted by each company? One company may do ten thousand dollars' worth of business and another a. hundred thousand. It would be hardly fair, it seems to me, to compel them both to make the same deposit.

Mr. BUTTON. Is this the substitute we are talking about?

Mr. SQUIRES. The original section is just as much before the house as the substitute or the amendment. I should be in favor of this section as it stands, if it could be so amended as to make the amount of despositin comparison to the volume of business transacted by each company in the Territory.

Mr. MALONEY. The trouble about that is, no one knows the amount of business they are doing, unless their reports filed with the secretary of state will tell.

Mr. SQUIRES. Then the other trouble is that we are stating the figure so high that we will rule out a whole lot of good safe companies, and if that is the case, the matter should certainly be left to the Legislature so that no injustice will be done to any company.

The question being taken on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. James, it was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question recurs upon the amendment proposed by Mr. Maloney.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, at the suggestion of the gentleman I will {1591} move to insert the words, “until otherwise provided by law.”

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but oppose this proposition. Whenever a proposition comes before this Convention that will be an injustice to some company or a hardship, I am going to vote against it. As I said to you before, there is no use of my going over this ground again. There are companies that are perfectly sound; people would just as soon insure in them as any other company that can afford to put up a hundred thousand dollars, and others that cannot put up to exceed five. Now, is that any sort of a proposition for this Convention to adopt?

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 26 be stricken out. My only reason for not

supporting the substitute offered by Mr. James was that I believed the whole matter ought to be left to the Legislature, that they will have ample power to act, and they will act, and therefore, I favor the striking out of the section.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that in line 8 the words “one hundred thousand dollars” be made to read, “fifty thousand dollars.”

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the amendment it would apply to all secret societies would it not?

Mr. IVINS. That is right.

Mr. BOWDLE. No question about it. If any of you men are in the Masonic association or have a life insurance in that, or if you are an Odd Fellow, or belong to any other secret society and carry beneficial policy in that, and such an association wishes in this Territory or coming State to write any such insurance_    

Mr. BUTTON. May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. BOWDLE. Just wait until I get through and I will answer you, gentlemen. There is no question about that, gentlemen. I don't carry a policy in any of those associations of which I speak, although I carry considerable insurance, some in the regular old straight line and so on; but I submit to you, gentlemen, that that would strip the Woodmen of this city. I understand they have quite an organization here_and all that class oi insurance. And I know there are poor men in this city that are carrying that kind of insurance, and that in a number of cases of death it has been the sole protection of the families of those men, and I am opposed to that kind of legislation here that will bar the poor man from getting the insurance he can carry by paying his little monthly installments as he goes along.

Mr. BUTTON. The gentleman yesterday got up and read a long speech citing authorities that any corporation or association doing business in this Territory would he exempt. I want to ask the gentleman if the Odd Fellows or the Masons or Woodmen or any other of the secret societies in this city that were doing business would be affected by this?

Mr. BOWDLE. I would answer your question most emphatically and unequivocally, it would affect them.

Mr. BUTTON. That was not the decision you read yesterday.

Mr. BOWDLE. No, sir; that was a different question. In the case that we were discussing yesterday, it was of a corporation organized before the adoption of this Constitution, which would depend upon two things; first, there is an implied contract with the State that that corporation shall do business according to the arrangement they have entered into. That does not cut much of a figure in the courts, and in the decisions and in the text writers, but there is a contract between the stockholders in that corporation_a sacred contract that you cannot impair.

Now, all the insurance that is written up to-day would not be affected, but you want to go into an association of that kind; you are not a stockholder or {1592} a policy holder in it. It would affect all subsequent contracts of that kind.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that as many men as there are here, there are just about that many opinions, and I think that we ought to vote down all these amendments, and vote to strike out this section entirely and leave it to the Legislature, and perhaps they will be able to ascertain about what would be right, and if it should be found that whatever they may fix upon has been an error, it will be in the power of a future Legislature to recall, and I am in favor of striking this out.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Jolley was rejected.

The amendment offered by Mr. Maloney to insert the words, “until otherwise provided by law,” was rejected.

The remainder of the amendment offered by Mr. Maloney was rejected.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, the only thing to do now, it seems to me, is to strike out the entire section. This amount is altogether too high.

The motion to strike out section 26 was agreed to.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 27 be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 28 was read.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 28.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the words “semi-annual” be stricken out of line 4 of section 28, and the word “annual” inserted in lieu thereof.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, until this motion is made, I will withdraw the motion to strike out.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, in the confusion, I did not hear the motion to strike out. If there is a motion to strike out, I will withdraw the amendment until that is determined, because I prefer myself to have the whole thing stricken out.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to striking this section out. I think that when companies organize in this State for the purpose of doing business, it will be a protection for citizens to know their standing, and I am in favor of asking the Legislature to require that they shall make reports. I have no objections, however, to the amendment, as suggested by the

gentleman from Washington; perhaps semiannually will be too often; but I hope that the motion to strike out will not prevail. It ought to remain in there. The citizens ought to have an opportunity of knowing the standing of the companies.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the last speaker, that it is a good thing for the public to know the standing of the company through its published statement, but I disagree with him in placing it at this time in the Constitution. I believe it should be left to the Legislature, and I think the Legislature will take the pains to regulate that matter. It has always done so in the past, and I am in favor of striking out.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out the whole section, but before we take a vote upon that it might be well to correct it in case it did not go out. I should like to see stricken out, in line 5, after the word “expense,” these words, “for the information and protection of the people.” It does not make any difference what they make the report for or what the object of the report is, so that it is made and printed.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman has misapprehended the purpose of those words. The purpose of those words in this section is to compel a statement that will set forth what business they have done, and as the Legislature may determine how they have done it in this Territory, so that it will become a protection, that business may not run loose and slipshod {1593} and leave matters in a way so that the public may be taken advantage of.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the chairman of the committee say one word in favor of the report.

Mr. JAMES. In answer to the_    

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Preston has the floor.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, I am very agreeable to the amendment that is made here, but I think section 28 ought to be stricken out. I think the Legislature ought to be required to give us information concerning those companies at least once a year.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, the question has been sprung as to whether in case the motion to strike out shall prevail, it will still be open to amendment; some of the members are of the opinion that it will not, that amendments to perfect it will first be made. Now, if there is any doubt in regard to this question, I want a vote on my proposed amendment, in line 4, before a vote is taken.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I think I can give the necessary information on that point. When amendments are made to a section, or any member desires to make any amendment to a section, those amendments should be put before the motion to strike out, but if, after all the amendments are put, and the motion to strike out is put and not carried, the section is still open to amendment under our rules.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of Mr. Ivins to make the report annually instead of semi-annually.

Mr. CANNON. I would ask the gentleman if he would not accept the amendment making it this way: “To make reports at least annually to the governor;” so that it will not prohibit reports being required to be made oftener if necessary.

Mr. IVINS. I would prefer the amendment just as I proposed it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion, on thinking over the effect it may have. It will limit the power of the Legislature so that they can never require these companies to make a report oftener than that if they see fit. I don't think we ought to do that. There may be a reason for requiring a semi-annual report.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I want to state, too, that banks are all required to make quarterly reports, and I see no reason why an insurance company should not make reports twice a year. I am opposed to the striking out of the word semi.

Mr. STREVELL. I would like to ask if this be stricken out, in case we had an insurance commissioner, if he could call on the insurance companies for a statement at any time? First, I thought it should be left so that if a special statement was wanted we could call for it and have it.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in making this motion is this: Those who are acquainted with the insurance business know that it requires a great deal of time for these insurance companies, which are doing business all over the country, to prepare these reports, and if you require them to make a semi-annual report, they will be almost continually engaged in the work of making the reports. If an annual report is published, and that the present law requires, and there is no doubt but that future Legislatures would still require it_this seems to me to be sufficient. It is for that reason that I wish this change made.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out “semi,” in line 4, and inserting in lieu thereof, “make at least annual reports to the governor.” That will make it proper for them to require quarterly or semi-annually {1594} or anything else, but they must do it at least once a year.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I hold now that it is merely encumbering the Constitution to adopt this section. All the benefits that were in the section have been stricken out. The Legislature has required of all insurance companies in this Territory to make an annual report, and that annual report is made. I defy any man on this floor or anywhere else in this Territory, to take that annual report, and use it, for any protection whatever for himself, or to give himself any information. It is just merely what you see on the walls of all insurance companies, that they have so many millions, and that is all you get. Now, for heaven's sake, what do we want to encumber our Constitution with a provision of that kind for? This section provided that they should make a

report for the protection and benefit of the policy holders. That has been stricken out. Now, gentlemen, let us strike it all out.

Mr. THURMAN. Second the motion.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I believe it will be proper at this stage of the proceedings to strike out the words, “William F. James, Chairman,” at the end of this article.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's remark is out of order.

Mr. JAMES. I say, Mr. Chairman, such remarks as that should be    

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. James has not been recognized by the chair yet.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I arise to a point of order. The gentleman has spoken once.

Mr. JAMES. I asked the chairman to require personal remarks made before this Convention to be withdrawn.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remark.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I think that careful consideration of this subject will show us in advance that the section is unnecessary and no protection whatever. The law already provides for an annual statement to be rendered. I favor the striking out of the section entirely.

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

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “print,” in line 4 of this section, and insert “published” in lieu thereof.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. I think the vote ought to be continued until we finish up before making any more amendments.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the section.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 29 was read.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all after “thereto,” in line 7. That is covered in two or three places already in this Constitution.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I hope that that proposition will not prevail. This proposition is submitted to you after consultation with the best bankers in Salt Lake City, the oldest and the largest, and not only from them has come information regarding that, but from individuals. This

provision is the same provision that they have in the state of New York, which is said to be the best that there is in the United States, and is the one from which the national banking law was enacted, and the only difference between this and the New York state bank provision of the same section is it is curtailed to about one-half, for the reason that it was thought the New York bank provision in its full force would be too stringent for our institutions here in Utah.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I perceive by reading section 29 that the matter that is proposed to be stricken out refers directly to banking purposes. I think it is all right as it stands there, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of retaining the part proposed {1595} to be stricken out. While it may be possibly covered in substance in other parts, this refers especially to banking, and provides that no special charter shall be granted. I think it should remain.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, in the first section of this article on corporations, it is covered, and it is covered in two or three other places.

The question being taken on the motion, the committee divided and by a vote of 33 ayes to 31 noes, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee the meaning of this section_what now remains of it, in this particular; it says the Legislature shall, by general law, conform all charters of banks or institutions for banking to a uniformity of powers, rights and liabilities, etc.? I want to know whether this means that the charters of banking institutions in existence at the time of the adoption of this Constitution will be remodeled.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Button, you must maintain order when gentlemen are speaking.

Mr. BUTTON. I will try and not disturb them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sergeant-at-arms, call Mr. Button before the bar of this house.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, are we in committee of the whole? If we are, I suggest that the proceedings are irregular.

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing is that when the chair calls order for gentlemen speaking before this committee, the order of the chair must be obeyed.

