[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 Thompson, of Millard.

The journal of the 58th day's session was read and approved.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I think that this would be the appropriate time to move the reconsideration of the matter that was decided yesterday upon a point of order raised by myself in regard to locating the state normal school in Sanpete County. I raised the point of order yesterday that the action of the Convention in regard to locating the state normal school in Sanpete County was out of order, because the Convention at the previous sitting had provided that state normal schools and agricultural experiment stations might be established at other places than at Salt Lake City, and the chair sustained that point of order. I was subsequently informed that the point of order was not well founded, for the reason that section 5 in the article on education, upon which I based my point of order, was stricken out. Now, my recollection is still that that provision was in the section, but I discover that it is not in the article as it has passed through the hands of the committee on compilation and arrangement, and, therefore, I ask the chair to reconsider the ruling upon the point of order raised by myself.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to suggest to my friend that he would have to move to reconsider the vote by which the article passed.

Mr. ROBERTS. The situation is this: The Convention voted for Mr. Lund's proposition to establish the state normal school in Sanpete County. That motion carried. Then, after it carried, I rose to a point of order, and now, it seems to me, that if the chair should reconsider his ruling on that question it would stand as adopted by the Convention.

Mr VARIAN. The chair cannot, I submit, go back of the final reading and vote of the Convention, and change a ruling in that way.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, then, Mr. President, {1724} I move the reconsideration of the vote by which the state normal school was located at Sanpete County.

The PRESIDENT. That is, the article as adopted?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is, the article as adopted.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the only thing necessary, as I understand it, would be to reconsider that article, in connection with which this motion was made to locate the state normal school in Sanpete County. That, as I understand it, was in connection with the article on public buildings and state institutions. It was in connection with that article that this motion was made to locate the state normal school in Sanpete County. My friend from Sanpete succeeded in persuading the Convention to vote for the establishment of the state normal school at Sanpete, and we reversed the decision of the house on that question by claiming that one of the sections in the article on education left that matter with the Legislature, and the chair so ruled; and hence the action of the house in voting the normal school at Sanpete was overruled. Now, sir, I think it does not involve the bringing back to the floor of this Convention the article on education at all, but merely the article on public buildings and state institutions, and now, Mr. President, I wish to remark further, that if it shall require a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules of this house and bring back this article for consideration, I hope that the two-thirds vote necessary will not be lacking, for the reason that the decision of the house in locating the state normal school in Sanpete County was clearly in order, and the reversal of that action of the house, by raising the point of order, since it was not founded in a fact, all fairness requires that this Convention shall bring back this action for reconsideration.

Mr. LUND. One word as to the point raised by the gentleman from Cache. He says that because the normal school is an educational institution, it cannot be considered in that article on state institutions and public buildings. I would ask the gentleman if the university and the agricultural college are not educational institutions?

Mr. KERR. Yes, sir; and those were not considered in the article on public buildings and state institutions. I will {1725} cite the gentleman to this point, that if the ruling yesterday should be reversed, I could precipitate, or any other gentleman on this floor could precipitate the fight as to the university and agricultural college, because they are state institutions. It is impossible to bring up that subject again without reconsidering the article on education.

Mr. KERR. They are all state institutions.

Mr. LUND. And that it was a separate grant, and while the Congress has prescribed that the school of mines shall be in connection with the university, it has made this separate.

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask the gentleman from Cache, is not the deaf and dumb an educational institution?

Mr. KERR. It is so regarded by the committee on education, but the committee on public buildings and state institutions say it is a charitable institution. I did not raise the point of order.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I do not know as I have any objection to settling that matter in accordance with the suggestions of the gentleman from Davis, and at the request of the gentleman from Sanpete, but I think that the reopening of the question ought to be confined to that particular question. I will offer as an amendment to Mr. Roberts's motion, that the vote by which the article on public buildings was adopted on third reading yesterday be reconsidered, for the single purpose of passing upon the question relating to the normal school.

