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

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

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Delegate Murdock, of Beaver.

Journal of 57th day's session was read and approved.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to present a communication from J. G. Sutherland and others.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary will read.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I move to lay that communication on the table. We have not sent to those gentlemen for any communication or advice as to what we should do. It was read yesterday as a part of Mr. Richards' remarks.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think this communication is entitled to respectful consideration by this Convention.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee on schedule, future amendments, and micellaneous [*note*], reported an article for insertion in the Constitution, which was ordered printed and referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I know it is a very delicate matter to occupy the time of this august body, but there is a matter that I want to get the sense of the body about to see whether there is any sympathy here for the purpose of the interest of water and irrigation and agriculture. The agricultural portion has not been reported, and I think_-

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is out of order.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, there was a communication or an invitation presented to the Convention yesterday that was laid on the table. I desire to make a motion to take that from the table, inasmuch as the time is drawing nigh when they expect to hear from us. We should either decline that or accept it, one of the two.

Mr. SQUIRES. Has the gentleman {1684 - INVITATION TO RECEPTION} from Garfield any information as to who tenders this invitation, so that we can make any response?

Mr. SQUIRES. You have information to that effect?

Mr. CHIDESTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, I asked yesterday to lay it on the table, hoping to get some name of somebody who was giving the invitation. It is rather singular an invitation in blank of that sort should come to this honorable body. Unless someone knows it is someone who is responsible_-

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman assures us that he does.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am not satisfied even with the assurance of the gentleman. If the ladies of Salt Lake wish to tender a reception to the Constitutional Convention, I think they owe it to themselves and they owe it to the Convention to send a communication here that is properly signed. I think it would be perfectly improper to reconsider the action of yesterday on this question. If a mistake has been made by the ladies sending this communication, if they had seen it, it is an easy matter for them to correct it by sending an invitation here that is signed by responsible parties. They owe it to this Convention and to themselves to do that. Therefore, I am opposed to reconsidering this matter.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move that it be accepted.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I should expect that the ladies who may have sent that communication_but I think it is due to this body that some name should be attached to that document. If we are going to be treated as school boys, why, let us act as school boys, and not act honorably at all and go up there.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, the ladies, I have been informed by two or three yesterday, were afraid to attach their names to it, thinking that some al the members here who were opposed to woman's suffrage would think it was a scheme to revivify some other article that has been acted on in the past.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, I move an amendment to the amendment, that the communication be referred back to the person who sent it here, for the purpose of attaching proper signatures.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I think they are more particular with this matter than others that have come before the Convention_a great deal. I think it is all technicality, and the ladies desire to know whether we would accept it. They have been to some expense, and if not accepted, why, let us lay it by and stop further discussion. It will take some time.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, as we have taken this up from the table, the next question is, whom

we should address. I move that we write to all the ladies of Salt Lake, accepting the invitation.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I cannot vote to accept this invitation without any signatures. I will not. I don't think it is right in principle. We referred two or three communications back_one I know at least that wasn't signed, and I think that precedent ought to be followed. Certainly the petitioners I believe sent it here in good faith; it ought to be accepted, but we ought to have some record of the fact as to who it is that invites us to this festivity.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, in order that we may get some light on this subject, I wish Mr. Richards of Salt Lake would tell us if he knows anything about it. His wife, I understand it, is connected with one of these suffragist societies, and he would be likely to have information on that subject, {1685 - IRRIGATION} whether this invitation is genuine or not.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I hope it will not be presumed that because my wife is connected with the suffrage association, that I know all about all anonymous communications sent here. I will say that I know nothing of this communication. My wife does not send out anonymous communications. I do know, however, that there is a movement on foot by a number of the leading ladies of this city to prepare a reception and entertainment for the members of this Convention and its officers. I do not understand how this communication came here or by whom it was sent. It was, I am sure, inadvertence, and I am also sure, or feel confident, that before this day is past, you gentlemen will receive an invitation signed by some persons who will be responsible for it, on this subject.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, with that explanation from the gentleman, I move we postpone the consideration of this matter until this afternoon.

Mr. RICHARDS. I second the motion for postponement.

The PRESIDENT.    The question really is on Mr. Evans' motion.

Mr. HART, I understand the motion is on the postponement now. Here is a motion and an amendment to it, and now comes the motion to postpone both.

Mr. VARIAN. Until after the final adjournment,

Mr. HART. I mean until this afternoon.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, it has been thought by myself, and perhaps some of the committee, that we disposed of the water interest that was presented here some time ago rather hastily. And I thought if there be sympathy enough upon this floor in the members, that it could be reproduced again through the committee, or by some other means, that you were willing to admit, which I presume is a little out of the general order, I should be pleased so do so, if not, why, I want to find out whether there is any sympathy or not. If

there is not, why, we want to, of course, dismiss the case. There is one portion of the labors of that committee that has not been reported, that is on agriculture, and I presume it might be brought in under miscellaneous, perhaps, and if you felt that we might reproduce the water interest again, I should be very pleased to do it. Several of the members of this body have spoken in this way, that they thought, perhaps, it was disposed of rather hastily. I will move that through the committee, or otherwise, as we may provide, the interest of water and irrigation and agriculture be reproduced again,

Mr. RICKS. I would suggest to the gentlemen, if they wish to introduce a new article on irrigation, that they submit it as an amendment, or as a separate section, when the miscellaneous article comes before the assemblage. To save time, it can be done in that way. When the article that was submitted here this morning on miscellaneous comes up for consideration, any section you may wish to introduce on irrigation can then be introduced, and save taking up the time of the Convention now. It can be done just as well in that way, and, in fact, much better.

Mr. JAMES. Will Mr. Murdock include in his provision, mining?

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Yes, sir.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am opposed to passing a motion of this kind. It may involve us in the situation of reconsidering both of these articles. I am not opposed to a motion to reconsider, if it is made in that way, because it will then require a two-thirds vote. If we pass this motion, we may be in a situation of being compelled to consider both those articles again.

The motion was rejected.
{1686 - PUBLIC LANDS}
The Convention then proceeded with the third reading of the article entitled public lands.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I have an amendment to section 1, if it is in order. I move to insert, after the word “off” in line 15 of said section, the following: “Except sections 16 and 36, school lands, which may be sold to the occupants thereof at the value of such lands prior to their occupancy and without regard to improvements upon or adjacent thereto.” My reason for asking that this amendment be made to said section is to protect settlers upon these sections, many of them having settled upon those lands prior to their knowledge of their being school lands, and after the same had been surveyed. Before the year 1869, the establishment of the land office in this Territory, the settlers of the Territory had little knowledge, if any, of the surveys of the United States, and in good faith they entered upon those lands, and many of them have built homes and cultivated the lands and improved them. After the establish-of the land office, and some surveys, and a knowledge of surveys becoming general, they ascertained that they were in a condition that they could not purchase these lands from the general government, and they have retained possession of them up to date. Our Legislature, I believe in 1890, passed a law authorizing counties to lease these lands to settlers upon them. In our county, the occupants of these lands leased them and have continually paid lease money upon them from that day up to the

present time. This lease money has gone into the public treasury, and was intended for the benfit of the common schools of the Territory.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Don't you think that section 4 of this same article will cover your objection? Perhaps you haven't it in your book. It was put in as a separate section here when we passed this in committee of the whole.

Mr. THORESON. That covers part of the objection, but not entirely.

Mr. SNOW. I would suggest to the. gentleman from Cache that this amendment is not germane to this section. If he wants it to apply to the school lands, it should apply to section 3.

Mr. THORESON. I will agree with the gentleman; I was not present at the time this article was passed by the committee, and I didn't know of this amendment. I will withdraw it for the time being.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to the amendment made in committee of the whole. I thought perhaps that in my marked copy I was mistaken, but conferring with other gentlemen, and especially the chairman of the committee on public lands, I discover that there is quite a material difference in lines 14 and 15 as read by the secretary and as we have it in our marked copies.

The PRESIDENT. Do you move to amend?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer. In line 14, after the word “value,” I move to strike out the word “of,” and insert the word

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I have an amendment, after the word State, in line 17, insert the following: “sections 16 and 36 to be valued as of the date of settlement thereon.”

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I move to amend that by adding “where settlement was made before survey of the lands.”

Mr. MALONEY. I will accept that amendment. I think I will leave it just as it is.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). Mr. President, I move to amend by adding “provided, settlement was made before government survey of the land.”

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I would suggest that those amendments, {1687} would come more properly on section 4, when we reach it.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I hope the amendment to the amendment will not prevail, because most of this land that is now settled_the knowledge of the surveys did not exist in the Territory. If settlement was made prior to survey, they could have obtained patents from the United States, and we have no such lauds, because they would get patents if they could prove up

settlement prior to survey; but it is lands settled on after the survey, without the knowledge of such surveys by the occupants or the settlers.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I shall be obliged to vote against this amendment, unless it should be considered in connection with section 4, which deals, as I understand it, with the subject of school lands. It seems to me it ought not to be interjected here, but it would come properly section 4.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask the gentleman from Cache if there are many such cases, of settlers upon school lands, among your acquaintances?

Mr. THORESON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask also how those lands have been sold for the last ten years or longer compared with other lands which are not school lands? What would be the price relatively where they are sold?

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, while I am not connected with many sales of that kind of lands_by simply passing possession.

Mr. CANNON. I understand that, but about the price_

Mr. THORESON. The price in our part of the Territory has been very low_about one-third of the real value of the land. I wish to say in connection with that, that prior to the year 1870, and some time after, these lands have been taxed for these people and they have paid taxes on them.

Mr. IVINS.    Mr. President, in our country, to my certain knowledge, school lands have been sold and taxed just as high as any lands that adjoin them. Within the last year I have paid fifty dollars an acre for school lands_the lands that were occupied long before they were surveyed by the government, and have been handed down by quit claim deeds ever since, and the price is just as high as adjoining land, which has been patented, and they have been taxed just as high.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment, for the same reason stated by the last gentleman, Many speculaters bought these lands, who were not the original occupants, knowing full well they were school lands, and whatever price they paid for them was with the understanding that the title was not a perfect one. I do not think we should divert from this school fund as large an amount as would be taken by this motion. I have in my mind now one section, on the brow of this hill, which is one of the finest tracts of land in this county. It is a tract of land that would sell for in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand dollars, and which, under this rule, would go for a song. That has been bought by speculators. I used to own a piece of it myself. I know exactly how the land was always held. I know how the title was always considered. There is not a house upon it. The people there understand and have understood ever since the land office was established here that that was school land and wasn't a class of land upon which perfect title could be obtained, and it was sold for about one-tenth of its value in the case to which I refer. Now, to say to those people who have been in possession of that land, who came in

after all these years, and they have been using it, cultivating it, etc., and not paying taxes upon it_which they have not been doing, except upon improvements where they have had any, and to allow them {1688} to come in now and pay the original price, I say would be an injustice to the school fund. Now, there may be cases where actual settlers have located upon lands, and where injustice will be done to a certain extent, but it must be a general rule which should be applied. We cannot take isolated cases. We cannot apply it so that it will be perfect in its workings. I would be glad myself if we could so fix it that people who are in the condition referred to by one of the gentlemen, who settled upon lauds prior to their survey, and who in good faith believed they were settling upon land open to entry, if they could be protected in their rights, but I believe it is not a good thing to lay down this rule in this form. I think section 4, prepared by the committee on school lands, covers the question with sufficient clearness.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would Mr. Cannon be willing to vote for an amendment of this character: Provided that only those who have been constant residents upon those lands from the date they were settled on should be excluded?

Mr. CANNON. I would, provided it were modified in the manner proposed by the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Kimball), and then the amendment proposed by Mr. Squires.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is the kind of an amendment that would suit me, and that would take the speculators out of the proposition.