Mr. BUTTON. I am willing to come before the chair if I disturbed the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will take his seat now. It is all right.

Mr. BUTTON. I want to apologize to the gentleman if I disturbed him.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. JAMES. No. It was Mr. Richards.

Mr. BUTTON. Oh!

Mr. RICHARDS. The gentleman did not disturb me at all.

The CHAIRMAN. He disturbed the chair. If the chair is well advised about it, it is under the impression that there is a rule against gentlemen talking on the floor of this committee, while gentlemen are addressing the committee, and it was to avoid a violation of that rule that the chair called Mr. Button to order.

Mr. BUTTON. I had not spoken a word or even whispered when the chair called me to order_not even whispered.

The CHAIRMAN. It was very singular, the chair heard the sound from there and saw the gentleman leaning half way or more across the table.

Mr. BUTTON. A man might lean over the table without speaking.

Mr. VARIAN. Is there anything before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Nothing, sir.

Mr. VARIAN. I call for the question.

The CHAIRMAN. Except the question of Mr. Richards to Mr. James.

Mr. RICHARDS. I asked the meaning of this language in section 29. I desire to know whether that language is intended to apply to the banks in existence at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and whether those charters are to be made to conform to some general law; in other words, whether they are to be changed? I should suppose that the language was intended to apply to banking institutions created under the power of the State, but for what follows in that section. It seems to make a distinction there.

Mr. JAMES. This section, as I understand it, comes from the fact that there are two systems_well, you might say three systems of banking; there is the private banker, there is the state incorporation, {1596} and there is the national bank. Now, as I said to you a little while ago, this provision is an absolute copy from the constitutional act adopted a year ago by the state of New York, and before this committee adopted that section, the chairman sought the advice of our leading bankers here, and they said that it was, so far as they knew, the best provision for the regulation of banks that they knew of in the United States, and that was the information I got so far as it went.

Mr. JAMES. Well, I doubt that.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, I have no doubt about it, Mr. Chairman, and this language evidently is intended to mean that.

Mr. JAMES. You will observe that at the beginning of this article there is a provision that in order to benefit by future legislation, corporations must accept the provisions of this Constitution. Now, that provision was put in there to meet just such difficulties as you have in your mind here regarding this section. The supposition is that under that provision which we passed yesterday, these corporations will conform to the provisions of this article, and that would bring them under that regulation.

Mr. RICHARDS. I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, that we can legislate in this Constitution to change the articles of incorporation of corporations existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. Now, it is clearly within the power of this Convention to provide in the Constitution that a uniform system of banking may be provided for, as to incorporations hereafter created, but it seems to me that we have no power to change the articles of existing corporations. I therefore desire to move an amendment to what remains of this section. I am not prepared now to suggest the amendment.

Mr. THURMAN. Isn't it a fact that the latter part of the section as it now stands cures the objection you made?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; I think not. I think that clearly points out and makes beyond question the objection that I do make. It might be if the language of the fore part of the section were there alone I think the presumption would be and the proper rule of construction would be that it related to corporations created in the future, but as it stands, it clearly shows that it is intended to relate to something else, because the latter part here refers only to those hereafter created. I move that this section be stricken out.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to striking it out. There is no court that can or will construe the section as Mr. Richards says it may be construed. In the first place, it would be unconstitutional to do it, and therefore void. It would only apply to organizations after this Constitution goes into effect, and there ought to be a ageneral law requiring banks to be uniform in the very particular here pointed out. It ought to be made as obligatory as possible upon the Legislature to pass that.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask you how you would conform to uniform powers, rights, and liabilities, the banks which are different in their character, for instance a national bank, or a state bank, or a commercial bank, or a savings bank, all of which are different in their character?

Mr. CANNON. Can you conform a {1597} commercial bank and a savings bank to similar powers, liabilities, etc.?

Mr. THURMAN. I don't see why we cannot, as far their powers, liabilities, and rights go.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to say in reply to what the gentleman from Utah has said about what a court will do, that I concur with him fully, that a court would not give this an ex post facto construction. The court will hold that the language we have in here is absolutely void and does not mean anything, and as a member of this Convention, I do not want to be put in the attitude of placing language in this Constitution that I know is susceptible of that construction only and will receive such construction from the court.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all after the word liability. It seems to me that would remove the objection Mr. Richards has and it would give general powers for creating banks.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the different amendments and am in favor of the motion to strike out. I find upon examining the late constitution of New York, of 1894, that the language used in this section is adapted from that, but some words are stricken out that change the meaning entirely. Section 4 of article 8 of the constitution of New York provides that the legislature shall by general law conform all charters of savings banks or institutions for savings to a uniformity of powers, rights, and liabilities. The language is the same, excepting that in the New York constitution they have it banks of a similar character. If you attempt to conform savings banks and commercial banks to like powers, rights, and liabilities, I believe you will run across a snag that you cannot get over.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this section may be stricken out. If it remains it will give the Legislature power to change the contracts of those institutions that have their charters already, which I do not think can be done. Therefore, I think this should go out.

The amendment of Mr. Strevell was agreed to.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Section 30 was read.

Mr. CANNON. I move it be stricken out, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to inquire of the chairman of the committee what that section means?

The motion was agreed to.

Section 31 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think this section confers no power that the Legislature does not have. I move to strike it out.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 32 was read.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out that section. We had a similar section yesterday in reference to insurance companies. I was in favor of having both of these sections adopted, but the Convention here struck out the section, making a similar provision for insurance companies, and now, in order to do justice to banks, I am in favor of striking out the other also. I suppose that every member who voted to strike out the insurance article will to-day vote to strike out this article, and those who were in favor of permitting the other to remain, certainly should be in favor of striking this out now, because it places a burden upon them that is not placed upon the other corporations.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, it occurs {1598} to me that this is a different proposition. I was not here yesterday when the matter relating to insurance companies was discussed, but I think this is a very good proposition to be retained in the organic law. I think if there is going to be any system of state banking, a guard and protection like this ought to be thrown about the people who deal with the banks. I remember quite a pronounced case in favor of the efficacy of a law of this kind, occurring many years ago on the Pacific coast, when the bank of California closed its doors, and for a time paralyzed the financial and business enterprises of the entire coast; had it not been for the fact that the law of California was substantially as this is, the bank would never have opened its doors. It is a well known matter, known to everybody, and a matter of the current history of that bank, that it was the intention of the gentlemen who were largely interested in it_Mr. Mills and others, to let the bank go down, until they were advised by the attorneys of the bank that every one of them were liable to the extent of their private fortunes, as provided here, in a sum equal to the amount of stock held by them. They went to work then, and resurrected the bank. It took them several years to do it. But it paid every dollar to California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and all over the coast, and many hundreds of people recovered their money eventually, who never would have done so. I see no objection to people being required to be held to some liability of this kind, who enter into the business of banking with the people.

Mr. CANNON. There is also this difference, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, between the proposition of insurance and of banking. The insurance proposition would have

affected existing insurance companies differently, or any new company differently, from the one now in existence, while this proposition does not affect banks differently. Our present law is just as this provision is worded. It may not be in the exact language, but the meaning is exactly the same. Every stockholder in a bank is liable on his stock for an amount equal to that in addition. The people of Utah, so far as their banking institutions are concerned, have a good reputation. They have not lost through their incorporated banks. I believe there was one bank in Ogden, and one in Provo which temporarily closed, but which quickly reopened, owing to the fact that their stockholders were liable in the same way, and were compelled to make good the losses. I do not think any harm can be done, although it is a matter which could be attended to by the Legislature.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I must say a word regarding Mr. Hart's remarks comparing insurance to the bank. Now, it seems to me that it must be evident to all that there is a wide difference between insurance and banking. If he happens to have a little money that he wishes taken care of, he goes to the bank. If the humblest and poorest in the land have a dollar to be taken care of, they go to the savings bank and deposit it. The wealthy do the same. It is a place where everybody has to go, and it is a sacred trust_taking charge of the public funds, and it is a business that ought to be guarded by every possible protection that can be thrown around the people. The insurance business is a different proposition entirely. The insurance companies are where we cannot reach them, but there happens to be one little insurance company in Salt Lake City and we are going to reach that one little insurance company in Salt Lake City, that never wronged a soul out of a cent so far as we know of, and so far as we know are perfectly solvent and are going along attending to their business, while there are numerous {1599} insurance companies doing business in Utah Territory that we have information of that have been imposing upon the public, robbing them of their funds, and it is impossible for the stockholders to reach those companies.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I should not say anything upon this matter, were it not for the fact that in our mad chase at striking out many provisions which I believe to be good, I fear that this will also be stricken out. I set my face firmly against the striking out of the liability of stockholders of insurance companies, and I am just as firmly against the striking out of this section. The stockholders of the national banks are made liable in addition to their stock to an amount equivalent to it. State banks are likewise made liable, and it has become a fundamental law of the land that stockholders of banks should be made liable in addition to their stock in order to secure the depositors. And I believe we ought to make the constitutional provision so that ft will make our banking institutions safer, give our people more confidence in our institutions, and I believe that it would be for their safety, protection and benefit. I hope the section will not be stricken out.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I trust this section will remain as it now stands. We had very good reason for striking out thirty and thirty-one. They were from the constitution of New York. Most of us are aware that banks in New York in 1893 issued what was called clearing-house certificates. Those certificates were used as money and it was desirable by that constitution that that should not be. But now we come to a different proposition. Section 32 has no connection with 30 and 31. That is for the protection of depositors, and I hope will remain just as it is.

Section 33 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 33.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, this is the national banking exactly, and it is intended to apply to the state banks, when the ten per cent. may be removed, which would entitle them to go into business of issuing currency.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask why a man who goes in and deposits perhaps everything he has in the world in a bank, believing that bank to be solvent, should be secondary to the man who happens to have a bill of that bank.

Mr. JAMES. I will ask the gentleman if he does not consider the national bank law of the United States a sound proposition, and if every banker in this town does not know it?

Mr. CANNON. The national banking system may be the best thing that can be for a national bank, but I know of no reason why a man who may deposit everything he has in the shape of money in a bank should be made to be secondary to a man who holds a bill of the bank.

The question being taken on the motion, the committee divided and by a vote of 43 ayes to 23 noes the motion was agreed to.

Section 34 was read.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 34. There is no provision here as to when this statement shall be made. It may be made once a year or twice a year, or once in five or six years; if I read it right, it seems to me to mean nothing. Therefore I am opposed to it.

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, if I read the section correctly, it says, as may be provided by law. The law now provides that the banks organized under the territorial law can be called upon at any time by the secretary of the Territory to make their reports. The national banks have to make it in conformity with the national act.
{1600}
Mr. JAMES. Would our present law compel all styles of banks to make a report?

Mr. BARNES. I think not.

Mr. JAMES. That is why the provision is put in. The national banks are compelled to make a report. Some other banking institutions escaped that. This is put that way, so as to cover that.

Mr. BARNES. Banks kept by private individuals are not required to make statements, and I think that they should be.