Mr. ROBERTS. I accept the amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, that is the very thing the gentleman from Salt Lake himself objected to, as I remember it, yesterday_to reconsider the vote on one section of an article, and it was sustained by this Convention.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, the gentleman is mistaken. What I objected to_and which was sustained by the Convention, was a motion to reconsider a vote by which a single section was passed. It was attempted then to bring back a single section. I contended then, and contend now, that it is impossible to do that according to parliamentary law, but here is a matter of grace to be extended by this Convention. There was a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding between gentlemen, and advantage was taken of it. One gentleman finds that, through inadvertence, there appears to have been an advantage taken. Now, whether we reconsider or not, is not a matter of
right. say that we can reconsider for a special purpose, not the single section, but the whole article, and when we get the whole article back, that we pass upon the particular question for which we reconsidered.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, is the motion of Mr. Lund to erect the normal school now before the Convention?

The PRESIDENT. That is the question before the Convention now for consideration.

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, I want to amend that motion, and strike out the word “Ephraim,” and let it be left to the voters of said county. I believe all the delegates are united with this, from Sanpete County, except Mr. Lund.

Mr. KERR. I will state, Mr. President, that did not desire yesterday to take up the time of the Convention considering this question, because I have not any idea but that the motion will be voted down by an overwhelming majority. I admit that I was astounded {1726} when the result of the vote was announced, and I can attribute it to no other cause than a misapprehension on the part of some of the delegates of the importance of this question. Now, the question is simply this, The normal school is at present a department of the university of Utah; by action of the Convention yesterday, the building heretofore occupied by the institution of the deaf and dumb will be vacated, the deaf, dumb, and blind going to Ogden. There is ample room in the present university, the deaf mute building and the Deseret museum, now used by the university, for all the departments of the university. The physical. mechanical, and other laboratories, required for the work of elementary science in the normal school, are all equipped, and the work in these departments, or the facilities for the work in these departments, do not cost the Territory a single dollar, because they would have to be provided for the other departments of the university anyway. Again, the university library, the university museum, are used by the normal students as well as other students of the university. Another point, the students in the classes in general work in the normal school enter the same classes in the university courses, and the work therefore, does not cost the Territory but a very little in addition to that which would be required for the same work in other departments of the university. In other words, the normal school where it is can do all the work of that department with two or three instructors, and with no additional expense for libraries, museum and laboratory facilities. But, if we establish the normal school at Ephraim, or any other place than that where the university is, it will be necessary to expend at least one hundred thousand dollars. I will state, gentlemen. that I have figured this out carefully since the action yesterday, and if the view I have taken be true, it will cost at least one hundred thousand dollars to erect buildings, provide laboratory facilities, purchase a library and museum, with which even to begin the work of the normal school at any other place than with the university.

Now, I submit, gentlemen, that we have not the means to throw away for this work, because in the university here there are ample facilities for all the work of the normal school, and if we remove the normal department from that institution, we simply throw away at least one hundred thousand dollars in the erection of buildings and furnishing facilities for the normal school work. Another point: At present, as connected with the university, the normal school has the use of two or three grades of the public schools of Salt Lake City, for a normal training school; and the Salt Lake City board of education pays the instructors in this training school, so that, by having the normal department connected with the university in Salt Lake City, the Territory saves the salaries of these special normal training schools, in the normal training school of the university. Now, gentlemen, I submit that all the argument in favor of the union, or nearly all the argument in favor of the union of the agricultural college and the university of Utah, will apply here, with

the additional argument that, whereas the agricultural college is already provided for, the college at Logan and the university here, if we remove the normal school from the university, we have to provide all the buildings and other facilities for the work of the normal school. The argument again_the removal of the normal school from the university is even far greater than that against the separation of the agricultural college and the university of Utah; and I do trust, gentlemen of the Convention, that we shall not so far lose sight of the interests of education in Utah as to perpetrate another outrage upon the people by the separation of {1727} those institutions from the university, and thereby render them impracticable for years to come, for us to have even a normal school in the State of Utah.

Mr. JOLLEY. In your able argument the other day, in favor of blending the university and college, did you not admit to a question of Judge Goodwin, that the normal school should be apart from the university?

Mr. KERR. No, sir; my statement was this, in reply to a question asked by Judge Goodwin, that if Utah had plenty of money, one of the objections to separating the normal school from the university would be removed; that is, the economical objection; that was all.