Mr. CANNON. Section 4, I think it is numbered as it now is, places this matter in such a way that people who were actual settlers will get the benefit of it. In case of university lands the same condition exists all over this county, and those lands were sold at a pretty fair price, and they have brought a good fund to the university, and I say it is only right for the people to get the benefit, and the schools, of the money which those lands are worth. The officers mentioned in section 4 are elected by the people. It is natural that they would select men of character who would look after the interests of the people, and protect them as far as lies in their power. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by Mr. Kimball, for the reason that it does not amount to anything to people that settled upon lands that were surveyed, and that make an entry now, but it is for the benefit of those who have been settlers upon school lands and made it what it is_taking out water ditches, and help to develop the country, and make it possible to realize something out of school lands. I know of many poor people that are now settlers upon them, and these people have been taxed ten dollars an acre on the school lands, while the others have been taxed fifteen. It has been found necessary to tax them in this way, in order to have a revenue in some of the small counties. There is only a small portion of the land that is surveyed, and they, of course, have not made as many improvements as they would have done, if they would have known how this matter was going to terminate. That is true, but I do not think that we should now pass a measure that would hurt the poor people, because I know that it will; I know that there are poor men that have settled upon school lands, have been almost compelled to settle upon school lands, and have made a scanty living upon it, and now, if they were compelled to pay the high price for that land, would be turned out of house

and home.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Those parties that you speak of, were they the original locators on those school lands, or have they acquired them by purchase?

Mr. CHIDESTER. No, sir; in the first place they were_the original settlers were driven away by the Indians, and other settlers came back and scattered around over the country and reclaimed {1689} it a second time, and some of them have starved out and other men have come in and taken up the land, and have been in that condition from that day to this.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment and the amendment to the amendment, for the reason that this places the value upon the land which is not occupied at the same rate as upon that which is occupied. My intention was only as was stated by the gentleman from Garfield, to protect the people that have settled in good faith upon these lands and have improved them, and not make a price upon all these lands and sell them to anybody, and for that reason I am opposed to the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, because that does not touch the subject. It is not only to apply to lands that were settled prior to survey_because any one having settled upon those lands prior to the survey can make entry upon them at any time.

Mr. RICHARDS. Have you an amendment prepared covering the point that you suggest?

Mr. THORESON. I withdraw it until section 4. I do not think it is germane here, anyway.

The amendment offered by Mr. Kimball, of Weber, was rejected.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, the amendment proposed by me is intended to cover only those who have actually made their homes. I wanted to make it as brief as I could, but that is the intention of it_actual locators.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to ask the gentleman what is the effect of it.

Mr. MALONEY. To protect those who have made their homes and have been there since the time when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.

Mr. RICHARDS. It seems to me it may reach further than the gentleman intends.

The amendment offered by Mr. Maloney was rejected.

Sections 2 and 3 were read.

Mr. HART. Mr, President, I desire to call attention to the wording of the last part of that section, as to value and quality. It seems to me that there is no difference between those two terms. I think it should be quantity and value. I move to strike out the word quality and insert quantity.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I hardly think that would apply, because the quantity that is given

for different funds is entirely, different and, as I understand it, it would have an improper application in this case. You could not give the same amount to the university, for instance, as to the agricultural college, nor for the common schools as for the school of mines, or any of these other institutions.

Mr. HART. Mr. President. I think the amendment would be all right. Supposing there is not sufficient lands in the Territory of which to make the allotment to all these institutions if there should be some shortage then the shortage should be proportionately deducted from all the land grants, and the word value certainly covers the word that is now in there, “quality.” Mr. President, I think the word value covers both ideas there, and I think the word quantity should be inserted. That would be taken in connection with the word proportion, used in the previous part of the section.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the gentleman that the word quality should be stricken out, because it seems to me that that is very important, because the exact amount of acreage is described in the Enabling Act, where the grant is made for each of the purposes mentioned. Now, it seems to me there ought to be a proportion of the quality of lands given to various classes for which grants are made, and it seems to me to simply leave the word value in there, it does not cover it; that each of these purposes {1690} should have a pro rata of the quality of the lands.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment to be added to the section just read, as follows:

Provided, the bona fide occupants on such lands prior to the year A. D. 1870, may be disposed of to such occupants or their grantees at the sum of one dollar and fifty cents per acre, together with interest added thereto at the rate of three per cent. per annum from said date.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman from Weber a question. The amendment proposed provides that bona fide occupants of such lands prior to the year 1870 may be disposed of.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). To their occupants or grantees.

Mr. CANNON. You would not dispose of the occupants, would you?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would dispose of the lands.

Mr. CREER. I think the gentleman must misapprehend the section. The section as introduced does not contemplate selling them at their value now, but simply at their value at the time of settlement.

Mr. JOLLEY. I am agreeable to these amendments. Either will answer, I think, or at least lighten the hardship that will be brought upon these people, and as I was going to say, those that own lands don't always live right upon them. They live in the town or village, on land or property adjacent thereto, but they have cultivated them and until to day, if the water was taken away from them and all the improvements taken from them, the land would be very valuable in the future, for the simple reason that the soil is saturated with water and age has made it very useful, and they cannot afford to pay the price that it is worth to-day, and I appeal to the committee upon the flour to consider these things for the benefit of the poor people that own the homes. For some of these sections lie in the very heart of our fields, that they have cultivated for the last forty years, and a great deal of it to-day is owned by widows and orphans that are not able to pay such prices. I therefore trust and hope that one of those amendments will prevail.

Mr. SQUIRES. Which one?

Mr. JOLLEY. Either one will do me.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am opposed to both of these amendments. I think the section is all right the way it is. The settler is amply protected. If these amendments pass, why, it will make a great inroad into {1691} our school fund. The United States law provides that if a settler settles upon land before it is surveyed_that is, if he actually resides there_if he builds a house and makes his home there, other lands will have to be selected for school lands. I know this, because I have been in the government survey business for several years. The man that surveys the land is instructed, if the man is actually a resident on that land, if he has a house upon it, and lives there at the time of the survey, to select other lands for school lands. In all such settlers that were on the land at the time the survey was made
other lands were selected. Of course, if they did not live on the lands and were not occupying them, they were not actual settlers; they were not complying with the land laws of the government.

Mr. HART. Will the gentleman permit me a question? How about a situation similar to that that

exists in Cache, where the survey was made at quite an early date, but when the settlers located there, they did not know anything about the surveys, and they settled upon these lands without any knowledge of being on school sections, and it was some ten years or more afterwards before they knew of the surveys? What about the justice to a class of people like that, under your provision?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it was their duty to have found out, and I think that the majority of the people who settled upon school lands knew that they were school lands, and to-day there are but few occupying the school lauds that settled upon them originally. They have been sold, and resold, time and time again, and I think that if these amendments pass, it will seriously affect our school fund. Therefore, I approve the section as it now stands.

Mr. JOLLEY. You do not think it would be right to rob the orphans and the widows for the benefit of public schools, do you?

Mr. ANDERSON. do not think that it will rob them. I think that they knew the lands were school lands when they settled upon them, and they accepted those conditions.

Mr. JOLLEY. How could they know that they were school lands when they settled upon them, before there was any survey-forty years ago?

Mr. ANDERSON. If they lived upon them at that time, if they complied with the land laws, other lands would have been selected, but the consequence is they did not live on them, they were using the lands without settling on them.

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I am acquainted with the school sections where I live. It has cost in the neighborhood of fourteen thousand dollars to get water on them, and to-day the land adjoining it can be bought for seven dollars an acre, and I endorse the remark of Mr. Jolley, in relation to that, that I do not consider that it would be right to rob the poor people and to swell our school fund.

Mr. LEMMON. Mr. President, as I understand it, there are two classes of settlers on these school lands, some who have settled upon school lands before it was known whether they were school lands or not. Now, I think Mr. Evans' motion is the proper one. It secures them in the right on that land at a nominal price. There is another class of people in this country that have, in the last few years, under the territorial law, taken up a lease of land, and I have in my mind one party that leased three quarter sections, right in the heart of our country. Now, if that man is allowed to buy that at $1.50 an acre, I think it would be an injustice, while I think that the people who have settled upon them in an early day_it would be the right thing to do, and there ought to be some plan to distinguish {1692} and separate the classes of people who settled upon those lands. People could not find out in early days where the lines were. The surveys were not known anything about until about 1.859, consequently it would not be right to deprive them of their rights.

Mr. THORESON. Will the gentleman allow me a question? These lands that have been taken

possession of within the last few years, in fixing the price, it would average much more than $1.25 per acre, would it not? That is, when they entered upon these lands, in the last few years, they were worth much more than that?

Mr. LEMMON. Yes, sir.

Mr. THORESON. My substitute_the amendment to this section provides that they shall provide for every section full value at the time they went on these lands.

Mr. LEMMON. I think that class of people ought to pay more, but I believe those who settled upon them years ago, I do not know about them_ought not to.

Mr. MAUGHAN. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I hope that none of these amendments will prevail. I think it would be an injustice to those that do not occupy those school sections, and I stand here as one of the pioneers of Cache County, that went into that county in the fall of 1856. I know that our people located upon 16 and 36, in township 11, 1 west; we did not know it was school lands, but at the same time there is a dwelling upon either 36 or 16 in township 11, there is not a dwelling upon 36 nor 16 in township 10, 1 west, and it would be unjust for these amendments to prevail. It would be not only unjust to the school fund and the interests of education, but it would be unjust to these men that `did not occupy these lands. Why, we have had to pay the government price; we have had to exhaust our homestead right; we have had to pay the railroad here, that you know got alternate sections, as high as $16 an acre_one of the most unjust things that ever was permitted, but still these are the difficulties of men and these are the sacrifices that we have had to make in order to obtain legal tides to our land, wherein we could build our homes permanently. I was not aware, until I heard Mr. Jolley and some others, of this one fact, that all the orphans and widows of this Territory were on school sections. [Laughter.]

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. Chairman, I resent the accusation. I did not say that.

Mr. MAUGHAN. I withdraw those remarks.

Mr. THORESON. Do you know of a number of people right in your country that are in that situation that Mr. Jolley referred to?

Mr. MAUGHAN. No; I do not.

Mr. THORESON. Well, I do; I do, gentlemen.

Mr. MAUGHAN. I claim that the citizens of Wellsville precinct, occupying to-day 36, township 11_if there are two widows or two orphan children_

Mr. THORESON. Is it not a matter of fact that you once occupied some school land and disposed of it?

Mr. CANNON. Did not the man to whom you sold know that the title was not perfect?

Mr. MAUGHAN. He did, sir.

Mr. CANNON. And that it was school land?

Mr. MAUGHAN. And he paid me a price accordingly.

Mr. JOLLEY. I want to ask Mr. Maughan if you know of all the men that settled upon lands forty years ago to be living. [Laughter.]

Mr. MAUGHAN. No, sir; and I do not think you do, either. I say that the interests of the schools, and irrigation, and reservoirs, and everything else, can just as well be left to this commission, and to future legislation.
{1693}
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. President, I am opposed to all these extravagant prices of school lands. I had rather that the school fund would suffer than many of the poor people that have settled upon these lands, considering the circumstances surrounding them. For instance, a great many of those school lands were settled on by people thirty or forty years ago in the southern part of the country here; they were driven off of these lands by Indian raids. The people were driven into settlements, and it was impossible for them to reside on those lands; also you are all aware of the state of the country, that in many of those districts there is no water to be found for actual residents to settle on to live there continually. Probably in the school section the water would go there once or twice in a month, and it is impossible in some cases for the people to have resided on those lands. The Legislature of 1892, in making regulations for the sale of the university lands, took these circumstances into consideration. They provided that those who had improved those university lands should have a first claim on those lands, as well as those who had resided on them. I think this would be nothing but justice.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, would like to ask the gentleman a question. Could a man secure a homestead entry without living on it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; he could not.

Mr. ANDERSON. Would it be any more just that he secure the school land?