Mr. BARNES. With the exception that I have before referred, yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. I believe that is a fact. Every banker is required, excepting a national bank.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking this section out for the reason that the section does not mean anything without legislation. Some part of it has got to be provided by law_when these statements shall be made; let the Legislature provide the whole thing. It seems to me it is purely legislation.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Section 35 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. I move to strike out that section. I am in entire accord with the evident purpose underlying the section. I want to call attention to the fact that, as stated here, it is a vicious innovation upon the administration of the criminal law. Every crime is made up of an act and an intent. Of necessity the ultimate criminal intent of an act of taking the moneys of other people contemplates either the wilful design to deprive the other person of his property or to gain a benefit to the per on so receiving it. Now, here is an absolute declaration of the criminal law which in the absence of this constitutional provision would not exist. The simple fact that a man knows that he is insolvent, does not necessarily make him a criminal in continuing to do business after he has knowledge of that fact. Men, innocently and with a commendable purpose, do that. Insolvency has a very wide and extended meaning. A man may be insolvent in the general sense, if an account of stock were taken, if he were to cast up his accounts on either side, and it should be ascertained that at that time he would not be able to meet his obligations if called upon to do so; but it does not follow if he can tide over the period of a few days or a week or a few weeks, or a few months, that he would be insolvent in another sense. Now, this proposes to enact here arbitrarily that the very fact of a banking association being insolvent, and known to be so by the director, or cashier, or agent, when money is received, of itself makes the party receiving it a felon. I think that that sort of legislation ought to be general, ought to be left as other crimes are left, to the determination of the law upon the particular facts of the individua case.

You can imagine a case where a man would be guilty of a felony_that is, of embezzling money, or obtaining money by false pretenses, under the general language of this section, and yet you may imagine many cases when he would not be, when his honest and commendable purpose was to maintain the institution, knowing, as he might know, that the business faith and credit of many business houses depended upon the fact that the bank should be maintained; knowing that if it went down in a day or an hour, widespread disaster and business ruin might follow in the community. I do not believe, gentlemen, that we want {1601} to do that. There is nothing here contained that the Legislature cannot control by general law, and you can safely leave it to the sense of fair dealing of the community, as evidenced through the shrewdness and desire of men

to maintain their business faith and credit before the community, to protect the people, under conditions assumed to exist here. I hope that this will not prevail.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a word or two in support of the view taken by my colleague from Salt Lake. I am opposed, in the first place, to this, because I do not believe that we ought to enact a penal code in the Constitution. On general principles, I would be opposed to it for that reason. I am heartily in accord with the idea that any officer of a bank, who would knowingly and intentionally receive money after the bank was in an insolvent condition, and when he knew that the depositors would not be able to get their money back, I think that a man under those circumstances ought to be punished and that it should be deemed a felony. But I think the Legislature should provide for that. The objection made by the gentleman from Salt Lake as to the wording of this section is fundamental. It seems to me that even if we passed this, the courts could not hold and would not hold it to mean what they say here. For example, suppose a run is commenced on a bank. The banking institution is perfectly sound; it has two dollars in property, we will say, for every dollar that it owes, but it has only got in the bank this morning, fifty per cent. of its deposits, which any banker will tell me is sufficient. It is conservative banking if he has fifty per cent. Now, a run is started on this bank, and it becomes apparent that the money he has in the bank is not going to be sufficient. A neighboring banking institution, in order to prevent the failure of this bank, which may carry down its neighbor at the same time with it and perhaps all the other banks in the place, comes in and offers to put up some money. He says, “Here we will give fifty thousand dollars, or a hundred thousand dollars of our money to tide you through today.” The man takes the money and puts it on his counter and pays it out, and before night he pays it all out and his doors are closed. That man would be a felon under this section. Did he intend any wrong by doing that? No. He intended to save his institution and to save other institutions, and yet he was unable to meet his liabilities. And is not an institution insolvent when it cannot meet its liabilities? That is one of the definitions of insolvency. Now, I say that it would extremely unfortunate for us to adopt such legislation as this.

Mr. PETERS. Do you claim that the banker would be guilty of felony if he received money from his neighboring bank, while that individual was fully acquainted with the fact that the bank was insolvent at the time the money was handed to it?

Mr. RICHARDS. I answer the gentleman by reading this section. (Reads. ) Now, if that man make that as a deposit, he is, under this section, guilty.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I arise to make a motion; to strike out all after the word “received,” in line 9.

The amendment was agreed to.

The question being taken on the motion to strike out the section, the committee divided, and by a vote of 45 ayes to 15 noes, the motion was agreed to.

Section 36 was read.

No law shall ever be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporations, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally apply to all citizens? or corporations.

Mr. MALONEY. That is, if one incorporation is incorporated, why not another on the same terms and privileges? In other words, that all of them stand alike. Any set of citizens can incorporate under this the same as any other. It was taken from the constitution of one of our eastern states.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 36. I think it is covered by section 1.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 37 was read.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 37.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I trust that motion will not prevail. I believe that this section should, of all sections in this article, stand. I think it is one which provides for the rights that men should have, and it is just as important as the article on labor and arbitration was, concerning blacklisting.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I am very much pleased. It seems that the prodigal son has returned. [Laughter.] Probably we may get a section through. I hope that the Convention will retain this section.

Mr. CANNON. I wish to know whether the gentleman refers to himself or me? [Laughter.]

Mr. JAMES. We will debate that by and by. This section is to provide against the interference of employesand workers, and I believe it is a good section. I do not believe it can do any harm. I believe it will be a protection, and I should like to see that section adopted.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask Mr. Cannon what protection is conferred upon the individual by this section that is not already provided for in our bill of rights?

Mr. CANNON. If the gentleman will point out the section in the bill of rights that he thinks covers this ground I will try to explain the difference that I think exists between them.

Mr. ROBERTS. Why, sir, the guaranty of freedom to every individual in the State by the bill of rights would cover this. It would cover all that this covers; the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue happiness. The general rights secured by the bill of rights cover everything that

this section covers.

Mr. CANNON. This is to prevent people interfering with those who have got employment, by saying they shall not work.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I have some amendments to offer to this section, because if the motion to strike out shall not prevail, it might preclude an amendment. I want to move to strike out “citizen,” in line 1, and insert “person,” and also the words “citizen and resident,” in line 5, and insert “person.” As to these two amendments, I want to call attention that on the face of it this is a discrimination in favor of citizens, which would not be permitted under the Constitution of the United States. Of course the courts would not sustain it in that way. I move to strike out first, “citizen of,” and insert “person in,” and I move to strike out, in line 5, “citizen or resident,” and insert “person.” That will cure the objection that I have in my mind.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “misdemeanor,” in the last line, and insert “crime,” before the period; and also, “the Legislature shall provide by law for the enforcement of this article.”

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I support the motion of Mr. Varian and I want to, in reply to a remark that was made a few moments ago, simply call the attention of the gentleman, Mr. Roberts, to the argument of Mr. Thatcher on this floor the other day, where he knew of his own personal knowledge, that men had been followed {1603} from the State or Territory of Utah into Canada, and were driven back again, and were still floating around the country when there was work for them to be doing, but they could not get it, simply because there was a combination against them to prevent them from receiving employment.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I think this section is fully covered by section 7 of the article on labor.

Mr. MALONEY. This goes a good deal farther than the section to which the gentleman refers, and it is something by which the discharged employesof the great corporations may have some protection, that they cannot be followed through into Canada, and through the United States and into Mexico.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion to strike out was rejected.

Section 38 was read.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend, commencing in line 7_I think I see what it means, but the language is peculiar. And I think it ought to be corrected. I may be hypercritical.

Mr. MALONEY. If the word “section” is inserted instead of “article,” wouldn't that cover it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is undoubtedly what it means anyway. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that we amend the section by striking out all after the word “policy,” in line 7, down to and including “void,” in line 12.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I second the motion. It seems to me that the language is somewhat duplicated as it stands anyway. I call attention to the way it reads. That makes that absolutely void by the constitutional provision. Then we go on and say that the Legislature shall pass laws for the enforcement of this section, etc., if necessary for that purpose, and may declare a forfeiture of their franchise. It seems to me if we want to declare them void we should do so, and quit. If we want to leave it to the Legislature, adopt the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Weber.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 21 be stricken out. I think this is class legislation and is vicious in the extreme in principle, and it should not be incorporated in the Constitution.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. My point of order is that this identical motion was made and debated yesterday and was overruled by the committee.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the word “insurance” be stricken out. We have struck out everything but the word.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I think we had better let this go to the third reading of the article. Maybe the Convention will get into better temper and deal a little more considerately with it.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I just take advantage of this motion to call attention of the gentlemen to the principle embodied in section 37. We cannot disturb it now, but it seems that it ought to be considered between now and the third reading so that it would not apparently on its face reach all persons who may be honestly and in good faith and for a useful and beneficial purpose interfere and prevent the employment of others. I would like to have my friends think that over so that we may get it into proper shape on third reading. The intention is to prevent a criminal or wrongful interference with the rights of others. It is broad enough to include anybody, for a good and useful purpose, depriving his fellow citizens from getting employment. It ought to be, it seems to me, remodeled {1604 - PUBLIC LANDS} in that particular, so that we will not write ourselves down as it will appear we will if we let this stand. Nothing can be done now,

however, and the gentlemen who are in favor of the proposition can consider the suggestion.

The motion to strike out the word insurance was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the word “banks” be stricken out. I do not see the use of it in there. We have a title for the article_corporations other than municipal.

Mr. JAMES. I hope that will not prevail, Mr. Chairman. There are some sections retained there affecting banks. This Convention is not so wise but they might get a little wiser before the third reading, and there might be something that would want to be changed under that heading of banks.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that when we do arise we report this article for third reading.

The motion was agreed to.

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

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The committee re-assembled and proceeded to the consideration of the article on public lands.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 1 by transposing in line 31, and classifying the agricultural lands to second in place of third. Now, in order to give my reasons, I will call your attention to section 2, which says that lands of the first of said classes may be sold under such regulations and rules as may be provided by law. Then, it goes on to say that the agricultural land may be either sold or leased under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law. By making this transposition we can just merely say that lands of the first and second class may be sold or leased under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law, and lines eight, nine, and ten, can be stricken out. It is just simply to shorten up this thing.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that after the word value we insert the words_I will write it out and send it up.

The CHAIRMAN. What representatives of the committee on public lands are present in the committee of the whole?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am a member of that committee, Mr. Chairman, and I will say that my

recollection is that when this article was up before in committee and then referred back to the joint committee of education and school lands and public lands, with which, by the way, I did pot have an opportunity of meeting, the part that Mr. Maloney is now offering an amendment to was evidently lost sight of.

Mr. Maloney's amendment was read as follows:

In line 14, after the word “value,” insert the words “as of the date of settlement thereon.”