Mr. JOLLEY. Did you not concede to Mr. Goodwin the other day that it would be better apart from the university?

Mr. KERR. No, sir; neither by statement nor implication did I make such a statement. I admitted, in reply to a question of Judge Goodwin, that the time may come in fifteen or twenty years from now, that more than one normal school might be needed in the State, and hence I accepted his amendment that the Legislature may provide for the establishment of normal schools at other places than at that where the university is located, but not admitting even then that the present normal school should be separated from the university; my position being that it may come in ten, or fifteen, or twenty years, when we not only would want the normal school as connected now with the university, but we may want another at Ephraim, or Sanpete, or some other part of the State; but at no time have I conceded that the normal school under existing conditions should be separated from the university,

Mr. MAESER. Mr. President, as I on a former occasion stated, on principle, I would be opposed to having the normal school situated in any of our large cities, for various reasons_on moral grounds, which I have stated before, but I am utterly opposed to a separation of the normal school or normal college from our university, for financial reasons. We cannot afford it.

As Professor Kerr has already stated, it would incur an expenditure of over one hundred thousand dollars, no matter where the normal school would be located, in order to get the school again upon a footing as it is now; and then Professor Kerr already stated some advantages which did not occur to me then, but which are very plain to me now. Our normal school here has the advantage of all the schools of Salt Lake City, high school as well as district schools, as training schools, and there is no locality in the whole Territory of Utah that offers such facilities as these. Therefore, I earnestly desire that this Convention would vote down anything which would separate the normal college from our university.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as the mover of the resolution, I ask the privilege of closing the debate.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the mover of a resolution even after the previous question is ordered, has the right to close the debate.

The PRESIDENT. If he has given notice before that he desires to close the debate.

Mr. CANNON. I call for a division on that vote.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I arise to a point of order.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, this is out of order. The chair decided the previous question carried.

The PRESIDENT. That is the decision of the chair.

Mr. CHIDESTER. My point of order is this, that even after the motion has carried, the mover of the question has the right to speak upon it.
{1728}
Mr. CANNON. Do you rule that I have not the right to call for a division?

The PRESIDENT. The chair had passed upon this matter.

Mr. CANNON. Then, I appeal from the decision of the chair. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose to follow any ruling that a division cannot be called for upon this floor. I think the members have some rights, and one of those rights is that when a question is put, and a vote is taken upon it, if they believe the motion is not carried, they have a right to call for a division. It could not possibly be called for until the chair decides whether or not the question has been carried. That is my reason for appealing from the decision of the chair.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, the situation is just this, and it is a situation that has occurred before in this house: The previous question was called for. It requires a two-thirds' vote to maintain it. Now, the very minute that the vote was taken, the chair announced that the previous question had carried. Mr. Cannon arose and asked for a division, and he had a right to demand a division before that declaration was made, and, therefore, I shall sustain him in his appeal from the chair.

The question being taken on the appeal from the decision of the chair, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 22 ayes to 51 noes, the decision of the chair was overruled.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I now call for a division on the motion for the previous question.

The PRESIDENT. It is not carried, gentlemen.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to give notice that I desire to close this debate.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to speak a moment or two, if I have the floor. I desire to say a word upon the subject of the removal of the normal school from its present location. Professor Kerr has explained to you many of the reasons why this should not be done, and I fully concur with him in his statements. There are at present in the university about three hundred normal students, I am informed, out of an attendance of 465. You, gentlemen, can plainly see what would be the effect to remove those students from the university. If the purpose is to kill the university, I say vote for removal. If you want to build that institution up and to give the people the greatest good for the least expenditure of money, we must retain at this time our state normal school with our university. Arrangements have been made with the school board at Salt Lake City, by which the large building known as the 14th ward school has been tendered, free of charge, for the coming year to the university as a training school. They have this absolutely, and in addition to that, they have the services of nine teachers, who are experts in their particular line in the different grades, whose services are tendered free to the university in assisting it in its normal training school, by the school board of Salt Lake City. This, gentlemen, is an advantage I think we should not overlook.