Mr. IVINS. The gentleman from Utah has called attention to a fact that I thought ought to be understood by this Convention. It is very true, as Mr. Anderson has said, that actual residents upon school lands at the time of their survey had a right to secure a government title for them; but every one that is acquainted with conditions that existed thirty years ago in this Territory, knows that it was impossible for people to go out and live upon those lands. Indian depredations in Sanpete County prevented it; they prevented it in Washington County; they prevented it in nearly every other county in this Territory; and I know, gentlemen, that in 1862, lands were

surveyed upon the Santa Clara in Washington County, by the county surveyor; they were laid off in five acre lots; they were properly platted; surveyor's certificates were given to the original settlers upon those lands, and those titles have been handed down successively until to-day. Later, when they were surveyed by the government, of course, it was discovered that many of the pieces of those lands were in school sections. They have been continuously occupied. Now, it does not seem to me that it would be proper that those occupants should be required to pay an extravagant or exorbitant price for those lands. I think they ought to pay a reasonable price; they ought to pay whatever it would have cost them to have secured a title from the government at the time the lands were surveyed, and they ought to pay the interest on the money, I think, front that time until now.

Mr. MAUGHAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Will not our future Legislatures through this land commission have the right to adjust these matters to the satisfaction of the owners?

Mr. IVINS. Yes; and they would have a right to adjust it so that they would have to pay fifteen dollars an acre if they wished to; that is the difference. Now, I want to say another thing for the benefit of the gentleman from Cache, that I have in mind now, on one of those school sections on the Santa Clara bottom, three widows own farms; their husbands have worn themselves out on the same land and died, and their estates own them, and they {1694} have been farmed every year from 1862 until the present, and I want to tell you another thing, that they have been taxed just as high as land adjoining them, because I have assessed them myself year after year, and the lands have all been taxed just alike. The people have borne an equal burden with their neighbors, and they ought to pay an equal price with their neighbors, for the land, and no more_that is, the land occupied under such conditions. Now, gentlemen, I don't wish to be understood that I believe it proper to enact anything here which will give an opportunity to speculators who have bought up in recent years school lands that were valuable, and known to be valuable, and reap a profit at the expense of the school fund; but these settlers and their successors ought to be protected, and I will certainly vote for something here which will protect them.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I want to say something about this amendment that I offered. I should like to offer something more favorable to those settlers than I have done, but if nothing better can be secured_

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to ask Mr. Ivins a question. Do you think it was legal for you to tax those poor widows you speak of on that land?

Mr. IVINS. Yes, sir; I do; we taxed improvements on the lands; they were raising just as good crops off of that land as other people were, getting just as much benefit, and our courts ruled that it was proper that they should pay a tax.

Mr. ALLEN. You have not answered my question. I ask you if you think it was legal to tax that land?

Mr. IVINS. Why, yes; or else I wouldn't have done it. We have taxed it and collected the tax. We

taxed the improvements on the other land and we tax the land. That was just the difference. The law gave me a right to tax the improvements and to tax the land, and I taxed the improvements twenty dollars an acre in the school sections and the land at twenty dollars an acre outside. That is the way we did it.

Mr. ALLEN. Then you taxed the improvements higher on that person's land than you did on the neighbors that own the land?

Mr. IVINS. We did not tax the improvements on the other fellow's land. If you want to get at the actual facts in the case, we construed the law in the manner that we did, because, in the thefirst place, we needed the revenue, and in the second place, we thought we had a right to get it that way.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President and gentlemen, as I started to explain before the interruption of the gentleman, I want to explain this amendment which I offered, and I say again that I am willing to go further in the interests of these bona fide settlers than this amendment proposed, but believing that we cannot go any further I propose this and shall urge it.

In 1869 the land offices were opened in Utah. Up to that time there were no plats of any of the surveys which had been made; people never knew when they settled upon those lands whether they were upon school lands or whether they were upon government domain. They settled upon them in good faith, honestly and bona, fide and made their homes upon them_hundreds and thousands of such cases exist everywhere in Utah, and no gentleman can dispute that. Now, I believe in fixing a nominal price for that land. I would rather say a dollar and a half per acre and leave out the interest altogether, and leave all these people, who have settled prior to 1870, their lands at that price. If this amendment goes through, with the interest, it will amount to four cents and a half interest per annum, for twenty-five years, it would amount to $1.12 ½ per acre, making the total that the school fund would receive of $2.62 ½. If a man gets {1695} title to a quarter section of land, he will have to pay four hundred and twenty dollars for it_a considerable sum.

Now, gentlemen, remember that these people who have these lands are generally poor people. They are farmers and they ought not to be oppressed, and it will not do for gentlemen to stand upon this floor and say, “we want to replenish the school fund,” when the replenishment of that fund will be to the injury and robbery of those people who have honestly settled upon these lands. I would rather the school fund would have nothing out of them than to rob any honest individual who had settled upon this land, believing it to be government domain. Let us do it right. Let us be fair with these settlers. It is due them, that we should be fair and I shall urge this amendment.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, there are two sides to this question. I am in favor of this amendment of Mr. Evans, of Weber, so far as it goes. I would let those people have their lands at government price_at whatever they were worth at the time of their settling upon them, and we want to take care of these widows of Brother Jolley's, and the orphans. I would not, for the life of me, put anything in the way to injure them. But there is another gentleman, not a widow, that I would like to take care of also, and that is the speculator. I know that they jumped onto these

school lands and farmed them and skinned them for years and got nice ranches_their home ranches. They are well to do. That is the gentleman we want to look after, that we may not have him in his abundance rob the school fund. Now, that is where I stand. I want to take care of the widows and the orphans, but at the same time look after the speculator. Now, men talk about being conversant with the land business. I claim that I was one of the first settlers here, and I never had one grant of land from Uncle Sam in my life, except a lot out here in the Eighth ward. I never took up and completed a title to a quarter section in my life except_no, I did not complete that. I filed on a quarter section over in Colorado, but it lapsed, but I bought and bought and bought every time I have entered upon land or improved it. Now, this is a serious question, and it has had already various propositions and questions submitted in regard to it, but I am in favor of looking after that speculator. I am after him every time, whether it is in Salt Lake County or Weber. My experience in Huntsville, where I labored for twenty years_the bishop generally looked after the widows and orphans there and saw that they got onto claims that were stable and could be sustained in law. I do not think much of the bishop that would let his widows and orphans sit down upon land that they had no titles to.

Mr. MAUGHAN. Do you place all widows and orphans on school sections?

Mr. HAMMOND, No, sir; never placed one on the laud in the world.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have been acquainted with the condition of the entry of school lands in the south end of Utah County from the first, and I know up to the present time that the advantage has been in favor of the man that has settled upon the school lands. Now, there was a survey of that country_what was called the survey of 1856, and it was generally known where the school lands were_that is sections 16 and 36 were located. The Indian farm there, comprising about five or six thousand acres, was resurveyed some few years ago, the time that Mr. Cannon was delegate to Congress, and then gentlemen went and settled upon those school lands, knowing that they were such, and obtained an advantage over the balance of the settlers. Now, {1696} we have school lands located between our city and the D. & R. G., where those right around them have been assessed at the rate of twenty dollars an acre for a number of years, and these lands are occupied, if you allow me that term or appellation_that is, they do not live upon those lands, but they have them enclosed, and those men are money lenders to-day. They are not widows and orphans; they are people who lend money and receive a percentage on it. Now, under the estimate of the gentleman who has made an amendment here, 160 acres would simply cost three hundred and thirty-six dollars, besides having the use of that quarter section of land for twenty years. Now, it seems to me that that would be entirely unjust, not only to the school fund but to the balance of the settlers around there, and as to the matter of whether it is the general rule throughout the Territory, now that water is owned as personal property, so that the great loss in taking out the water would not amount to much. It is worth so much money to the owner anyway, and I know it to be a disappointment, really, were we to adopt these amendments, and put them down at that minimum figure_it would be an actual disappointment to the settlers themselves, because they anticipate and expect to pay a reasonable sum for those lands. They have had the advantage of the cultivation of them, and without taxation.

I submit, Mr. President, that this is not upon the rule that the gentleman has referred you to from

Washington County, and has not been the general rule; it has not been the rule in our county. The lands have not been taxed at all, but the land owners around about them have been taxed all the way from twenty up to seventy-five dollars an acre. I maintain that this would not be fair and just to the rest of the men; and furthermore, if they settled upon the lands in 1870, why, there has been ample time from then until now to enter them in the land office. Every lawyer on this floor knows that, therefore, it would be wrong to give them this advantage, and I am in favor of the section as it stands in the article.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, this amendment of Mr. Evans is the fairest proposition that has been presented yet on this question, I am not altogether satisfied with it, as it now stands, but it is by far the best plan we have had of solving this difficult question. I do not believe, Mr. President, that any rule can be adopted here which will work complete justice in all cases and in all parts of the country. In Cache, as I before referred to, there was an early survey, but it was for many years after before the people knew where those lands were. They settled upon the school lands, not knowing they were school lands. Now, the gentleman from Beaver County suggests it was their business to find out where those surveys were. Some fourteen or sixteen years after the government survey, a competent surveyor went over that same ground and ran certain lines, and even the surveyor, learned in those matters, could not discover and did not discover the government lines, and people located with reference to the later survey, and many years after they found there was a quite a difference between the two surveys. Now, the year 1870 may not be exactly right. We might have to put it a little later than that. It was as late as 1880 before some of those people in Cache County knew that they were upon the school lands_and perhaps the year 1875 would be better for the people of that part of the country than an earlier date.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I am perfectly agreeable and would like to extend that time later than 1870, if I thought the Convention would stand it.

Mr. HART. These people that settled upon these school lands paid taxes and have for years, and the public got {1697} the benefit of the revenue, and it cost them, so far as the taxes and the improvements and other things were concerned, as much to secure and hold those lands as if they had a government title.

Mr. ANDERSON. Were those settlers on school lands in Cache Valley, residing on the lands?

Mr. HART. Some of them did; many of them did; many of them are living there to-day, and have their homes upon them. There are some ten or eleven thousand acres in Cache County in this condition, and the greater part of it was settled at a time when they did not know and could not find out that it was school lands, and it would be an injustice_the greatest kind of an injustice, to compel those people to pay the actual value of that land at the present time. They devoted all these years_thirty or forty years_to securing their title to that land.

Mr. MAUGHAN. Is it not a fact that the survey in Cache Valley was made in 1855?

Mr. HART. I think the first survey was made in 1855 or 1856

Mr. HART. The second survey of that, Mr. President, was made in the year 1870, that is, some rough lines were drawn through there at that time, but even then, they could not tell just where the townships were, and they were still_up until 1875, and some as late as 1880, that did not know they were upon school lands. If people had known where those surveys were, I would then be in favor of the rule requiring those who settled after the survey to pay a reasonable value for them.

It seems tome that to fix any rate upon those lands would in certain instances work injustice both to the school fund and to individuals, because there is some of that land up there that is worth five dollars an acre, and the people, I think, would be willing to pay that and perhaps a little more for some of the best lands. There is some land there that is not worth a dollar and a half an acre, but to those individuals, it would be an injustice; but I would rather in disposing of this question, work an injustice to the school fund in two instances, by favoring some of these second purchasers, than I would do a wrong to one of those poor locators that has been on that land and depending upon it to get title. I believe that would be better.