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, that question was discussed in the committee and it was concluded that it would be the proper thing for the commissioners to take that matter into consideration_the valuation of the land. Furthermore, it will be observed by reading along down to the 16th line that the valuation may be adjusted as provided by law. I think that it is all right as it is.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, at the time of settlement, the lands were not surveyed and they did not know they were on the school lands; they could not get title; they are willing to pay the value of the lands and interest on the money, as of that date. It will work a great hardship upon them_they have built their homes upon those sections.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would ask Mr {1605} Maloney if the provisions in line 16 would not obviate the difficulty that he sees in line 14; that is, it is stated in line 14 that the disposition, etc., “to be ascertained in such manner as may be provided bylaw.” It seems to me that the matter is relegated by this section to the Legislature to fix the market value of those lands.

Mr. MALONEY. I would construe that to mean as of the date of the disposition. I hardly think the Legislature would construe it in the way the gentleman suggests, and in order to make it certain I think we ought to have the amendment as of the date of the settlement thereon.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, where settlers settle on land, before it is surveyed, isn't there a United States law that other lands should be selected as school lands?

Mr. MALONEY. I don't know how that is, but the section I speak of is in Weber County, and the settlers there are anxious to have something done so that they may secure their homes.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the committee on education and school lands, and we provided an article upon school lands that fully covers that question. Why it has not been reported here I do not know. It does not appear upon the calendar, neither have I heard the report made here, but that fully covers that question. It provides for the objection that Mr. Maloney raises, and there were no other lands, excepting school lands, that are in that situation, so far as I know. It is confined exclusively to school lands; for all other lands the people have located upon they have their titles. Now, any one can tell me, if there is another member of the committee here that knows anything about that report, I would like to know.

Mr. MALONEY. I have never seen the article.

Mr. JOLLEY. I trust, gentlemen of the committee, that the amendment of the gentleman from Weber will prevail. It will be a great benefit to many people, and very poor people some of them, too, of our Territory. Now, we have in one of our little settlements in Sanpete County a whole section of school lands that runs up into the edge of the town_

Mr. SNOW. I would like to say to the gentleman_I think we are talking through our hat on this question. It does not refer to school lands at all. The chairman of the school lands committee will report an article that will cover this entirely.

Mr. JOLLEY. Perhaps I am laboring under a mistake. I understood this included school land.

Mr. CREER. No, sir; it does not include it at all.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, if that ground is covered by another report which we have not had, I do not wish to bother the committee now.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). By permission, I would read this for the benefit of the committee. (Reads.)

Mr. CHIDESTER. Do we understand that that is what will be reported by the committee for our consideration?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir.

Mr. SQUIRES. Let us dispose of this section first.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes; I have no objection to that.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer. In the first line of the section, I move to insert after the word “State,” the words “except school lands.”

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, it seems {1606} to me that we might get in confusion by adopting this, because there are distinct grants made for schools and then for the university, and then it will be observed that the committee on public lands had nothing at all to do with the consideration of those educational purposes, and I think the amendment suggested by the gentleman would not cover the ground, because they are specific, both for colleges, university, and schools, and different kinds of institutions, of lands, and I think the gentleman ought to defer his amendment until we see whether it will be proper or not. I don't think it is proper to introduce it in here.

Mr. CANNON. I think it would be inappropriate to insert the words moved by the gentleman from Cache at the point he has state? Now, if you insert the school lands and do not receive

those, it would not be a proper exception.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am quite certain as to the point, and I would be willing to let this go to the third reading.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “receive,” and insert in lieu thereof the word “accepted,” in lines 5 and 6.

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to insert after the word “first,” in line 1 of section 2, the words “and second,” and then strike out the 8th, 9th, and 10th lines. I would simply say that when I made my motion to transpose part of section 1, I stated my reasons for it at that time, that I intended to move to strike out these lines.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we ought to be in a hurry about that amendment. In the first place, it covers coal lands.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the word “second,” in line 4, be stricken out and the word “third” inserted.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the words, “may be sold,” on the fourth line.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, now, I move you that section 2 be stricken out down to and including “by law,” in line 10. It seems to me that it is purely legislative and ought to have no place in this Constitution. It all goes on and provides that it shall be prescribed by law, and the Legislature will have to deal with this question. They will have to take it up and define its boundaries, and how it is to be disposed of, and so on, and inasmuch as they have got to deal with it at all, I am in favor of leaving the whole question to them. I am in favor of the last two lines for the reason that it is, a specific classification and defines what they cannot do or what they must do.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Utah. The only limitation in that whole section, in lines 11 and 12_that I think is a good limitation and the

Legislature ought to be forbidden from disposing of those lands, except as herein specified.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think that perhaps that was put in there to cover the question of leasing by the State?

Mr. THURMAN. Even if it was, Mr. Chairman, and if this Convention thinks that that is necessary, the section is very cumbersome. Of course, if this Convention wants to limit the power of the Legislature to sell certain lands or to lease certain lands, that is a necessary limitation, but the section is certainly very cumbersome the way it is, and I favor the motion to strike out.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of that, providing that there should be something substituted. It {1607} seems to me there ought to be something placed in this article with reference to the disposal of the lands. I am in favor of striking out and substituting the provision in the Wyoming constitution. I have prepared it as a substitute. I supposed there would be some exceptions taken to this second section.

Mr. HART. I would like to hear from the chairman of this committee his reasons for inserting this clause. As he is not present, I would then vote to retain this and let it come up on third reading. There may be some reason for retaining it and it can be acted upon on third reading.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of this committee is not here. I am a member of it. I accept of the proposition of Mr. Hart, notwithstanding which, I consider the provisions which are here made are even better than those suggested by Mr. Creer, who is also a member of that committee. With the amendments as proposed, I think it covers the entire ground. Did I understand, you, Mr. Thurman, to say that you desired to eliminate the eleventh and twelfth lines?

Mr. THURMAN, No, I desire to retain those two lines, and strike the balance out.

Mr. HILL. I am willing to submit to that, as a member of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the motion to strike out all of the section down to line 11.

The question being taken on the motion, the committee divided, and by a vote of 26 ayes to 28 noes, the motion was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike that section out; that is a legislative enactment.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out section 3 and inserting the following:

The lands selected to satisfy the grants which have been heretofore or may hereafter be made to the State,

shall be allotted to each of the several uses for which the same were granted, so that each may receive its fair proportion thereof, both as to quality and value.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. And was agreed upon by that committee?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. But no report has been made on it?

Mr. EVANS (Utah), There has been no report made at all. I do not know where the chairman is.

Mr. BOWDLE. In looking up the minutes, I find the report was made, but I do not understand why the article was not printed.

The substitute offered by Mr. Evans of Utah was adopted.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to add after the last word in the section offered by the gentleman from Utah County, the words, “as of the date of the settlement thereon.”

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Don't you want to add that in the next, section?

Mr. MALONEY. Yes, sir. I will withdraw it for the present.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, if there are no amendments to that, I desire to offer a new section entirely:

The selling price of the public school lands shall not be increased by reason of any improvements made thereon by actual settlers, but such settlers or their grantees shall be given priority in the purchase of such lands.

Mr. EVANS (Utah), I desire to say this, that means, as I understand it, that the commissioners will fix a price {1608} upon that land, and they are confined only to the specifications as set forth in that, and then those who first settled upon it, or those who have purchased from them, who are the actual settlers, will have the opportunity of rejecting under these stipulations, and then of course they can be sold to any one else_those that may be rejected.

The section offered by Mr. Evans, of Utah, was adopted.

Mr. SQUIRES. Do you not understand that under this section the improvements on that    

Mr. MALONEY. I understand that, but those lands will now be valued at something like two or three hundred dollars an acre, maybe. Those people cannot pay it. There is no use talking about it.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Maloney has stated is strictly correct. I have seen a number of such instances.

Mr. JOLLEY. I hope, gentlemen of the committee, that this amendment of Mr. Maloney will prevail. As I stated when I was up before, in one of our little towns in Sanpete County, we have there a section of school land that comes up into the town, that the people had settled on and had cultivated, had built upon, before it was ever known where the school land lay. To-day the men that owned that land, many of them, are dead and gone, and their widows have that land and it is all that they have got. Now, if the price is put upon that land as it is worth to-day, it being right in the edge of the town, it will be more than they are able to pay. It will drive them from their homes, and I think it is just and right that that land should be appraised as it was when they first settled upon it, and I trust in the interest of those that will be robbed of their homes, you will consider it and vote for the amendment.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important question and should be fairly considered before we pass upon it. It may be true and is true that quite a number of settlers settled upon land, when they did not know that they were school lands at the time; but it is also true that a great many of the citizens of this Territory settled upon school lands that they knew at the time were school lands and they have probably for the last ten or fifteen years had the benefit of those lands without paying any taxes upon them, simply by paying taxes upon the improvements, and thereby the balance of the people have been handicapped by them going and settling upon those school lands. I know there are a number of townships around_in Utah County there is one at least, and in fact part of another one that I am aware of, that they knew perfectly well they were school lands at the time they were settled upon, and, therefore, they have received the benefits all those years of being exempted from taxation, and now to say that they should simply pay the price they were valued at at the time of settlement, I think would be wrong, and furthermore, I think that by this action of the committee, it would deprive the school funds of many thousands of dollars should we dispose of this section in this manner. I do not believe it is the correct principle. I do not think it is right. I think that the interests of the school population of the Territory should be considered as well as those of {1609} the settler. It must occur to everyone that the lands of this Territory settled upon have been surveyed for many years. I have no way of

computing it. I do not know whether the gentlemen on this floor have any way of computing that, but I believe there are far more of the school lands settled upon that the settlers knew at the time they were school sections. This would also affect four sections of the township as I understand it, and I think it is a very important matter, and I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Weber, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that we ought not to vote on this in a hurry. The amendment as proposed will work a great injury to our school fund. These men, although they have been living on this land and improving it, while, as has been stated here, it would work an injury to them in one respect, yet, they have not had to pay taxes on this. They have been getting the benefit of it for years and years, and have never paid a dollar's price, and to place the price of this back as it was twenty and thirty years ago, I do not think it would be right. Further than that, I know of some men who are holding considerable school land to-day, just on purpose to get a chance to buy it when it comes into market, and get it cheap. I know of some holding lands in this way, and it will work an injury to the school fund and put considerable money in the pockets of some men who are now wealthy. Therefore, I think this should be left to the Legislature.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that the settler is sufficiently protected by the section as it now stands. They are given priority of right and the improvements that they have made are not considered. According to United States law, if a settler settled on land before it was surveyed, that land was not set apart as school land.

Mr. IVINS. Will the gentleman allow me to say just a word? I know of many instances where people settled upon land before it was surveyed, and occupied it for fifteen years before the government survey ever was made, and when the survey was made of alternate sections, and they were set apart as school sections, and it is school land to-day, and those people have been occupying it for twenty-five or thirty years, ten or twelve years of which was before it was ever surveyed by the government at all.

Mr. ANDERSON. That may be, but there is a United States law, as I say, providing that if settlers settle on land before it was surveyed, that other lands will have to be selected in lieu thereof. But I think that in order to protect the school fund, we should adopt this section as it now stands. The settler is protected. He is given a priority of right; he has the first chance to bid, and the improvements that he has made upon it are not taken into consideration.

Mr. MALONEY. You say that they are given the right to purchase. Suppose the land is valued at three or four hundred dollars an acre and he is an actual settler_

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, if it is worth that much I suppose he could get the money from almost any bank to pay for it.

Mr. MALONEY. Well, they would have to mortgage their homes. Some of them have no more than half an acre.

Mr. CREER. Is it not a fact that if a party should go and settle upon school lands before the

government survey, he has the same privilege as any other settler of entering those lands_sections 16 and 36.

Mr. MALONEY. Suppose he tried to get a title and failed_he could not do it.

Mr. CREER. I understand the law to be that the original locator can do so.
Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I {1610} favor the spirit of this amendment, but it is not exactly what I think it ought to be. I think a man who in good faith settled upon school lands before they were surveyed ought to have the privilege of buying those lands at the government price with reasonable interest added, because he would have gladly paid his money and bought the lands, but could not do it. But he has had the use of it. Let him pay a reasonable rate of interest_six to eight per cent. Those who settled on school lands, knowing they were school lands, took their chance on whatever regulations the State might make. Let them be governed by the provision as it stands here without the proposed amendment. Now, gentlemen, I think that ought to. be the form of the amendment, and it could be made with a little time, and that kind of an amendment I would like to support; but I can see that this provision as it stands without the amendment will work a great hardship upon men, who in good faith went upon the public domain and established their homes. They may have lands which to-day, without any improvements on them at all, are worth forty or fifty dollars an acre, and to compel them to pay that is practically to compel them to abandon their homes; I do not believe it is right.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I was about to vote for this amendment, for fear, if we did not do it, the early settler might have some hardship, and if there was the least doubt about it, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt; but after what Mr. Thurman has said, I believe that some other form of amendment should go in there. But why take up our time now over that matter? Why not pass this section as it is, and give us time between this and the final reading to prepare such amendment as we need?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen have spoken about men having the land and that they have paid no taxes at all. Now, in our section of the country where we have got the land, they paid the same tax there on these school sections as others have. Consequently they have been to the same expense on the land, and I trust this motion of Mr. Maloney's will pass. Any person who has gone and taken up school lands, knowing they were school lands, ought to pay the full value, but those who settled and put up their homes before they knew what those lands were, whereas others put them up on government lands, and they have got their lands, and these poor people on the school lands have been trying to pay for it all this time_I am willing to have it that they pay a reasonable interest, because they have had the use of the money, but no more. I do not think we should tax them any more than a reasonable interest. I think we might just as well postpone this until the amendment can be properly drawn.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I am not, myself, this afternoon, prepared to vote upon this question, and I know this same thing will come up on third reading and I consider that what we do now will simply be time lost unless we so largely be of one mind that it would practically settle it, both here and in the Convention, and I am in favor of passing this section. I do not care

what you put in this afternoon, because I know the same thing will come up again.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw it with the consent of my second and bring it up on third reading. The settlers are undoubtedly willing to pay some interest, whatever is reasonable.

Secton 4 was read.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an additional section to offer:

In the investment of proceeds derived from the sale of public lands, preference shall be given to the securities of the State of Utah.

The section proposed by Mr. Kiesel was adopted.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that when the committee arise, we report this article to the Convention, with the recommendation that it be placed upon the calendar for third reading.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled salaries of public officers.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to toamend section 1 by inserting the word “assessors” between the words “excepting” and “notaries,” in line 2. I cannot call to mind where the assessor would receive any fees. Of course the collector would, and if the assessor is paid a salary, it is not one man out of a dozen that would get anywhere near a fair assessment on property. Now, there are two things to be considered in making an assessment. If he is paid a per cent he would get it just as high as he can and keep the taxpayers good natured, and he has got something to induce him to get that as high as possible, and it is not one time out of a dozen that I know of in the

Territory that they get it too high, either, and they do not get it too high as a rule, because they want the good will of the people for re-election. Therefore, I believe a man who is working on a salary, would not be particular. He knows he will get his pay anyhow. He would not be particular about getting that property assessed as high as he would if he was receiving a per cent.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, for the very reason the gentleman gives, I oppose the amendment. I will say to the gentleman that there are five hundred to a thousand people in Ogden and Weber County that will be glad to sell their lands for a less sum than the assessors place them at.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CANNON. I desire to ask some of the legal gentlemen present whether or not it would not be better to have that included among the list of officers which are to be paid by fee, the sheriff? Is not his office of such a nature that you have to pay him, and cannot definitely arrange to pay him a salary? You do not know how many criminals he is going to have to look after, and he does not know what processes he will have to serve. I would like to ask some of our legal brethren that.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I will say that our experience has been in the county which I have the honor to represent, that it was better to pay a salary than it was under the fee system, and we inaugurated that plan, while we were almost overstepping the bounds of the law in order to do it. Now, in all these offices it provides for expenses, and his time would be covered by salary, and the necessary traveling {1612} expense, and whatever he would have to actually pay out.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, after the word “State,” I move to insert the word “district,” in line 1. There might be district officers. We already have provided for judges to be elected by the district, and they may be called district officers, although they are paid by the State.

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the amendment, made by the gentleman from Utah, I move to insert in line 7, after the word “State,” the word “district.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend section 2, by striking out all after word “treasury,” in line 10. The words stricken out_that is the exact purpose for which he gives the bond.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I fear that for the reason that it puts upon the officer who is to receive the money a penalty, because of the failure of the man who is to pay it I do not think that is the proper thing. That ought to be left to the laws. I am an officer, compelled to do these

things, and pay the fees I collect over to the State officer. If I do not do it, for that officer to be held responsible on his bond for it, it seems to me is hardly the thing. Now, by striking that out, you refer it all to the Legislature.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that the thing of which the gentleman complains is the very thing we want. If we are going to have any virtue in this fee system at all, in the change that is proposed, of paying fees into the treasury, you have got to provide for their collection, and you must provide for that collection through the officers that collect, and I believe that these officers ought to be bound to collect those fees and be held responsible for them to the extent as provided for in this section, and for that reason I shall vote to retain it just as it is. It seems to me that if we do not make some arrangement such as this for the collection of those fees, we are going to fail in every part, getting the fees at all. Make the man responsible who collects them.

Mr. VARIAN. I think probably that interpretation is right, so far as I am concerned.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MALONEY. May I ask what officers “district” has reference to, which was inserted there?

Mr. THURMAN. I did not have any particular officer in mind. We may have district officers. I said we had provided for judges to be elected in their districts. There might arise a question as to whether they are district officers or State officers. They are paid by the State, but they are elected by the district. I think they are district officers.

Mr. MALONEY. Ought we not to say judicial, then?

Mr. THURMAN. Not necessarily; district will cover it all, whether it is judicial district, or land commissioner district, or whatever is the district created by the Legislature in the future.

Mr. MALONEY. It seems to me it is left open for conclusion. I would like to have it more definite.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the words, “justices of the peace, “ in line 5, and insert “and justices of the peace, except in cities, as may be otherwise provided by law,” to make it conform to the proviso of the first section.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I arise to ask a question for information. In the third line of the first section, what is meant by court commissioners? We have a county court that we call county commissioners_three selectmen, and what court commissioners has this reference to?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Varian, may I {1613} call your attention to the fact that the justices of the peace, in lines 4 and 5, is limited by the fact that they are such justices as are paid by fees?

Mr. VARIAN. Yes. I will send it up in a minute. This matter can be arranged by simply

transposing, “and constables,” before the word paid.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the word “other,” on the seventh line, be stricken out. My idea is that all the fees should be paid into the treasury and then their salaries under fees be paid back to them again. That will give the State an opportunity of knowing what their receipts and disbursements are and what surplus there may be. If you leave it without striking that out, the fees may amount to a large sum, and the State has no means of ascertaining that fact.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, if we should strike that word out, then the officers that we provided will be paid a salary would have to pay the fees into the treasury and then receive back a salary?

Mr. THATCHER. That is right.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I hardly understand that amendment. I think the word other here refers to the officers who receive their compensation in fees; for instance, boards of arbitration and court commissioners.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any good reason for compelling the notary public to go and take every fifty cents that he receives for acknowledging a paper to the treasury, and taking a receipt for it, and then at the end of the year going and asking the treasurer for that money back again and giving a receipt, which he would have to do. It seems to me that it would create a great deal of trouble and annoyance by compelling them to do that.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. Chidester said. It strikes me that the Legislature might take care of that. There are scores of notaries public that do not make two. dollars and a half in five months. It strikes me it ought to be left to the Legislature to regulate such matters.

Mr. THATCHER. What business man would expect success upon the proposition that he kept account of a part of his business and not the other part. It is true the fees may be small, but the State should understand what they are. In instances in the past I have known fees to be very large. If the State has no means of ascertaining, why, then, they are not posted on that proposition. I hold that every well conducted business, and the State government itself, should carefully keep an account of every cent of receipts and disbursements. For that reason I make that motion. It is no trouble to pay in, and the salary being fixed by the fees, it is no trouble to pay out.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Would this not necessarily compel a notary public to demand cash for everything that he did?

Mr. THATCHER. Not necessarily.

Mr. CHIDESTER. It is for the benefit of the poor man that this should not pass, because they can

make arrangements to have their deeds acknowledged without paying the cash, but if this passes then the cash must be paid so that it can go into the treasury.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the word “other” being qualified to the officers that are to be paid by salaries, I would move as an amendment to the amendment, instead of striking out the word “other,” that you put there the word “salary,” and that will apply strictly to the salaried officers that shall make this return and account as required by the gentleman fro in Cache.

The amendment of Mr. Boyer was agreed to.

Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, it reads now exactly the way it was before. The proposition I made was that every officer in {1614 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS} the State should account for every cent of public funds he handled.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, move, when the committee arise, it report this article to the Convention, and recommend it be put on its third reading.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled public buildings and state institutions.

Sections 1, 2, and 3 were read.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 3 be stricken out to the words “Salt Lake City,” in line 18, and that these words be inserted before Salt Lake City, “the seat of government shall be located at Salt Lake City, Utah.”

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer as a substitute for section 3, the following: “Me capital shall be located at Salt Lake City.”

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to either the amendment or substitute. I think, gentlemen of the committee, that it is proper and right that this question should be submitted to the people_to the voters of the Territory. Notwithstanding it may be the opinion of the majority of the members of this committee that that would be the final result of this section, if it should be carried, that the seat of government would be located at Salt Lake City. You are aware that in quite a large number of the states of the Union, probably more than one-half, the capitol is not located in the metropolis. Now, we know that Salt Lake City already has one or more_it has a university, and I believe that this article further on provides that the State penitentiary or prison should be located in Salt Lake City, and also the State fair. It seems to me, gentlemen of the committee, that this is a question that is worthy of your consideration, whether it be just and right to have the capital located here at the metropolis: and there is another consideration, which perhaps may be of greater importance than all. If we should at this time locate and that is, that following up the history of our past Legislatures, just as soon as the question is decided and

settled, why they at once begin to make appropriations for the necessary buildings to follow the location.