Mr. VARIAN. There are two reasons, Mr. President, in my judgment here, why this matter ought not to be further continued. It is a matter that properly and appropriately ought to be left to the Legislature, and the second reason is that, as far as the article is now constituted, you have intermingled and so blended matters within the power of this Constitution with those that are not, that it would be impossible apparently to segregate them. I want to call attention to the Enabling Act, premising what I have to say with the statement that it appears therefrom that this Constitutional Convention only has jurisdiction over the school lands_that is, as to their disposition. As to all other grants of land provided for in this act, it appears by the express language of the Enabling Act that the location and disposition is to be left to the Legislature. I want to call attention to section 1, the provision upon page 2_all seem to relate to the disposition of all the lands granted the State generally. Now, there are, I believe, sixteen or seventeen hundred thousand acres. Section 6 of the Enabling Act provides that upon the admission of the State certain sections or other lands equivalent thereto are granted the State for the support of common schools, such indemnity {1698} lands to be selected in the State in such manner as the Legislature may provide, with the approval of the secretary of the interior. Now, that may leave the question open, on that particular point, as to the school lands. Section 7 provides that upon admission of the State into the Union, one hundred sections of the unappropriated lands within the State shall be located and selected in legal subdivisions, as provided in section 6. Section 8 provides for, in addition to the above, 110,000 acres to be selected and located as provided in the foregoing sections of this act. Now, when you come to section 12, which provides for the granting of 1,150,000 acres of land, different language is used. It says that the land granted by this section shall be held, appropriated, and disposed of exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned, in such manner as the Legislature of the State may provide. Now, granting that you may put in your organic law whatever you choose about the school land, and very possibly one or two other grants, why it would seem by the expressed language of section 12, that at least as to

1,150,000 acres of land granted, the disposition of which is apparently contemplated in section 1 of this proposed article_it is to be left to the Legislature to be held, appropriated, and disposed of exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned, in such manner as the Legislature of the State may provide. Now, I think all these amendments ought to be disposed of, and this article ought either to be remodeled entirely or nearly all of it stricken out. There are reasons for that, too, without reference to the act of Congress. If you tie up the Legislature in the disposition of these public lands, sooner or later, the point will be reached in the business of the State, when it will be found to its disadvantage. It ought to be left, it seems to me, as a business proposition, to be controlled by the Legislature through the medium of proper laws.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Your idea is that the Legislature has the right to prescribe the manner in which these lands shall be sold?

Mr. VARIAN. That as to the larger grants, 1,150,000 acres, the provision is expressed that they shall be held, appropriated, and disposed of exclusively, for the purposes herein mentioned_in such manner_I hold that “in such manner” includes the time and price to the persons.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You don't hold that this Convention has not the power to fix the price, do you?

Mr. VARIAN. That is the construction I put upon it, but passing that, as a question of doubt, I hold it is a matter which ought to be left to the Legislature. I am not speaking of the school lands.

Mr. PIERCE. I would like to ask a question. Mr. Varian, do you see that there is any necessity of having any article at all in the Constitution?

Mr. VARIAN. I do not expect the first-_

Mr. PIERCE. I have prepared a section that I intend to offer_“Public lands and school lands may be disposed of in the manner provided by law” Would not that satisfy the whole thing?

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I should not take up any of the time of this Convention discussing this question, if I was satisfied both of these amendments would be voted down. I am not in favor of it. It certainly seems to me there are two sides to this question, and, as stated by one of the supporters of these amendments, no provision in the Constitution can do entire justice to all the settlers on these lands. Section 4 of the article reported by the committee provides that these lands shall be under the supervision and control of land commissioners elected by the people; that is, land commissioners shall {1699} locate and dispose of lands under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe. It seems that some of the people who have been occupying these lands have been paying taxes; others have not. Now, it seems to me, that while we should not do an injustice to any man or person occupying these lands, yet we should not do an injustice to others. For example, one person settles upon a quarter section_160 acres of school land. He pays absolutely nothing for it. He cultivates it, gets the use of it for thirty or forty years, without paying a dollar's taxes upon that land. Another person settles upon an adjoining 160 acres of land, pays the government price for the lands; pays the taxes upon the land, is deprived of the use

of that money that he paid for the land for these thirty years. Now, it is an injustice to the people who have paid for their land, when they obtained the land, to allow their neighbor, merely because they settled upon school lands, to pay now the government price for those lands, irrespective of the value of the lands. The person who paid $115 an acre for the land, say thirty years ago, has been deprived of the use of that money since then, and I do not know of a time in the history of Utah when money was worth but three per cent. Now, it is proposed in one of these amendments to let those who have settled upon school lands obtain title to those lands at $1.25 per acre or $1.50 per acre, with three per cent. per annum, while the man who obtained title to his land twenty-five or thirty years ago, has been deprived of the money he paid for the use of the land, which was worth ten, twelve, fifteen, and eighteen per cent. per annum. Now, it does seem to me, that if this disposition of the school lands is left to the Legislature, a law then can be passed which will enable these people who have settled upon school lands to receive justice. In Cache County, one condition of affairs exists with respect to the settlement of these lands. In Washington County, an entirely different condition exists with respect to the same lands; in Sanpete and Salt Lake County, other conditions. Now, it seems to me, that if this is left so that the Legislature can pass a law in pursuance of which a board of commissioners can dispose of these lands, then absolute justice can be done to all the people who have settled upon these lands; but I do not believe it is possible for this Convention to adopt a section or an article to this Constitution, which will do justice to all who have settled upon the lands. I would not knowingly do anything that would work an injustice to any man, but I do not believe it possible for us to provide in a Constitution for the disposition of these lands in such a way as to do absolute justice to all, and therefore I would favor the section as it is in preference to the amendments.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I presume that each locality and their conditions perhaps vary. While taking soma particular localities, I would be in favor of these amendments. I think the section provides all that it ought to provide for the regulating of this school land. The question that was raised by the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian), is a very good point, and I am forced to the conclusion that it will be necessary, in order to comply with the Enabling Act, for us to strike out all the latter part of section 1, but it does not reach the question as to school lands. I believe we have a right to fix the price and the mode by which the school lands may be disposed of. Now, it is presumed that we will place before the people as these school commissioners, men of good judgment, men that understand the values of land and property, who understand what is right and just between the people and the State, and I think that so far as putting a restriction upon the Legislature, which will be. compulsory upon the land commissioners_that section 4 {1700} will provide for all we ought to pass. That will compel them to regard and respect the improvements of those who have located, or who are now living upon those lands. They will be compelled to give them an opportunity, not that they might bid upon the land against their neighbor, but that they will fix a just and fair price, being governed by the conditions, and the circumstances of that particular locality, and then they will be obliged to give the opportunity to those who occupy these lands, of refusing that purchase price. Now, in the locality where I live, we have two sections of school land, and I have been thinking the matter over since listening to the remarks of the gentlemen upon this floor, and I can only call to mind one house that is now on either of those parcels of land. It has been regarded by the people that those lands were unsafe, that when we were admitted into the Union, those lands would have to be repurchased. Our city provided and operated under a law of Congress, and they have entered

one-half section, as an additional townsite entry, which has taken in all the land adjacent to the town, and on which people had built their homes. This opportunity has been presented to every town in this Territory. It was also provided by enactment of the Congress of the United States that there should be a specified time given whereby people might enter the lands that they were occupying, provided it was found to be school lands, after the survey, and I say that nine cases out of ten_I presume ninety-nine out of a hundred of that class of cases, that they have availed themselves of the opportunity that they have proceeded upon those lines and secured patents for their homes.

And I am in favor that this matter stand just as it was passed in the committee of the whole, that these amendments ought not to prevail, because whenever you fix a specific sum, which is proposed to be done in this amendment, there will be lands that are worth perhaps fifty dollars an acre in fair value, while other lands are not worth more than two dollars, or five, or as suggested by the gentleman from Cache County. I know that this is the case. Now, in our county, I have reason to know that there has been no assessment made upon the school lands, other than for improvements thereon. It has been asked if it was not a fact that we did not assess the improvements upon those lands, so that it would bring the whole valuation equal with those of the neighbor. I want to say, gentlemen, that that has not been the fact in Utah County. We have assessed those improvements separately, and the neighbor occupying a like position, so far as his improvements were concerned, has been assessed the same, and then, in addition to that, he that held the title for his land has been assessed for that land, and has paid the taxes thereon. Therefore, I am in favor of leaving this thing just as it came from the committee, that no harm might be done.

Mr. BOYER. I would like to ask the gentleman whether the school lands or any other in the county of Utah were assessed previous to the obtaining of title, the establishment of the land office in the Territory of Utah_any of our farming land?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I presume they were. But when the titles were obtained, then the distinction came.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I realize that this is a difficult matter with this Convention or the Legislature that may succeed this Convention, to set a price that will give satisfaction to all parties in the school land matter. While in one place there is one condition exists, in another there is entirely a different one existing. In the county that I came from, Emery County, there is a peculiar condition existing there. The town of Merritt, located somewhat in the center of our county, was built {1701} right abutting against the school section, and by a special act of Congress, they were granted that school section for townsite purposes, and they had it given to them, as I understand it, at the government price, $1.25 per acre, with of course the expense, pro rata, attached to that, but that was the price. Now, in Carbon County, of which Price is the county seat, it is also built abutting on a school section. Of course, the townsite does not lap over, but the people have claimed school land there, or at least have occupied it, and built upon it the whole length of that town, and if that land now shall be charged to them at a high price, they will be unable to obtain the title to it, and consequently will have to abandon it, because they are poor people. And in other parts of the county, school sections are occupied for farming and

agricultural purposes. Now, the question arises in my mind and in this wise, that the water in this Territory and the counties thereof, is pretty much, if not all, already occupied, or taken or claimed. Now, if these people should be compelled to pay what would be termed an exorbitant price for the school land, and would have to move away, that would of necessity and actually take away the water they have applied to that land, and that would deteriorate the value of the land back, almost to its original price, before they ever touched it. Therefore, I am in favor that the parties that are occupying the school lands_that it shall be made just as easy to them, as it is possible for it, under the circumstances, to be done.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I cannot say that I am not in sympathy with the principle contained in these amendments, but it is quite evident to me since the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian) raised the point on the Enabling Act, that either this whole matter should be left to the Legislature, or at least, if we want to reach the school question at all, recommit it to the committee for that purpose. We certainly cannot fix it at this time in this committee. Now, we find in line with what he said, that pretty nearly all of the article, or down to the point where this amendment is proposed, is beyond the power of this Convention. You see in section 1 it undertakes to deal with the public lands in their entirety, not school lands alone, but all lands of the State, or that may hereafter be granted to the State by Congress, and all lands acquired by gift, grant, or devise, from any person or corporation, or that may otherwise be acquired, are accepted and shall be the public lands of the State, and shall be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as hereinafter provided. Now, as he has called our attention to section 12 of the Enabling Act, the last paragraph of that section, which distinctly said that the lands granted by this section (which are a very large body of land), shall be held, appropriated and disposed of exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned, in such manner as the Legislature of the State may provide
not as this Convention may provide. Now, as we have undertaken in this article to deal with all the lands and we have made no exceptions whatever, it is evident that we have mixed up that which we have perhaps the power to do with that which we have no power to do, and consequently we have got, it seems to me, to strike the whole article out, or at least all except the following:

All lands of the State that have been or that may hereafter be granted to the State, by Congress, and all lands acquired by gift, grant, or devise, from any person or corporation, or that may otherwise be acquired, are hereby accepted, and shall be the public lands of the State, and shall be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as may be provided by law.

Mr. MALONEY. What section are you reading from in the Enabling Act?

Mr. MALONEY. Section 6 is what deals with the school question.

Mr. THURMAN. I understand, but I am calling the attention of the Convention to the fact that so far as we have proceeded in this article, we are undertaking to deal with all the lands, and the Enabling Act says we cannot in this Convention provide for disposing of at least a part of the lands, so that we have got to do this work all over or else leave the whole thing to the Legislature, after simply accepting the grants which they have made or may make, and for that reason, I will, if it is not in order now, at the proper time, move that either this matter be recommitted or I will move to strike out all of the article after_

The PRESIDENT. It seems to me, from the statement of the gentleman, the consideration of these propositions any further is simply a waste of our time.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I wish to say I shall move at the proper time to strike out all after the word acquire, in line 10, and add “as may be provided by law,” and strike out the words “as may hereafter be provided,” in line 8.