Now, I think, Mr. Chairman, it will appear to everyone that the new State will not be in a condition to at once proceed and make appropriations for a capitol building, and I am thoroughly satisfied in my own mind from the experience of the past that if this should be done, that that will no doubt be the action of the next Legislature, to involve the new State in debt, and
think_in fact I am satisfied in my own mind that it is far better that we should take a respite upon the matter of borrowing money, and this will of necessity compel that respite. That is, a pause, or a time to consider well what the new State would require in this respect. Furthermore, there are ample opportunities, and will be, to facilitate every requirement that the State will need until that time. Many have expressed themselves to me that they would prefer to have this postponed until some ten years, and others five years, after the initiation of the new State, but it certainly appears to me, and I believe it would be nothing but just and right, that there should be some limit, some time that we should settle this matter of the State capital. In California and also in Nevada, and in many of the older states and also recent states, they have not established their seat of government at the metropolis. Therefore, I think it would be nothing but proper and right that other cities should have an opportunity of entering into competition for the seat of government. I am satisfied that it will give a greater prestige to our new Constitution. Many no doubt would be more willing to vote for the adoption of a Constitution of this kind with a proviso, than they would if it {1615} established it at once in Salt Lake City, and I think it is nothing but fair, it is nothing but right, that the people should have an opportunity of voting upon this matter. Provide that a vote may be had hereafter for a change. If that is so, it seems to me it ought to be left to the vote of the people. This is the most important location of any institution that has been presented for our consideration.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I will withdaw my amendment, as the substitute of Mr. Varian is the same thing. I think the capital should be located at Salt Lake. It will save a great deal of expense. I think it is the proper place and it will save a great deal of agitation and intense feeling that will come hereafter.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly support the gentleman's amendment from Salt Lake. I am opposed in my feelings to agitating the minds of the legal voters of this Territory in respect to the location of the seat of government. I believe that, of right, it belongs to this city. This is centrally located, so far as the new State is concerned, and I am of the opinion that it is nothing but right and proper that this body should determine this matter at the present and thereby settle this controversy. Therefore, I shall sustain the gentleman's amendment from Salt Lake.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to say that I will oppose this amendment, but I am going to ask this Convention to do something in reference to this matter, which probably they will not be willing to do, but which I think they ought to do. We have work enough to keep us this afternoon, if we do not enter into a discussion of this question.

There will be a discussion of it if it is settled this afternoon. Now, I suggest that we postpone the

consideration of this section until Monday and get through with our work about which there will not be much difference of opinion, perhaps. We will probably have to be waiting here for the commit tee on revision to present us with some work, and while we are waiting we can settle this question. I think myself it ought to he determined by this Convention, but I ask the Convention to do that. I am not prepared to say just now that I will oppose this amendment.

Mr. ANDERSON. Could not this be considered when it came up on the third reading?

Mr. THURMAN. Well, of course that puts parties who might want to oppose it at a disadvantage. Of course it could be considered on third reading, but when we get through with a matter in committee of the whole, we generally think that a matter is about settled.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, if it is in order, which, although it may be somewhat imperfect, I would like to submit:

The location of the seat of government shall be at Salt Lake City; provided, that there shall not be an appropriation of any money for the construction of a capitol building for a period of ten years; and, provided further, that the city and county of Salt Lake shall furnish convenient rooms and accommodations for State officers and State purposes during such period.

Mr. FARR. Ten years is a pretty long time. I would ask you to accept of an amendment and instead of ten make it five years, in this motion.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No.

Mr. CREER. That can be amended upon third reading.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to call the attention of the gentleman from Weber to one portion of that substitute. It would be absolutely impossible for us to forecast what all the future councils of

this city might be willing to do in the way of furnishing room for the accommodation of the legislative bodies when they are called upon to meet here. I don't believe that the delegates upon this floor representing Salt Lake City are in any position to make any guaranty. I am quite sure they are not, and if on any one occasion there should be a failure on the part of a city council or a county court to furnish these rooms for the Legislature, why, then, the capital is not located, although it is put in the Constitution. It seems to me an unusual constitutional provision.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I was just going to remind you that it does not require any guaranty from the city or the county but it fixes it here definitely, if they do those things, that is all. It seems to me like a reasonable proposition.

Mr. JAMES. I want to call the Convention's attention to the fact that the city council has already donated a site for the capitol, and that they have gone to a good deal of expense in the way of improving it, putting out trees, reservoirs, etc., and there may have to be some provision for taking care of that site, and providing for keeping it in order, even though there may be no building.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I do not like the substitute offered by the gentleman from Weber, for more reasons than one. There is nothing definite in it. He locates the capital here, provided Salt Lake City and county will do certain things. Like the titles to this land we have in different parts of this Territory, it is all conditioned. I am in favor of definitely settling this question now and here. Neither do I like that provision of the substitute which says there shall be no money appropriated for ten years. I am willing to leave that to the Legislature. I do not think they will appropriate any money unless it is proper.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, in my judgment, this Convention wants to appoint definitely the place of business for the State. That is what the capital is. It does not necessarily follow that it is to be forever located there. It can and will be, if the necessities of the people require it, changed. As your Constitution now stands, amendments may be submitted by the Legislature and determined, as I recollect it, by a majority vote of the people. You do not want to go forth to the United States with an ambulatory proposition, concerning your seat of government It ought to be definite {1617} and fixed, because by fixing it definitely, you indicate that you are a people who know your own mind. Think of the uncertainty and indefiniteness included within the proposition to locate the capital, provided some municipality of the State shall do something, and make it also contingent upon the fact that no money shall be appropriated to provide for your necessities. Can you not safely leave that to the Legislature? Do you believe that a Legislature can be elected here which will not conform to the wishes of the people in that particular? You have placed proper restrictions and limitations upon the power of the State in the matter of incurring indebtedness, more particularly and specially to public buildings. I do not doubt for a moment, but that it will be some years before the proposition to erect a capitol building here will be considered. I don't think it ought to be considered for the present. I judge other people by myself in looking at those questions. I do not think the people would want it. I do not think it would be a good business proposition. I believe with my friend from Weber, that accommodations can be provided for the State officers at present here, but that is aside from the question. We ought to at least know our own minds now, not to permit this matter to go into an instrument like the

Constitution as an uncertain and indefinite proposition, indicating that it will be and may be brought up from time to time. The capital ought to be fixed permanently as long as it is fixed, and when a necessity for the change shall come, then it should be removed and doubtless will be. There is a distinction between the fixing of other public institutions and the fixing of the capital. The capital is the seat of business of the government. It ought to be fixed_I mean fixed in the sense of permanently for the time, until it shall be changed as provided by that instrument. All those other matters, as I took occasion to remark the other day upon this floor, in my judgment, are within and ought to be within the discretion and power of the Legislature, acting for the people and meeting the varying and shifting wants and necessities of the people. I hope this amendment of my friend will not prevail. It seems to me a hindrance rather than a help.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will move to strike out the latter part of the substitute. I do not believe it is right. I do think, gentlemen, it is the part of wisdom that we fix the capital to-day, and that we say that no appropriation of public money shall be made for a definite and fixed period of time. My reasons for that I will state. We cannot exactly foresee now just what the expenses of the State government are going to be. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty how much the taxes upon the people will have to be increased to carry on the State government. Times are hard. We are still in the midst of a crisis. Those times may continue a few years, and to all appearances they will. If we leave this without any limitation upon the Legislature respecting when this money may be appropriated, we will find that in the very first Legislature that meets, there will be a strong pull made upon the members to provide a fund for the building of a capitol at once, and there will be only one way by which it can be done. We are limited now in our indebtedness. Nobody wants a capitol built that can be erected for two hundred thousand dollars_the limit of our borrowing power, and the only way to do it will be by increasing the rate per cent. of taxation upon the people, and every effort will be made to induce members of the Legislature to at once increase the taxes upon the people, and provide a fund and commence the erection of that building. Now, I say, let us have time to tide over the first stage or {1618} stages of statehood. Let us get ourselves upon a good solid footing, pay off some of the bonded indebtedness of the Territory, and stop paying interest, which is not a good business proposition, even for a state, and in the meantime, there is no doubt in my mind but what the State can arrange with Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, for the use of the very building that we are now occupying, or a portion of it, for State purposes, by paying them a reasonably fair compensation for it. Authorize the State to do that, or the State could do it, I presume without any authority.

Mr. VARIAN. Let me ask the gentleman, does he remember the limit of taxation, in the article we have already passed_four mills?

Mr. THURMAN. Eight mills, I think. Now, we all know the influences that are brought to bear_I am not speaking now of bribery, but men buttonhole their fellow members of the Legislature and say, “Do this. We want the capitol building, it will boom the country and it will increase the value of real estate, and we want it over here. I will give a piece of ground if you will just put up the building.” And it will result in raising the taxes of the people generally before we can well afford to have them raised. That is my proposition, and if we do locate the thecapital today, at least let us retain that provision that provides that the appropriation shall not be made for a period

of ten years. Cannot we get along? Here is a building, it is true, that does not belong to the State, but it belongs to Salt Lake City and county, and it is large enough to accommodate them and the State, and, gentlemen, it is a building that will be good for Utah Territory as a capitol for fifty years to come, just as it stands, and we can better afford to pay a reasonable rental for this building for State purposes than we can afford to raise the taxes of the people at the present time and go on paying interest on the money that we at present owe. For that reason I am in favor of it.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am personally in favor of Salt Lake City becoming the capital of this great intermountain State that we are now building, but I like the amendment_I like something like it. Under the present circumstances of this Territory, there ought to be some limit with regard to taxation for public buildings. I agree with my friend, Thurman, that this is a magnificent structure, It will do the people of the Territory for a great many years. I don't want to see anything submitted to the people at the coming election of 1895, to give the voters an opportunity to trade one way or the other on the rejection or the adoption of the Constitution. I want the capital located by this Constitutional Convention. I want it located in Salt Lake City. The only improvement on this would be to strike out “Salt Lake City,” and insert “Ogden, Weber County.”

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is an overwhelming sentiment in this committee in favor of the definite location of the capital at this place, so I shall not have much to say on that point. Now, as to the proposed proviso. I am opposed to that, not because I differ in my views with my friend from Utah County as to what the policy of the State should be, or with my friend from Weber County. I believe, myself, that it would be very unfortunate for the State, in the immediate future, perhaps within the limit that this Convention might agree upon, if we were going to put a limit in the Constitution of several years, to appropriate public money or incur public indebtedness for the purpose of the erection of a State building. But can we not safely leave that to the Legislature? That is the question, gentlemen. It seems to me that we can. We ought not to encumber this Constitution with {1619} every sort of an admonition and guide- board. We must assume that the Legislature will have the same consideration for the condition of the people that we have. They will understand the situation just as well as we understand it, and when it is said by my friend from Utah that strong influence will be brought to bear upon these people to appropriate money for this purpose, I will remind him of the fact that under the apportionment that has been made, Salt Lake County will only have about one-fourth of the Legislature. Certainly if Salt Lake County cannot be relied upon, assuming that they will all go crazy and wild and that we will lose all our patriotism, and that we would be willing to wreck this State_although I think that is a very hazardous presumption_but assuming all that to be so, certainly the other three-fourths of the representatives of the State might safely be relied upon to do that which is right under the circumstances. And so I say that we ought to vote upon this proposition straight, and we ought to vote upon it without any proviso or condition; and in that connection, I will ask my friend from Weber, who proposed this amendment, with the proviso, where would be the capital, if that were incorporated in the Constitution_assuming that we take the section, just as my friend from Weber gives it to us, and put it in the Constitution, and then a Legislature were to make an appropriation for a public building, where would the capital be?

Mr. BOYER. San Juan.

Mr. RICHARDS. What is the purpose of this proviso?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Fixing it definitely in the Constitution, so that the Legislature cannot constantly change it.

Mr. RICHARDS. You say that the capital shall remain at Salt Lake City, provided no money shall be appropriated for the capitol for ten years. Now, the proviso is a condition or qualification of the location. Now, when the appropriation is made, what becomes of the capital? There is but one answer. It either means that the capital would be moved, because of this appropriation_and if it was moved, to where would it go, to San Juan, or to Washington, or to Cache?

Mr. THOMPSON. Millard County.

Mr. RICHARDS. It means that the putting of this proviso in the Constitution would not mean anything. It means one thing or the other. Either the capital would move and go somewhere, or else the placing of this proviso in the Constitution does not mean anything. I say we do not want it there. It ought not to be there, and there is no necessity for it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I can see the spirit that moves the gentleman from Salt Lake City. It is simply a spirit of criticism. It is a spirit favoring the location of the capital at Salt Lake City, without making any concessions whatever. He knows well enough that that matter can be very easily arranged for. If the proviso does not satisfy him on account Of the word provided, why not strike it out, and as my colleague suggested to me, write in the word but.

Mr. RICHARDS. I would ask you what would then be the effect?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It would be simply a limitation upon the Legislature to appropriate that money?

Mr. RICHARDS. It is a very different thing from a proviso, is not it?

Mr. E VANS (Weber). It is very easily arranged for. The gentleman is simply standing here for the purpose of securing something for Salt Lake City, without making any concessions at all to the people. Of course we could not expect anything else. The matter of taxation for the building of a capitol is {1620} considerable of an item. The gentleman says that the Legislature can be safely entrusted with this matter, and no money will be appropriated under our present financial condition. I was in the Legislature in 1892, and the bill came near passing appropriating two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the building of the capitol. I remember I was once in the Legislature of 1894_the last one. Our conditions were no better then financially than they are to- day. The Legislature was dealing then with the important question of finance, distributing the money as best they could to make ends meet and to keep down taxation. Right in that condition of things there was a strong organized movement to appropriate either one hundred and fifty or

two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, I forget now_-

Mr. VARIAN. I will remind the gentleman, it was a movement to borrow money.

Mr. EVANS. I understand all about it; it was either one hundred and fifty or two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to be appropriated for the purpose of building a capitol or one wing of it. At that time, my brother Varian voted against the bonding of the Territory for any more money, but did vote in favor of the appropriation for the building of this wing.

Mr. VARIAN. I beg your pardon; I did not.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You were in favor of the appropriation. The records show it. I am sorry my friend Varian disputes this question. I know he was in favor of building a wing of the capitol.

Mr. VARIAN. I say now emphatically, I was not in favor of it at any time during the Legislature, and talked against it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Well, then, I would not state it. Anyway, there was a strong organized movement for the appropriation of that money, and the honorable Judge Powers, I believe, was the gentleman who fathered the whole movement, and you all know that there were large bodies of men in the capitol building to applaud the speaker, whenever he spoke of building the capitol, because it would furnish labor. I will tell you, gentlemen, influence brought to bear upon legislators in matters of this kind, while it is not intended to be unlawful or improper, yet, they are sometimes wonderful, in order to get them to cast their votes to appropriate money to put up buildings and furnish labor. And we will find that very condition of things in this section if it stands as proposed. Locate the capital at Salt Lake City, without any conditions, and the very next Legislature will be importuned to appropriate money whether they have it or not. They may not succeed. If they do not succeed, then the next Legislature will be applied to, and finally the pressure will be brought to bear until an appropriation will be made when the people can illyafford to stand it.

Mr. MALONEY. Under the limitations in this Constitution, they never can build their magnificent capitol until they have the money on hand.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I want to say with respect to that proviso, advocated by Mr. Thurman, that is certainly proper, to say that the State shall not appropriate any money for this purpose. I think the other proviso is all right. I think there is nothing at all degrading about it. Nothing out of taste, to put it in the Constitution_that proviso, that the city and county here shall furnish room for State offices and State purposes. I know they would be glad to do it. It seems to me they would. They would be glad to do it if they thought an organized movement was going to be made to take the capital away from Salt Lake City; but as the gentleman has stated, he seems to think that the majority of the committee here are in favor of locating it {1621} in Salt Lake anyway. He takes that as the mind of the gentlemen here, and now, having reached that point, he says, “Now, just give us the capital, without any condition at all, and let the future Legislatures take care of this matter.” If some such concessions as this be not made, I do not believe this committee ought

to locate this capital at Salt Lake City in this Constitution, because we cannot afford just now to appropriate our money and build an unnecessary building, under the present circumstances anyway. Ample room and accommodations can be afforded in this building, and, as has been stated, this building would be a credit to almost any state in the Union for a capitol building. Let the people know right here and now that they are not going to be taxed for ten years for the construction of a capitol building, and it will put their minds to rest upon one very important question, and that question is the appropriation of a large amount of money for the construction of the building. Gentlemen, let us demand this concession. We should have it. It is in the interest of the people and it does no cue any harm at all.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped they would get through with this, and finish up this circus without my taking the floor any more, but I can see plainly this question cannot be settled unless I take a hand in it. Now, sir, I am in favor of this proposition from my republican friend_I do not often stand by the republicans_that is Mr. Varian, to locate the capital here in Salt Lake City, and I am in favor of Judge Evans of Ogden, that there should be some conditions, perhaps, or concessions made, but I would not be particular about that. I am satisfied the Legislature will be democratic, and when our mines are fully developed in San Juan, there will be no trouble about money. We can go on and build. As to this building, I can tell you, sir, that in 1840 when I saw the national capitol at Washington, it was not as fine a building I believe as this is to-day. I think the dome on top was not larger than a two bushel corn-basket_old Yankee basket, and I believe we can safely trust the Legislature for fixing this matter in a way that will be satisfactory to the entire people. Now, as to the outside counties, there is a feeling existing to my knowledge in every county from Idaho on the north to San Juan on the south, that Salt Lake is our home. Nearly every one of use went out from here, that is forty or fifty years old. It was the grand beehive, and a few of us had swarmed out temporarily, but we looked upon Salt Lake as our home. Now, these are my feelings, gentlemen, in this regard. Locate it now and fix it permanently at Salt Lake, and we will not regret it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am not altogether satisfied with either of these amendments. I am willing to go this far with the gentleman from Weber, who has moved that the capital be located at Salt Lake City, provided that no appropriation shall be made for the building of a capitol for ten years, and with a second proviso that Salt Lake City and county shall supply the new State with the necessary rooms for offices, etc._I am willing to go this far, to say that the capital shall be located at Salt Lake City, and put that definitely and finally in the Constitution, but that no appropriation shall be made for erecting a State capitol for five years, and leave the second proviso out altogether. That would be the proposition that I would be in favor of voting for. I think there can be no serious objection to that_certainly, as I view it, no reasonable objection to locating the capital at Salt Lake City. That is just where it belongs. I think if gentlemen will take second thought, they will not make the location of the capital conditional upon the city and county of Salt Lake furnishing necessary rooms for State {1622} officers. I do think it the part of wisdom, however, to give notice to the people of this Territory that there shall be security against an agitation for any increased taxation for five years, to build a capitol building. Now, sir, that is what I want to vote for, and with a view of making such an amendment as would bring that about, I shall vote for the substitute offered by Mr. Evans, with the hope that we can get it amended to make it what I have in these few remarks indicated.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Evans, if your amendment should prevail, after the lapse of ten years, would not that leave the question open again fora bid for a capital?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No, that does not, as amended now. The first sentence locates the capital at Salt Lake City, and it simply says there shall be no appropriation made for the construction of the capitol building for a period of ten years.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee on public buildings, it would be natural for me to favor Salt Lake City, but I favor Salt Lake on principle as the best location for a new State capitol. This question of making appropriations came up in our discussion. I do not think that there is any danger whatever that the new State can make appropriations for the new State buildings, under the encumbrances that we are now in. It will take a good many years to get out of our debt_seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred thousand on the Territory, two or three million on the city, and about four hundred thousand on the county, so I do not think there is any danger whatever to fear that the Legislature under these circumstances can make any appropriation for the State buildings. We are perfectly safe in regard to that, and I hope and trust that Salt Lake City will be like the old strings tied to it, trust to liberality of Salt Lake County.

It is true we are passing through a crisis now, that we have never experienced before, but I do not believe that it is going to last many years. We might find a change in six or seven years that we could have plenty. It is possible, and I do not think it is well to state the time, but trust to the Legislature that will have the interest of the commonwealth at heart.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the substitute by striking out ten years and inserting five years.

Mr. VARIAN. Now, I ask, gentlemen, of you, what is the underlying thought that impels gentlemen to suggest the attaching of conditions to the location of your capital? Is not the capital the property of the entire Territory? Do you want to put it upon us here in Salt Lake, and make us feel that it is looked upon by you as a concession, as a matter in which we have a proprietary interest? Do you not, and will you not by your votes, in locating this capital, locate it because of the best interests and necessities of the entire people? Can you justify it to your constituents in any other way or upon any other ground? Can you go home and say, “we located it at Salt Lake City, not because that is the place for it, but because, all things considered, we got better terms by locating it there?” Now, if you admit that proposition, what sort of a reason have you for attempting to incorporate in your organic law something that would prevent the people, if their necessities demanded it, from having suitable public buildings in which to transact their business? I venture to say that this argument about what has come before the previous Legislatures is absolutely wrong in its application. The governor of this Territory, last year, at {1623} the last Legislature, insisted, that this Territory should be bonded in the sum of two or three hundred thousand dollars, for, among other reasons, building a capitol, and it was Salt Lake people, as well as the outside, that stood up and refused to lend sanction to that undertaking, in

and out of the Legislature, Do you believe that our people here, who are paying no w nearly fifty per centum of the taxes of this Territory, have not enough of the burdens of taxation upon their shoulders, that they will be willing to countenance any such scheme as has been indicated here in argument? I tell you, our people do not care any more about paying taxes than do the people on the outside, and we have got all that we can stagger under now. If our Territory should be in a situation to demand it, if the business and prosperity of the country should revive, if the mines should revive to such an extent that you should have a full and overflowing treasury, as you may have if anything like occurs in the future that has occurred in the past, there are two or three mines in this very Territory that would pay all your expenses of your State government and build a capitol too. Think of the millions of dollars, if they had been taxed during the past twenty years, that have been taken out of the mines here_twelve, fifteen and eighteen millions, from one single mine alone; if it had been taxed, where would your Territorial finances have been? I only allude to show you the necessity of leaving this matter open to the Legislature. You have limited the debt to a hundred thousand dollars, very properly.