Mr. THORESON, Mr. President, being as this is prospective, I think that it would be safe to do something for the present. I agree with the gentleman that this whole matter should be left to the Legislature. We might get along without it, but we have now provided by this section that all these lands should be disposed of for full market value, and gentlemen, to go to the people that way in the condition that we talk of here, and tell them that they are to pay a full market value for these homes, and this land, would merely be to tell them that we are going to injure them, and they would look upon it as being greatly injured, and they would vote against the Constitution. I am opposed to the price, because the price of the land, at the time it was settled upon, varied. Some was worth a dollar and a half, and some perhaps ten dollars, and occupants would not object to paying the full value at the time, but I also object to the time as proposed in the substitute here, because it does not cover all the circumstances and the conditions. Now, I believe that the conditions are very similar. I have not heard any disagreement. These sections where they have become parts of cities or towns, or in the valleys, have been subdivided into five and ten acre lots. Some of the smarter men, as soon as they ascertained that these were school lands, sold them to the more innocent, and perhaps ignorant, in the communities, and they have retained them and cultivated them and built upon them, in a great many instances.

Now, these people should be defended in these rights, and we should tell them in this Convention that we have protected them. I say that they are the poor in the majority of cases, in our county. Their lots were principally in five and ten acre lots, and I back the gentleman that in a great number of cases were widows and the poor, very little in the hands of the wealthy and {1703} the rich, because, as I say, they have sold out these lands, and have taken advantage of getting lands they could obtain better titles to. I am opposed to letting this go over at this time, that the Legislature might provide that these lands must be sold at the full market value. Let us provide it. Neither the Legislature nor the commission, provided for in this article, could change that. Hence, I say here, it provides that they should be sold at prices that my substitute or amendment

to the section provides; that sections 16 and 36 of school lands may be sold to actual occupants thereof, at the value of such lands prior to their occupancy, whether that be early or late. If they are occupying these lands, let them be sold to them at the value they were or had at the time they entered upon them. if that was in 1870, all right; if it was in 1890, all right. As long as they are occupying those lands in good faith, let them dispose of them at the value at that specified time when they entered upon them, and think no injustice will be done to the people, and I do not believe that a dollar will be lost to the school fund.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I wish to offer an amendment to Mr. Evans's substitute, as follows:

Provided, that bona fide occupants of such lands prior to the year 1870, may acquire title thereto at the sum of $1.50 per acre, together with interest added thereto, at the rate of three per cent. per annum from said date.

The previous question was ordered.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the house is on the amendment of Mr. Evans, with an amendment to the amendment, by Mr. Thoreson.

The amendment, and the amendment to the amendment were rejected.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, move to strike it out. It is in conflict with the Enabling Act.
Mr. Chidester offered the following amendment to the section, to add to the end of the section:
Provided that in the selection or location of school lands, the superintendent of schools of the county in which the land is to be located to be sold is situated, shall be associated as a member of said board.

The amendment was rejected.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Section 6 was read.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, if that is the end of the article, I now move to strike out all of this article after the word “acquired,” in line 10 of the first section. Strike out the words, “as hereinafter provided,” in line 8, adding to that, “as may be provided by law.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, I want to move now that the article on school lands he referred back to the committee to report on.

Mr. HART Mr. President, I move that the consideration of this article be postponed until to- morrow.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move the previous question on the article.

The previous question was ordered.

The roll was then called on the adoption of the article with the following result:

AYES_87.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Larsen, L.
Lemmon
Lewis
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Lund
Maeser
Mackintosh
Maloney
{1704 - CORPORATIONS}
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver

NOES_4.
Jolley    
Pierce
Robertson
Stover.

ABSENT_15.
Buys
Crane
Goodwin
Keith
Lambert
Larsen, C. P.
Low, Cache
Miller
Moritz
Nebeker
Peters
Ryan
Thatcher
Van Horne
Whitney.

During the roll call, the following statements were made:

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, I feel that the article on school lands_the section should have been considered fa

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I want to give notice of a reconsideration.

Mr. RICKS. Mr. President, I move a suspension of the rules and a reconsideration of the vote on the adoption of the article on corporations other than municipal.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move an amendment to it, then, that we reconsider the article and not suspend the rules.

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 60 ayes to 19 noes, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move the previous question on the article now.

The previous question was ordered.

The roll was then called on the adoption of the article with the following result:

AYES_74.
Adams
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Crane
Cunningham
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lambert
Larsen, L.
Lemmon
Lewis
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Lund

NOES_19.
Call
Corfman
Creer
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Hammond
Haynes
Halliday
Kiesel
Murdock, Wasatch
Pierce
Preston
Richards
Roberts
Sharp
Spencer
Thoreson
Thurman
Whitney.

ABSENT_13.
Buys
Goodwin
Keith
Larsen, C. P.
Low, Cache
Miller
Moritz
Nebeker
Peters
Ryan
Snow
Thatcher
Van Horne.

During the roll call the following statements were made:

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, I vote aye for the main article, but desire to be noted as no against sections 25 and 26 being stricken out.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, because of the Convention striking out 23 and also 25, I vote no upon this article.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I would like to change my vote from no to aye, but I wish to be recorded as being opposed to section 21.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I will vote no, the same as I did yesterday.

The PRESIDENT. The article has been adopted.

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

AFTERNOON SESSION.

On motion of Mr. Kimball, of Weber, the consideration of the article entitled public salaries was postponed and the Convention proceeded to the third reading of the article entitled public buildings and State institutions.

Sections 1, 2, and 3 were read.

Mr. CORFMAN. Mr. President, I move to strike out of section 3 the words “Salt Lake City,” and insert the words “Provo City.” I desire to say a few words on this proposition, as a member of the committee on public buildings and institutions. I was in favor of leaving the location of the capital of the new State to the people. I thought it was fitting and proper after the delegates in this Convention had made and drafted the State Constitution, that the whole people should be permitted a say as to where their seat of government should be. Provo City has presented her claims to past Legislatures, to have the capital locate there, but she did not see fit to come into this Convention and urge upon the floors what might be a sectional matter, and the people there were willing to leave it to a vote of the whole people. As Salt Lake City has seen fit to come into the Convention, not only in the Convention, but in the committee, and present her claim and insist that at this time it should be settled in favor of Salt Lake City, I think it is due to my own town, as long as the people there believe that they have some claims for her, to present it on the floor of this Convention. I do not anticipate from what took place here Saturday that we will have any great support, but I believe it due to {1706} Provo City that her name should be mentioned in connection with this proposition.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, if I remember right, the time specified therein for the appropriation of public funds is five years.

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, I move to strike out five and substitute ten, in section 3, making it impossible for the Legislature to make any appropriation for public buildings until after ten years. It appears that the location is permanently and positively established for the capital at Salt Lake.

While upon my feet, I will say that as to natural appearances from the present population and the advantages of the Territory, it would appear as though Salt Lake is the proper place for this capital, but in the future it might be different; however, I will not argue that. Now, what we are here for is for the purpose of creating a Constitution that the people may adopt, and I believe that if this question of appropriation for a capitol be put in for ten years, it will be to a greater satisfaction to our whole constituencies, than it will be to make it possible for an appropriation within five years. Now, it is evident that as a new State, we will be assuming great financial responsibility, in order to make the people within the whole State satisfied that there will be no incurring of debt, that there will be no measure adopted for the building of a capitol within our new State for the period of ten years_it will give a greater zest to the Constitution, and people will be more willing to vote for the Constitution than they will if there is a possibility of incurring a debt that otherwise may be incurred by the Legislature. I know that men here will argue upon this floor that the Legislature will do nothing of the kind; that they are men of wisdom, and will be men of wisdom, when elected to that honorable body, Now, I grant you, Mr. President, that this may be true, and no doubt will be true, but judging the future by the past, we have had much of the measure of wisdom in the Legislature, and we find that our Territory to-day is laboring under a debt of nearly eight hundred thousand dollars, and we desire that the great wisdom that may be in that Legislature in the future to say, limit it, then that they will have no possible power to incur this debt, within ten years, and in doing this, we will accord to our constituency a satisfaction that I think will compensate all of Utah County, all south of Salt Lake, for the final locating of the capital here in Salt Lake City. I believe it will be for the advantage of the citizens of the Territory when they know that the Legislature is prohibited from making appropriation for capitol purposes within the period of ten years.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I am in favor of locating the capital at Salt Lake City. I do that for this reason: That it is the center of population in this Territory, and must be the center of population for years to come, and I think that it is wisdom for this Convention to locate it permanently at Salt Lake City, so that the question of capital shall not be a football between Legislatures that may meet hereafter. I am further in favor of locating it at Salt Lake City, without any limitation upon appropriation. Now, I have had the honor to be a member of two Legislatures of this Territory heretofore, and I know that in those two Legislatures, Salt Lake City was not in danger of getting any appropriation. My friend Evans was in the Legislature at that time, and on a conference committee of that Legislature, and I know that he and I both agreed on that thing, that Salt Lake City should not have any appropriation, so I think you can safely leave it.

Mr. BOYER. Was there not in the {1707} last Legislature an appropriation made and expended on Capitol Hill here?

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). That was two thousand dollars for some specific purpose. It was not for the building of a capitol or anything of the kind.

Mr. BOYER. Well, expended on those grounds?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). And if the gentleman will allow me, that was to give unemployed labor that were clamoring here at the doors of Salt Lake City and Ogden City, for labor, men who were

starving and had to have something to live upon, and they applied to the Legislature to have an appropriation made, and that appropriation was made in pursuance of it.

Mr. BOYER. Was there not the Legislature previous some five thousand dollars appropriated to be expended on capitol grounds?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I don't remember the amount. There was some appropriation made for expenditure on capitol grounds, but that was a different proposition from building capitol buildings, and I don't think that you ought to restrict the Legislature in the way of capitol buildings.

Mr. BOYER. Would the gentleman vote for an appropriation for the purpose of employing tramp labor that may happen to come into the community; is that the position?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). No, sir; I was opposed to it when it was appropriated before. I would be opposed to it all the time and everlastingly, as far as I am concerned. Salt Lake City had to bear all the burdens of the tramp laborers that came in here at that time.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I submit to the Convention that we ought not to be continually threshing over this straw. No good can be accomplished by it. I do not apprehend for a moment that it is the purpose of this Convention to change the location in any way of the capital city at this time. But there has been a matter overlooked heretofore, or at least not mentioned, which ought to be considered, namely, section 7 of the Enabling Act. 100 sections, or 64,000 acres of land, have been granted to the Territory of Utah for the purpose of erecting public buildings, and the capitol of the State, when permanently located, for legislative, executive, and judicial purposes. Now, ought the purpose of gentlemen to be to restrict the permanent location of this capital and by that means indefinitely or for a long period of years to tie up this grant of land and deprive the people of this coming State of the revenue that may be derived through their sale as occasion may offer? Practically remove them from settlement during all this time_64,000 acres of land subject to selection by the State, which we hope will be imperatively demanded by settlers within the very near future? Why should you have any restrictions upon this matter? It is open to the people at any time by a majority vote to change the capital. You certainly shall desire to avail yourselves of all these grants of public lands, and we have not too much land now in the Territory open to exploration and development. Whenever we find an acre or a number of acres that can be subjected to the uses of man for agricultural or other purposes, we have reason to hope that it will be sought for, and we certainly have reason to expect that it will be permitted to be yielded for those purposes. Now, if this proviso even to the extent of five years shall remain, for five years at least, 64,000 acres of land, which may be selected by this State, or the Legislature thereof, in pursuance of its authority, will remain just in that condition, not open to settlement_that is not settlement in the full sense_simply open to the squatter, perhaps to skin it, as was suggested this morning by my friend from San Juan_for his present temporary purposes, but not open for {1708} the purpose of building up homes and communities.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You do not contend, do you, that the Legislature would not have the right to make disposition of these capitol lands and procure the money and create a sinking fund, for

the purpose of-_

Mr. VARIAN. Yes, I do; I contend this, that the moment the capital is permanently located, as it ought to be, in the Constitution of the State, without restriction, except in so far as it is a restriction concerning future amendments of the Constitution, the Legislature can provide for the selection and location of these lands, as provided in the subsequent section, and for the sale of them and the reduction into money of their value, and in the meantime, it is accomplishing its purpose at both ends. It is getting the moneys for the public buildings, and it is opening up these otherwise undeveloped lands to the purpose of the settler, and in that way, building up the community and the State. You have nothing to fear. Every gentleman, if he will stop and reflect a moment, knows that whenever the necessities of the community shall require it, the people will make this change, and will remove the capital. So, what is the use, I submit to you, of arguing this matter day after day, when we ought to be able to decide one way or the other and decide it permanently? We decided the other day it was to remain in Salt Lake City for the present, at least.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Is it the proposition now to take the capital away from Salt Lake?

The PRESIDENT. No, sir; it is simply to change the date from five to ten years.

Mr. VARIAN. Well, that is a postponement of the sale of these lands.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I am a little surprised, after the consideration this matter received a few days ago, to hear gentlemen stand upon the floor of this house, and as it were, resurrect it again. I presumed that the matter was then settled. I placed myself on record upon the occasion, as being against any condition, so far as the establishing of the seat of government was concerned in the new State, and I am also of that same mind to-day. Yet, at the same time, to satisfy some of the gentlemen upon the floor of this house, it was thought proper and perhaps wise to restrict this matter and place a limit of five years. I had in mind at that time the section that has been referred to by the gentleman from Salt Lake, with regard to the grants of land that have been so generously given to the State by the national government, and I hold that if this thing is not permanently located and settled at this time, we will not be able to avail ourselves of these privileges, and I trust that we will not go over the same ground again. If I should give expression to my views at this time, I would certainly move to strike out the five year consideration, and I will so move, Mr. President.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I move the previous question.

The motion for the previous question was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I wish to call attention for a moment to section 7 of the Enabling Act. I do not believe that this section 7 is so intended that it would defeat the appropriation. I think that that is merely a subterfuge for the purpose of securing the location of the capital here, without any other provision, and I do not say that offensively either. It simply provides that upon the admission of the State into the Union, in accordance with the provisions

of this act, one hundred sections of the unappropriated lands within the State are to be located and selected. Now, that is simply a grant of these lands for this particular purpose; it simply does not say when we shall sell these lands_ {1709} when we shall appropriate the money for the building of the capitol. I hope the amendment will prevail. It will simply put at rest this vexed question.

The roll being called on the amendment offered by Mr. Heybourne, the result was as follows:

AYES_50.
Adams
Anderson
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Crane
Cushing
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Farr
Green
Hammond
Haynes
Heybourne
Hill
Hyde
James
Kiesel
Kearns
Kerr
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lambert
Larsen, L.
Lewis
Lowe, Peter
Mackintosh
Maloney
McFarland
Morris
Murdock, Beaver

NOES_36.
Allen
Barnes
Boyer
Call
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Francis
Hart
Halliday
Howard
Hughes
Johnson
Jolley
Lemmon
Lowe, Wm.
Lund
Maeser
Maughan
Murdock, Wasatch
Murdock, Summit
Partridge
Peterson, Grand
Peterson, Sanpete
Roberts
Robertson

ABSENT_20.
Buys
Cannon
Emery
Gibbs
Goodwin
Ivins
Keith
Larsen, C. P.
Low, Cache
Miller
Moritz
Nebeker
Peters
Pierce
Ricks
Ryan
Thatcher
Van Horne
Wells
Whitney.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment of Mr. Heybourne is carried.

Section 6 was read.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). Mr. President, I move to amend that section by reinserting subdivision fifth, with these words added, “the institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind, at the city of Ogden, in the county of Weber.” I do that for this reason, that I think the city of Ogden is the most central location that you could find in this Territory for that institution. One thing that moves me to make that motion is this, that neither the states of Wyoming, Nevada, or Montana, have an institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind, and they have in their legislative report heretofore recommended Utah as the place to send the pupils of that character.

Mr. MALONEY. And so has Idaho.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). And so has Idaho. And I say for that reason that we should locate these

universities on the line of the transcontinental communication between all of the states, so that we could have a chance to get the custom of those states. I say it for another reason, that Ogden City is in itself located on all of the great lines of transcontinental communication that run from one part of the United States to another, and this is in accord with the recommendation of the president of that institution, or the man who is superintendent of that institu-at this time. I say it for another reason, that Ogden City to-day has {1710} buildings amply sufficient, belonging to the State, to accommodate all these pupils, and I have no doubt in my own mind that Ogden City, if it became necessary, could secure other buildings for the purpose of accommodating other pupils that are now located at Salt Lake City. And I submit, gentlemen, that my amendment ought to carry here and that institution be permanently located. I will call attention to another fact, that here the other day we passed a resolution, or an arti-ticle [*note*], taking away from the deaf and dumb the building they are now occupying, which cost fifty-five thousand dollars, and transferred it to the university, so that that institution is left to-day without any building. If you are going now to locate the university, and locate it at some place where you have no buildings, you have got to appropriate at least a hundred thousand dollars to erect buildings suitable for the purpose, and I submit, gentlemen, that you ought to carry my amendment.

Mr. LUND. What buildings have you in mind? You said you have buildings ample?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I have the reform school building in mind when I say we have buildings ample for that purpose, and the superintendent or president of the deaf and dumb institute here in Salt Lake has been there and examined those buildings, and he tells me that those buildings will be ample for ten to twenty years to come for the accommodation of all pupils that may be sent up there.

Mr. L. LARSEN. Mr. President, I make a motion to amend Mr. Kimball's motion by inserting “in the county of Sanpete, the site to be located by the Legislature.” Sanpete County is the central part of Utah Territory; it is a county that contains toward fifteen thousand people. We have no State institution in that county of any kind, and as I understand that the county of Weber has now one State institution, namely, the reform school, which the gentleman from Ogden seems to think that it would be more proper to use for the deaf and dumb and blind institute. I do not know what he expects to do with the pupils of the reform school, if he intends to bring them to Sanpete or turn them out in the street at large. Now, I do not know that we have any particular inducements to offer to this Convention, because we have not consulted our people in Sanpete County in regard to this; but we have no doubt if this Convention should say that it should be located in Sanpete County, but what the place, whenever it may be designated by the Legislature, will do something in regard to the building up and encouragement, etc., and give inducements to this institution, if it so shall be desired by this Convention to locate it in Sanpete. We think that Sanpete is entitled to some consideration in this matter, and we hope that this Convention will cautiously weigh this matter before they decide, and if it should seem proper or better for this Convention to leave it entirely to the Legislature in the future, I do not know that I should object to this move, but I certainly should oppose establishing another institution in one county where they already have one, before Sanpete should be recognized. And I do hope that there are others that will look at it in that way, on the floor of this Convention. We think that we ought to have some public institution there, and we desire not only to see a few towns in Utah built up_these

large cities are able to take care of themselves, as a rule. They are able to draw towards their center the money, which no doubt they are all at this time willing to concede the members of this Convention_the thirty thousand dollars that has come from Uncle Sam will all stay in Salt Lake, and most every dollar else that we got. They all roll into Salt Lake and to these great centers. And I suppose Ogden is one in the northern {1711} part of this Territory the same way. Now, we want the outside counties, as It were, who have not the facilities_we think that it is statesman_like and that men of this Convention will show themselves to be statesmen if they will properly guard against monopolizing everything in a few places, and would give encouragement to other parts of the Territory which need encouragement. We want to build up and to add to, etc., to other places besides these central points.

Mr. MAESER. Mr. President, I fully acknowledge the justice of the claim of Sanpete County for some consideration in the location of one of our public institutions, but I hold that the mere location or the mere claim of a county, or any particular locality, in being favored with the location of one of our public institutions, is not the first consideration. We have to consider the welfare of the respective institutions that are under consideration. Now, we are talking here of the deaf, dumb and blind_these unfortunates, Their well, being has to be considered. Here we have the blind. Their strongest connection with life is music; they should be located in a neighborhood where they have the advantages of musical entertainments, operas, concerts, and once in a while the opportunity to hear good musicians coming around. That is to be considered. They would not have that privilege in Sanpete. Then the deaf and dumb, their connection with life is by sight. They ought to be located in such a way, in such a locality, where they can see something once in a while. To locate them in a locality where things are moving rather in a monotonous way from one year's end to another is an injustice_to them. I could not, as far as I am familiar with the life of the deaf and dumb, and with the life of the blind_I would consider it a cruelty to locate such unfortunates in localities where the life passes away in a monotonous way all the year round. They ought to be placed in such a way where their particular propensities are taken care of, and can be supplied with. Therefore, I could not conscientiously vote for a location for the deaf and dumb and blind in a locality like Sanpete.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I think there is some right in the request that Sanpete makes to-day for that institution. As has been said. if we are going to put the blind man where he could have the greatest pleasure of his ears for music, why Salt Lake is the only place then for that institution. If it is so necessary that they who are deaf and dumb must see a great deal of the works of man, Salt Lake is the only place for the institution; but I submit that we cannot afford to centralize everything within this county, nor can we afford to give two institutions to a county when it has already one, and there is a county as large as the one and as populous as the one that has a State institution on the north, which has no State institution. I think this distribution is a matter of right. Sanpete has all the railroads of the Territory, if you please, with trains daily passing to and from that county. The climate is good. We are a little higher than Salt Lake, and we have not such hot summers, but it does not seem that our winters are any colder. Perhaps we are a week later in our vegetation, in the springtime; the air is not stirred by wind very often; the breezes are very gentle and pleasant, and the water from the mountains is very clear and it is very pure.

Mr. LUND. Well, perhaps we took some of the wind out of the county when we came. I want to say that our market, butter, beef, mutton, flour, and vegetables are very cheap down there_ {1712} cheaper than they are perhaps in any other part of the Territory. Our coal costs but half what it costs in Salt Lake City or in Ogden, if I am rightly informed. We can have it laid down at the institution for two dollars and a half a ton, and our building material is very plentiful. You could build a building that would be suited to all of the needs, and the cost would not be a great deal. Now, I want to say for Sanpete that we are not behind the rest of the Territory when it come to music, gentlemen. Our orchestras_several of them, in Sanpete, are equal to any that I have heard outside of Salt Lake City. We have an excellent brass band, and amusement, and concerts are very numerous during the winter season, and these blind people would be able to have all the amusement that they could spare time for, I believe, from their training. Now, that is all. We ought not to establish the rule as outside members to centralize this. You see readily if Sanpete gets the institution that the next county in population will stand a good show to get some other institution when they are given out, because we have adopted the rule of distributing them, but if Sanpete is left without one, those outside members will see that when there is an institution given after this time, we will have a first claim, and perhaps then the rule will be to keep them at all events in the great centers of population, and I think that we ought to break that rule here and now, and Sanpete stands a good show. I have an inducement to offer for Sanpete, but it is for a particular locality, and I would like you to settle the right giving Sanpete an institution before I offer that inducement. However, that is from my town, and as soon as you vote upon this question, however it goes, I shall move an amendment to the motion if we lose it, and I will if we do not lose it, but that will be too selfish perhaps to introduce into this argument, for the county at large.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, I feel a little awkward in supporting this motion to locate this asylum for the deaf, dumb, and blind, in the north, as I hail from the south, but the gentleman here on my right suggested we take the statesman view of it_that is economy, and locate this institution down in San Juan [laughter]_excuse me_Sanpete County, because they had a beautiful site, not yet determined as our young friend tells us, and that is one of the strongest reasons that I would urge against the proposition to locate it in Sanpete, for they will be buzzing around the Legislature, and as a fight between Ephraim and Manassa, and those other places, and trying to lobby to get it at Ephraim, or Spring City, and this would make confusion among the saints there [laughter]_excuse me, amongst the citizens of Sanpete. Now, there is another view I take of it. The proposition offered by our distinguished democratic friend, Mr. Kiesel, from Ogden, the other day, that he would vouch for the citizens of Ogden offering a suitable site with all the buildings that were necessary, free for the location of this institution in Ogden. Now, that I view as a piece of statesmanship again, to keep the people from hovering around the Legislature for appropriations continually; now Mr. Kiesel is a gentleman that I have had a great deal of acquaintance with for a long time_business relations of different natures, and I believe he is a man of his word; but, sir, the worst thing that I have against him in the world was his introducing me about six years ago to a friend of his by the name of Fred Dubois, when we were in Washington. That gentleman said he did not want to locate alongside of Utah, and represented