Mr. THURMAN. There is a proposition now for five years. Do you think the capitol can be built or that any money will be appropriated_any likelihood of it being done in five years?

Mr. VARIAN. I have not considered it from that standpoint. Certainly it ought not to be built now. I say that. I was of that opinion a year ago, and I am still of that opinion. What I am contending against is this thought that seems to be rankling between the different localities of this Territory, which is always cropping out in some such way as this, “We will locate the capitol building, but we will tie up the hands of the Legislature from, in the future, for a certain indefinite time, providing for the necessities of the State government.” Now, it may well be that in two years or that in four years, or in less time, the necessities of this government may be such that it will be very desirable that you shall have a permanent place for the location of the governmental offices and the transaction of your State business. Certainly it will be desirable, just as soon as it can be completed, because until then you have them scattered about in different localities, the different departments of the government, to the manifest inconvenience of the people, and the manifest injury of the transaction of public business. Why should you fear your Legislature? Certainly, so far as the people of Salt Lake are concerned, you may rest assured that, as in the past they never have been able yet to divert the Legislature into their way of thinking in the matter of taxation, in the future they will not be able to do so. But the security is greater than that. The burdens of taxation are now resting so heavily upon this people that they will look long and anxiously into the future before they will consent_those of them who are called upon to bear these burdens, to any additional burdens. But aside from that, public buildings are not built by taxation primarily. Loans are negotiated, and the burdens of taxation to secure the payment of those loans and the interest thereon are distributed through the years, fifteen, twenty, and twenty- five years, so that the people who come after shall also, having the benefit, be called upon to contribute to their portion of the burdens. I apprehend, if there is {1624} ever a capitol building erected in Utah, it will be in that way. I imagine that it would not be a wise policy, nor would it meet with the approval of business men or the taxpayers anywhere, to levy a tax to raise at once the amount of money necessary to erect a capitol building. I will confess I had not considered it in that light, and I did not think it possible and do not think it possible now. I only say that you are getting entirely too precise, too much in detail, when you undertake to tie up the hands of

your Legislature in a matter of this importance, You can rest assured that the Legislature will not for years to come undertake to bond this State certainly not without the assured approval of the people behind it. I trust that you will not lumber up this Constitution with conditions and provisions of this kind.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would not again trespass upon the time of this committee, but some of the gentlemen from Salt Lake have insinuated that there is an underlying thought_there is a motive. Now, gentlemen, if any of that has reference to myself, I appeal to any man on this floor to state when, where, at what time, I have ever raised a question against Salt Lake for the capital. It is true, some men from Provo in the past have represented Provo as the proper place. It is a proper place. It is a place that is just as suitable as any in the Territory, but, gentlemen, I have not set forth any claims for Utah County in this respect. I came here with a view to assist in making a Constitution for the benefit of the people, without reference to the little spot of ground where I happen to have my home. And I call your attention to the fact, gentlemen, if you doubt this, that in a speech on this floor, nearly two months ago, I had something to say incidentally on this subject. Why is it, when I stand up here and make a motion that I believe to be in the interest of the people, the taxpayers of the country, and in fairness and in justice, to not only the people that I represent, but to all the people, that Salt Lake men stand up here and impugn my motives? That is the question, gentlemen. You have no right to do it. I tell you the proposition advanced is a fair one, and the people of this Territory, I believe, with all my heart, will regret it in the first Legislature, and in the second Legislature, and in the third Legislature, if we do not adopt just such a provision as we here desire to have adopted. You all know that we cannot commence to build the capitol in five years, and probably not in ten years. Then, why not put the matter at rest? Why not give the Legislature the first one that will meet in the State, the second one, and the third one, a rest on this proposition, and where they will be in a position to say, “Hands off, gentlemen, we can do nothing.” You know, gentlemen, just as well as you know you sit on this floor, that there will be lobbies from Salt Lake in the very first Legislature that meets, harassing the Legislature from day to day, invoking debate and discussion, from day to day, as we have had here on this floor, in relation to just such questions as this. It is time to prevent that. It is for peace. It is to settle it once for all, that this thing cannot be done at least for five years, and I say it ought not to be done for ten years. And I shall vote for that proposition, and, gentlemen I think that you are unreasonable, when you stand here and insist that there is some underlying motive or thought in men who are standing here just as much as you are, contending for the public good. I repudiate any such insinuations. I say that they are unjust, unwarranted, uncalled for, and there is nothing in my course on this floor that justifies any man in saying that I have a selfish motive in relation to any of these things.

Mr. RALEIGH. I want to ask the gentleman from Provo a question. What is the reason, or is there any {1625} reason why this question cannot be settled here as a separate proposition without any conditions, and then make the conditions in another article or proposition_any time hereafter, before the close of this Convention.

Mr. THURMAN. Well, what is the difference? This is a common provision. Gentlemen say that it is not. I say there are constitutions that have just such a provision as this, keeping the Legislature's hands off for a given time, and no man can say that it is an unreasonable one. Does

it mar our Constitution? Is it an eyesore to anybody? Whom does it hurt? Who is aggrieved? If I had the disposition to impugn motives as gentlemen have impugned mine, I would say that Salt Lake men, who are standing upon this floor contending that there should be no limitation, have something in mind themselves.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Whom does he mean when he talks about Salt Lake men impugning motives? Does he mean me?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir; I mean the gentleman.

Mr. VARIAN. Well, then, I say you are entirely mistaken. I said nothing to impugn motives. The gentleman is defending himself before he is attacked.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to know what the gentleman meant when he said there was an underlying thought? He meant there was something concealed in the motives of the men who were contending for this proposition.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is a misapprehension in relation to this amendment, as it now stands. It seems to me in the minds of some who have spoken that we are locating the capital at Salt Lake with a proviso. Now, sir, I take it, there is no proviso in this amendment. It locates the capital at Salt Lake most definitely, without any proviso. But there is a separate proposition accompanying it, and that is merely this, that there shall be no appropriation made for the building of a capitol building for the next five years.

Mr. JAMES. Isn't this, Mr. Roberts, strictly what is done in Congress and is called a rider to force you to accept of one proposition or you will have to reject the whole?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir. There is no rider about it. It is a separate matter altogether. I hold that the amendment locates the capital at Salt Lake City, and there is no possibility of putting any other interpretation upon it. The proviso that makes it conditional has been withdrawn, and now this locates the capital at Salt Lake City, but it does say that the Legislature shall make no appropriation for the construction of the capitol building for five years. The gentleman from Provo argued the necessity of doing something of this kind as an easement upon the Legislature, that they might not be troubled with lobbyists who would come here for the purpose of getting appropriations to begin a capitol building, and who would doubtless appear before the first Legislature, and I think his reasoning was very clear upon that point. But, sir, the way this matter appeals to me is, not that you may relieve the Legislature from the inconvenience of lobbyists, but that you give an assurance to the people that they will not be plagued for five years to come, there, with propositions to bond the State to build a capitol building, or increase the taxation to accomplish the same purpose, and that is all there is to it.

Mr. THATCHER. Under what authority has the Territory of Utah been put under public debt. Was it by the act of the Legislature?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so.
{1626}
Mr. THATCHER. A period of five or ten years will do us no harm, but a great deal of good.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, I notice in looking back in the bill of elections and suffrage we have a provision that will assist us in this matter, namely, that referring to a property qualification of voters. Were it not for this, I would vote for the five years' provision, but I do not believe that there are any people, in this city especially, or any of our larger cities that are so terribly in debt, that would be willing for any special tax, or any election proposition, to bond this city or bond this Territory, to build a State capitol, that they will submit to, because here is a provision to allow the people to vote on the subject. For this reason I believe that we are safe trusting to the people. If it is only the Legislature_while I do not doubt their honor, I would be in favor of this proposition for five years, to make the people safe.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Roberts, the committee divided, and by a vote of 43 ayes to 7 noes, the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the substitute as amended.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. The point of order is that when we voted on Mr. Roberts' amendment, that settled it.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is not well taken.

Mr. IVINS. I appeal from the decision of the chair.

Mr. VARIAN. I arise to a point of order. The gentleman can appeal after this vote is taken, but he cannot interrupt a vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will state the motion upon which we are voting. An amendment to the substitute offered by Mr. Varian for section 3 and the amendment as amended now, by the gentleman from Davis, is as follows:

The location of the seat of government shall be at Salt Lake City, but no appropriation of money for the construction of a capitol building shall be made for a period five years.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 4 be stricken out.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question right, I am in favor of striking it out. The capital is fixed at Salt Lake now permanently.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that is almost universal: That it may be changed by a two-thirds vote.

Mr. SQUIRES. I suggest to the gentleman from Salt Lake that that is a very wise provision. If they get the capital located at Salt Lake it takes two-thirds to take it away.

Mr. JAMES. They cannot take it away at all.

Mr. SQUIRES. They can, by an amendment to the Constitution, at any time.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment to this section. I think some members misapprehend the scope of it. The fact that the capital has been located does not remove the necessity for this section. I move that all of lines 1, 2, and 3, down to the word be, be stricken out, and the following substituted: “The location of the capital shall not.”

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to ask the gentleman a question. What is the use of this? Is it not liable to be changed by an amendment to the Constitution, which requires the same vote? The vote is by two-thirds to {1627} amend the Constitution. I am in favor of the motion to strike out the whole section.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desired to amend the section before the motion to strike out was put. I shall vote to strike it out at the proper time.

The question being taken on the motion to strike out, the committee divided, and by a vote of 28 ayes to 25 noes the motion was agreed to.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move we strike this section out.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to make to section 6, subdivision 5. Strike out all after the word “blind,” in line 17, and insert “in the county of Sanpete, site to be settled by the Legislature.”

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, I move to insert “Fort Cameron, Beaver County.”

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I arise for information. Isn't there something in the Enabling Act providing for an institution of this kind.

Mr. CORAY. Yes, sir; and an appropriation.

Mr. SQUIRES. Is it not attached to the university?

Mr. THURMAN. Well, I do not know as to that.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, there was no permanent institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind, and there is quite an appropriation for that institution made by the Enabling Act. It is true, we located the university, but not the institution for the deaf, dumb and blind.

Mr. THURMAN. Can any man inform me whether the deaf and dumb institute is a part of the university now by existing laws? If it is, then it is located at Salt Lake City by our action the other day. I am in favor of striking it out.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I trust that this motion will not prevail. I trust that it will be voted down.

Mr. BUTTON. If the gentlemen will withdraw all their motions and pass this into the Convention, they can make these amendments in there.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. I will withdraw the motion.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

Mr. PRESIDENT:

Your committee of the whole has had under consideration the article on corporations other than municipal, on public lands, on salaries of officers, and report the same to the Convention with the recommendation that they be put upon third reading. They have also had under consideration the article on public buildings and State institutions, and report progress.