Utah as being the South where the negroeswere, and that is the worst thing that Kiesel ever did to me in the world.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, ever since the question of locating the public institutions {1713} was before the committee, I have been in favor of locating permanently all of our public institutions. I was in favor of locating the capital. I was in favor of uniting and locating permanently our higher educational institutions. I am in favor, in the Constitution, of providing for the permanent location of the institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind. I think they should be provided for. It has been stated that in the location of our public institutions, certain localities should receive recognition, and the statesmanship of the delegates has been appealed to by the gentleman from Sanpete County upon this subject. It is my opinion that we are here working, not for any particular town or county, but in the interests of the new State, and the question is not as to the benefits to be derived from the location of the particular institutions in a particular town or county, but as to what is in the interests of the State, with respect to the location of these institutions. A year ago, when the question of locating or removing the reform school from its present building, and also the institution for the deaf and dumb from the university, was under discussion, Mr. Metcalf, principal of the deaf and dumb school, visited Ogden, and carefully inspected the buildings there. He informed me personally that those buildings are ample for all the work of the institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind. The present building occupied by that institution is inadequate. I am familiar with the works of that institution, and I know that it is inadequate. The buildings at Ogden, I believe are sufficiently large to accommodate all the students of this institution. There are, in my judgment, many reasons why the institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind, should not be located in Sanpete County_many reasons why it would be in the interests of these unfortunates to have the institution located at Ogden. Some of the reasons have been stated, and I do not care to state them again, but by locating this institution at Ogden, in the first place, you would save to the State at least, in my judgment, a hundred thousand dollars, which otherwise would have to be expended in the direction of buildings. The present building cost about sixty-five thousand dollars. That is entirely inadequate for the deaf and dumb. Now, if the institution also provides facilities for the blind, it would require at least thirty or forty thousand dollars more to erect suitable buildings. The university of Utah at present has not room for the work. If the institution for the deaf, dumb, and blind should be located at Ogden, the present building could be vacated and the university would unite that building, which is worth, as I take it, about sixty-five thousand dollars, a gain, therefore, to the State of that amount. I believe, in the interests of the deaf, dumb, and blind, in the economical interests of the State, that we should locate this institution now and locate it at Ogden.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, the last speaker just about spoke my mind. The main feature in this discussion, or in the object we have before us at the present time, is what the last speaker has introduced. That is, expediency, on account of the finances. If we locate it on some ground or county where there is no public building, or place to establish that school, why.the Territory has to go to expense to build the buildings, or else the deaf and dumb and the blind cannot get the proper education. It would be some_I do not know how many_years before we would be prepared to build for them. We know that we are very much in debt at the present time and will be very much embarrassed for years to come before we can be prepared to build a suitable building for that institution. Now, I think, if Sanpete be given some public improvement, {1714}

I would like to see them have it. I would like to see San Juan have It, and all these other counties, have public improvement, as much as consistent, but the question is now, the matter of expediency. It has been repeated, it is not necessary for me to say it again, that Ogden is a central city; it is the center of all the railroad systems of this intermountain country; the buildings are already built_that is, the military academy is already built; it is a pleasentand nice location, and here is the reform school building, which is a question with me whether that is a success yet. It has been a great expense, and it is one of the most sightly places to be found in the Territory. In case that should be vacated as a reform school, there will be that building and a vast amount of improvements on that, and the deaf and dumb and blind will go there; hence, as we have got those buildings, I do not feel to put the Territory in debt in the future to establish that institution_why, to me, it looks most reasonable that we had better take Ogden, irrespective of counties or wishes of other people, which I would like to respect, all of them, as much as I can.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, as far as I am individually concerned, it will make no difference to me if this institution went to Sanpete or to any other proper locality, if it were not for the question of expense to the new State, but the reform school at present amounts to but very little, and that building is amply sufficient for the purposes of deaf, and dumb, and blind, and sufficient too, for, a great many years in the future, probably for nearly a quarter of a century, if not longer. There is more money appropriated there, I think, than as suggested. The original building and grounds cost seventy-five thousand dollars, which was appropriated by the Legislature, I think, in 1888.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. Evans, I would like to say that the annex building cost twenty-five thousand dollars; that would make a hundred thousand dollars appropriated so far for that reform school, outside of maintenance.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Those buildings belong to the Territory and of course would belong to the new State, and there would be absolutely no expense for putting up public buildings for this purpose. So far as Ogden is concerned, it is amply able to take care of itself, if it has none of these institutions at all. We are not here begging for it; we are simply asking for it on business principles.

Mr. ANDERSON. What would become of the reform school if that building was occupied_

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). The Legislature would have to provide for that if desired. There are only a few children there. They might be provided for in the penitentiary at Salt Lake, or some other place at some separate place from the ordinary criminals. Now, Mr. Kiesel, as has been stated, is a man of his word in business matters. No man disputes that; he controls the military academy; he is willing, he says, to give that building for these purposes. I think, however, it would be better to make the exchange and let the next Legislature do it. Put the reform school boys in the military academy, because that is peculiarly appropriate for that kind of an institution. Put the deaf and dumb and blind in the reform school building. There the Territory would be provided, gentlemen, for years and years to come, without applying to the Legislature for one dollar of public moneys for additional buildings. It seems to me as a matter of business principles, that it ought to go to Ogden, and I will call attention to section 12 of the Enabling Act, which appropriates one

hundred thousand dollars for the reform school and one hundred thousand acres of laud for the deaf, dumb, and blind. These institutions ought to be located, I think, anyway. I am like Mr. Kerr {1715} about it, locate them now, on the same principle that you located the capital. Now, just one word about the number of institutions in Ogden. It has one, that is all, one which amounts to but very little, and about which we care but little. Salt Lake has four very important public buildings, or public institutions, rather. There is the capitol, university, fair grounds, and the penitentiary. We are only asking for two, and I will tell you, gentlemen, frankly, I would not ask for those if it were not for the fact that we have the buildings, and it will be a saving to the new State.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I move the previous question.

The motion for the previous question was rejected.

Mr. THURMAN. I desire to ask for information, if any provision has been passed by the Convention separating the deaf mute school from the university?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I will say that there was in this respect, Mr. President, that they transferred the building now occupied by the deaf mutes to the university, and left the deaf mutes without any accommodation whatever.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will call at-tion to section 10 of the educational article.

Mr. THURMAN. Now, Mr. President, I take no part in this fight at all. It is simply a matter in which I have no personal interest, and I do not know what would be for the best good of the Territory, but by existing law, the deaf mute institute is a part of the university as established at Salt Lake City. The question is, whether we want to go back and remodel our work and make those changes, or whether we want to leave it as a part of the university. I merely raise the point.
Mr. KERR. Is it not true that the deaf and dumb institution has been connected with the university merely because there were accommodations at no other place, and the regents for years have been trying to get it separated from the university, as it is in no way connected with the work of the university?

Mr. THURMAN. I merely make the point that by the existing laws of the Territory, it is a part of the university, and if we want to separate it we must do it distinctly in this article; in fact better go back to that article, and take the deaf mute institute from the university in the article on education, if we are going to establish it elsewhere. As between Sanpete and Ogden, I have no choice.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I am not clear as to the point that Mr. Thurman raised on this matter, and I would like to receive information or light on this matter before I am prepared to cast my vote. However, I would say this, I am in favor of settling the location of these public buildings right here and permanently. I have had some little experience in regard to the pressure that was brought to bear upon the Legislature of the Territory of Utah from time to time in relation to the claims of the various districts in the Territory, upon these territorial institutions,

and say that it should be settled now and forever. I will state, in this connection, that Iron County has no very great inducement to offer. We are willing to concede any little claims we may have to those more populous districts. There is no labor, gentlemen, that touches my sympathy so much as when we are called upon to provide for the unfortunates in our midst, and I claim that in doing so, we should be reasonably liberal, and in the selections that we may make we should seek to have them in such a way that their surroundings may be as happy and as agreeable to them as it is possible for us to do. I am very favorable so far with the proposition that has been made from the county on the north_Weber, and unless there is some matter presented here that will satisfy {1716} me on the point which Mr. Thurman has raised, I shall certainly vote to sustain the proposition that has been presented from Weber County, as I think the surroundings and situation would add more to the comfort of those who are so unfortunate as to be cared for in these institutions.

The amendment of Mr. L. Larsen was rejected.

The motion of Mr. Kimball, of Weber, was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I desire to offer the following as section 7:

There shall be no appropriation for State capitol building for the term of four years.

The PRESIDENT. The chair is of the opinion the point of order is well taken.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I desire to offer in the sixth subdivision here the folio wing:

The state normal school shall be established at Ephraim, Sanpete County.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I think, by motion of Judge Goodwin, it was expressed by the Convention, that the normal school should not be located at the same place as the university.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. President, I desire to make an amendment to that motion, that it be established at Beaver_Fort Cameron.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I would like to say just a word, and that is this, that if you will give us a state institution, the city council of Ephraim City, by communication this morning, said that for any state institution they offered one block within the city of Ephraim, with city water

rights_eight acres_very little smaller than the block occupied by this building, worth in the least, even five thousand dollars.

The amendment of Mr. Murdock, of Beaver, was rejected.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I raise this point of order, that the motion of Mr. Lund is not in order, for this reason, that it is not germane to the subject that we have under consideration. The article that we have under consideration is public buildings and state institutions. They are all defined in the article. In the article on education, the state normal school was taken up and disposed of, and it is not pertinent to this issue to bring up the state normal school in connection with this article.

Mr. JOLLEY. I rise to a point of order, that the gentleman is too late.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order on this question, that in the article on education one of the sections provided that the establishment of state normal schools was left to the Legislature, and in order to get this motion carried it would be necessary, sir, to reconsider that disposition of that question, and that cannot be done, as I understand it, at this stage without a two-thirds vote.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's point of order is well taken.

The roll being called on the adoption of the article entitled public buildings and state institutions, the result was as follows:

AYES_84.
Adams    
Allen    
Anderson    
Barnes    
Bowdle    
Lemmon
Lewis
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Lund
{1717 - FINAL REVISION}
Brandley
Button
Call
Chidester
Clark
Coray
Crane
Creer

NOES_4.
Boyer
Corfman
Jolley
Larsen, L.

ABSENT_18.
Buys
Cannon
Christiansen
Emery
Gibbs
Ivins
Keith
Larsen, C. P.
Low, Cache
Miller
Moritz
Nebeker
Peters
Pierce
Ricks
Ryan

During the roll call the following statements were made:

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, being decidedly opposed to section 3, I vote no on the whole article.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I am decidedly opposed to section 3. It will be like the reform school. They asked for twenty-five thousand dollars and got seventy-five thousand dollars, and that will be the way with your capitol building. You will have it all inside of three years, but I vote aye all the same.

The PRESIDENT. The article is adopted.

The article on public salaries is next in order.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I desire to bring to the attention of the Convention the fact that six of the articles are all ready for final passage, if final passage is necessary by the Convention. They are already in the hands of the members of the Convention, and if the clerk would read them, any suggestions or erasures, or such like as that, could be attended to in few minutes, and these six articles could be placed in the hands of the committee on engrossment, so it would not delay us to exceed twenty-four hours after the close of the Convention. To-morrow we should have some more articles from the hands of the printer, and they also can be reviewed and the committee on engrossment can get to work. It is a long, laborious work that they will have on their hands, engrossing all these articles. It will facilitate business, and every one I know wants to get home as soon as possible. I move that we suspend the rules, if it is necessary to suspend the rules, and take action on these revised articles.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). Mr. President, I now move you that we proceed with the regular order of business on the calendar, and dispose of that, before we begin to read that Constitution.
{1718 - BILL OF RIGHTS}
Mr. SNOW. I raise the point of order; we just voted that down.

The PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, may I just say a word? The point of order that was raised by Mr. Roberts does not exist in the article on education, as it passed this house by the ayes and noes on the third reading. It was only in the section that was stricken out of the educational article, as it came before us, that would warrant the assertions that he made to you. He made them honestly, I have no doubt, but I say that they cannot be found here, and I would not like to be turned down on account of a mistake, but to have this house, not on technicalities, but with-_

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

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to give notice. then, that I will move the reconsideration of that vote, in order that we may examine that, as I do not wish to take advantage of any technicality.

The Convention then proceeded to the final consideration of the articles reported by the committee on compilation and arrangement.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would move you that the secretary hold in his hand the original copy of one of them from this committee, and as some member of the committee who is altogether familiar and acquainted with this matter, that they have gone over so carefully, reads it, that the secretary check. I move that Mr. Whitney be called upon to read this.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, permit me to make a suggestion. The secretary is the executive recording officer and reading officer of this Convention. The committee are the eyes and ears and hands of this Convention. We presume that these amendments have been incorporated properly; I suggest that the secretary proceed with the regular order and read the report of the committee.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move we reconsider the vote.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The secretary then read from the declaration of rights sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Mr. WELLS. I would like to ask the committee why the sentence “perfect toleration of religious sentiment” is guaranteed is left out? I do not recollect it was stricken out by the Convention.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I can answer, if Mr. Crane does not wish to. The reason is, gentlemen, that almost this identical sentence occurs in the article entitled ordinance, and we simply struck it out here, as it could well be spared here to avoid repetition in the other article.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, it does seem to me that that ought to be in this section, as it passed; that is the very place for that guaranty of right_in the bill of rights. It is where it would be looked for by any one who is examining the Constitution.

Mr. VARIAN. Does not the act of Congress require that is to be done by ordinance?

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRANE. If the gentleman will look at the article on ordinance, “first, perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed,” the sentences are almost identical.

Sections 5, 6, 7, S, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were read.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, there is one suggestion, that the latter part of section 12 be changed to read, “a wife shall not be compelled to testify against {1719} her husband, nor a husband against his wife, nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” I throw it out as a suggestion, if the Convention feel like making the change. I think it is a little better language.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move that it be changed in accordance with the gentleman's suggestion.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HART. I desire to call the attention of the committee on revision to the position in which the word “twice” is placed here, and ask them if it would not be better to be placed either after the word “put” or after the word “jeopardy,” in section 12, next to the last line? I move that those words be transposed.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President. I move we reconsider that, and place the word twice after jeopardy.

The motion of Mr. Thoreson was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. Then it stands now as printed in the article.

Section 13 was read.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I move that we insert the word “or” instead of the word “and.”

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. I move we change the word “one,” the last word in section 13, to the word “it.”

The motion was agreed to.

Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 were read.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move that in section 20 the word “shall” be inserted after “soldier,”

instead of after “peace,” leaving that section as it was in the printed copy. My reason is this, my attention was called to the following section, If we interpret “shall,” in section 2I, after “servitude,” the phrases which come between it and the other part of the verb “exist” would render it rather cumbersome, but in section 20, it will certainly read better and stronger. I think “shall” should come in before the phrase “in time of peace.”

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I think, with all due respect to the Professor, that he is not right in that statement of his case. I believe, sir, that the rule requires that “shall be,” being a perfect verb, one taken together, part of it ought hot to be separated, and as to its being stronger, it is altogether how you accustom yourself to read it. I confess that the latter reading to me is by long odds the stronger, and it requires the parts of the verb not to be separated, whenever it can be avoided.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I will just state that when I first arose I stated that as changed by the committee it is not ungrammatical; it is correct; I have my authorities here, but I warranted to you that in sentences of this kind, the auxiliary is very frequently separated from the principal word “shall.” I can quote you authorities by the score in support of that.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I do not know whether the Constitution of the United States is any authority for this Convention or not, but it is a good deal of authority with me. The third amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, we have followed out this line in the articles we have revised, where “shall” occurs; in the beginning of the sentence, we have always placed it as we have here. If we change “shall” the way the professor desires it, we shall have to change the word in almost all the articles we have revised to make it harmonious.

Mr. KERR. Does the gentleman argue that the arrangement of these words must be exactly the same in all the sections of an article?

Mr. CRANE. Not necessarily so, of course.

The motion of Mr. Kerr was agreed to.
{720 - ORDINANCE}
Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that the last five words in section 21 be inserted after the word “servitude.” I think, Mr. President, the exception should follow and not be mixed in.

The PRESIDENT. Is this in the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. EICHNOR. It is the same as in the Constitution of the United States, the thirteenth amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I can scarcely think, sir, that the Constitution of the United States,

so far as its grammatical and rhetorical construction is concerned, is like the multiplication table, and cannot be improved upon. I believe, sir, that as to its phraseology it can be improved upon, and I believe that this is one of the instances in which it can be improved, just as I believed in the other case that the putting together of the auxiliary and the verb is a better construction of the language than what we have followed. I like the amendment that is proposed and I hope it will prevail.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I differed with the gentleman on the other question. I agree with him on this. I certainly think that the exception here would prove the statement.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am no criterion, but I like the section as it is now, because I am familiar with the language, having been used in the Constitution of the United States. We will have to commit to memory this sentence as it is reconstructed, and then we will get mixed up on what the same sentence is in the Constitution of the United States.

The amendment of Mr. Squires was rejected.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move that section 24 come last, so that it will be numbered 27.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, in section 20, in the third line, I move that the phrase “in time of peace” be set off by a comma.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, before we leave this, I wish to make a motion, and I do make it, that the last two sections of article 1, as now amended, be transposed so as to leave the section reading, “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles,” etc., as the last one.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then proceeded to the final consideration of Article H.

The same was read and passed without amendment.

Article III_Ordinance.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move the word “hereof,” at the end of line 14, be changed to “thereof.”

Mr. SQUIRES, Mr. President, I add to that the word, “therein,” in the 16th line.

Mr. RICHARDS. I second that motion.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, move that the word “herein.” in the second line following that, be changed to “therein.”

Mr. CRANE.    Mr. President, that will give it an exact contrary meaning to what is intended for it. We are talking about the State right out here. When we are talking to a man out there he is “therein”_out yonder, but when he is here, he is “herein.” We {1721 - ELECTIONS AND SUFFRAGE} are talking about the lands in the State.

Mr. SQUIRES. I am informed by the constitutional authority at the table on my left that “therein” is the word used in the Wyoming constitution, and I believe it is the correct word to go in there.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I move to strike out the “t” in the fourth line, second paragraph, and make it read “within the boundaries hereof,” instead of “thereof;” we are speaking of the land within the boundaries hereof. We are speaking within the lands immediately surrounding us.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I trust this amendment will not prevail; I think if we get to changing that and using “hereof” and “herein,” it refers to the document itself.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is it exactly, Mr. CRANE. I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Whitney's language is of more force, and that applies also to the word “therein,” in line 14. I move to reconsider that now.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Now, I move to insert the letter “t” before “II,” in the 16th line, making it read “therein” instead of “herein.”

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. RICHARDS.. Mr. President, I desire to ask if the transposition of the word “be,” in the 16th line, was made by a vote?

Mr. RICHARDS. Then I move that it be restored as it is in the printed article.

The motion was agreed to.

The third subdivision was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. I ask for information whether this section is complete? It seems to me there is some word lacking there. I move that the word “incurred” be inserted after “Utah.”

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Would not it be better to say “incurred by authority of the legislative assembly?”

The PRESIDENT. And strike out the word “under?”

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes.

The amendment was agreed to. The fourth subdivision was read. Article 4 was then taken up for consideration.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move we strike out the words “right of,” so that the sub- head will read “elections and suffrage.”

The motion was rejected.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move that the word “right,” in the title, be made plural.

The motion was rejected.

Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were read.

Mr. WHITNEY. I move that the comma after the word January, in the eighth line, be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 10 was read.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I move to suspend the rules of the Convention in order to strike out the word “judicial,” in section 9.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. I amend that motion by transposing the word “and,” in the second line before “school.”

Mr. ELDREDGE. I will accept the amendment.

Mr. WHITNEY. What will be the effect of this?

The PRESIDENT. To make the election occur, I suppose, on the day that the other officers are elected.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, if it is in order, I desire to move to strike out the second line, commencing with {1722} the word “except,” down to and including the word “officers,” in the third line. I just simply want to suggest that while I am very sorry that we have started a precedent of suspending rules to resume debates on matters that have been passed, and for fear that it may lead us to things that some of us will be sorry for, before we get through, yet I take it the only object for striking out “judicial” is as has been contended here, for the sake of economy, and reducing the number of elections. Now, if that be true, I am in favor of placing it beyond all question and providing that all general elections of the State, saying nothing about for what, and as the Legislature may declare general elections_    

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I would like to state a point of order. The standing rule of the Convention prohibits offering of substantial amendments upon this reading. That standing rule can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Presumably a two-thirds vote was just taken for a specific purpose, not for the purpose of opening up this question for amendment. It was distinctly stated, as the purpose of the mover for the suspension of the rule, that it was directed solely to the word judicial_to strike that out of this section. That is the reason, so far as I understand it, that induced this vote. I, for one, should not have voted to suspend the rule, had I understood that it contemplated the opening up of the entire section for amendment, and I think that if my brother Thurman desires to sense this Convention upon the question he presents, he must take a distinct vote upon the suspension of the rule for that purpose, otherwise we would never accomplish anything.

The PRESIDENT. I think the point of order is well taken.

The amendment of Mr. Eldredge was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I will test the sense of this Convention on the proposition that the gentleman shut me off on the point of order, and I move that the rules be suspended with a view to reconsidering to permit of a motion to strike out of the section the words “except for municipal and school officers.”

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I second that motion, with the understanding that we then strike

out the last three lines at the end of the section.

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; I would like to make the amendment eventually all the way through, while we are at it.

Mr. PRESTON. Do I understand that municipal elections of the cities are general elections and school elections?

Mr. THURMAN. Permit me to say that I do not believe that the motion that I now make will interfere with the Legislature fixing another day for a municipal election if they want one, but at the same time, as it now stands, it compels them to fix a different day.

Mr. PRESTON. I have no objection if the Legislature can fix it.

Mr. JOLLEY. I wish to ask the gentleman from Utah a question. Would you leave “school” in there? I think that would satisfy better than to leave it open.

Mr. THURMAN. I have this point in mind, Mr. Jolley, that the Legislature can make the school election a general election or not, as it may please. I want to leave this with the Legislature, so if they want to make it on the same day, all right, and if they want to have a different day, they have the right to do it.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I move to amend this section by striking out all after the word “elections,” in the second line, down to and including “officers,” in the third line.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move that the words, “after the adoption of this Constitution,” be stricken out, in the first line, because they mean {1723 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS} nothing. Of course, this cannot apply to any elections held before the adoption.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I will second the motion. Those words were put in there after the committee on elections had determined to except municipal, judicial, and school officers, because we could not except them at the election for the adoption or rejection of the Constitution, but after the adoption, then that was to be done.

The motion of Mr. Richards was agreed to.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move that the semi-colon before the word “provided” be changed to a colon, and the word “that,” after the word “provided,” begin with a capital letter.

The motion was agreed to.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 10 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the hour and a half set apart for this work is now more than past. I move we adjourn until to-morrow morning.

The secretary then read a communication from ladies of Salt Lake City, inviting the members and officers of the Convention to a reception.

On motion, the invitation was accepted.

On motion, the Convention then adjourned.