I think that we are not in a condition at the present time to expend the necessary money to make the normal school what it should be, removing it to any part of the Territory outside of Salt Lake City. When the time does come that the State has plenty of money, i [*note*]
they see fit to establish normal schools in other parts of the Territory, well and good, but at the present time, I claim that fifty per cent. of the cost of educating and training your normal teachers would be saved by allowing them to remain with the university as at present.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to {1729} what was done at the last session. It was moved that experimental stations be established, and that normal schools should be included, and I gave my reasons why it would not be at all proper at this time, in my judgment, to separate that school from the university; that the time would come when there ought to be one or more normal schools established; that the time would come when it would not be best to have the normal school with the university. I think I was right at that time, and I am very sure the resolution passed. There seems to be a misunderstanding here, but my recollection is very clear that it passed, but not as it has been construed that I want to separate now the normal school from the university, but simply to provide that it could be done in the future, when both institutions were able to stand on their own feet.

Mr. KERR. I would like to state that the entire section, judge, with that provision to which you refer, was stricken out.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words. Of course, I feel a little timid after listening to the opinion of professors, but I, too, have had the chance of having a normal training,

and I have been acquainted with educational institutions for about ten years; and I must say, that while I was in Germany I took great delight in reviewing their institutions as well, and I can tell you that in that country the normal training schools and the normal schools are apart from the universities. I would refer you to the able argument that was made the other day on the moral phase of that question, by Doctor Maeser, and will then give you some of the other reasons why I think that this institution might be located in Sanpete County. The reason that has been stated that this move would kill the university, I take it, is not very well founded. The university comes into possession of a school of mines that must be established in connection with it, according to the Enabling Act. That will provide a revenue to it, that will come from one hundred thousand acres, a revenue which it has never enjoyed before, and consequently that would make up the loss which it would now sustain. In Sanpete County we could almost maintain a normal school to- day. Our people are very much interested in education. We have in the city of Ephraim graded schools, with an enrollment of over six hundred up to the eighth grade. We have an academy that is providing material every year from these pupils that come from the district schools, which would be ample in making up a whole school for the normal school, if it were located there. Undoubtedly when our county has a high school, Ephraim being the central location, the high school will be located there. Now, this grant for the establishment and maintenance of a state normal school is one hundred thousand acres, and I think it would be self-supporting. If the revenue from that would kill the university, I am certain that it is not going to live on that alone. The normal school, I believe, if it is placed in Sanpete County, and suitable buildings built, will be able to maintain itself, in the course of a year or two years, upon those grants of land.

Mr. KERR. I would like to ask the gentleman two questions. If these State lands can be located and sold, the money is invested so as to realize anything from the fund, within a year or two, or even five years?

Mr. LUND. How would it affect the university, then? It seems to me it would be self-supporting in a county where provisions and fuel and all are so very cheaper than here, that it would be much sooner a self-supporting institution.

Mr. KERR. Does the Territory have to pay anything for fuel_that is, for heating and other purposes now, for the normal school?
{1730}
Mr. LUND. I suppose it does.

Mr. KERR. Not a dollar. All the pupils of the normal school simply enter the classes in the other departments of the university, in connection with the university work. It does not cost them a single dollar for fuel.

Mr. LUND. How long can we depend upon the generosity of whoever is doing that, to continue it?

Mr. KERR. It is not a generous act at all. That is one of the departments of the university. Fuel is provided for the entire institution, and facilities which are required in other departments also are used In this one department, without additional expense to the State.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). May I ask Mr. Kerr a question? Is it not a fact that pupils attending the normal school receive training through the other classes than the normal proper?

Mr. KERR. I believe I stated that a very small part of the work done by normal students is normal work. Most of their work is done in the general courses right in with the regular university classes, at little additional expense to the Territory, but if the school were separated from the university, then for all this work teachers would have to be employed.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move the previous question, except as to Mr. Roberts.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. L. LARSEN. Mr. President and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words on this question. I hope that the gentlemen of this Convention will give Sanpete a chance. I shall vote for the amendment to this motion for this reason, that I desire to give the people {1731} of Sanpete a chance to locate, providing that this Convention concede the right of Sanpete to get the normal school. I think it is right that the people of Sanpete should have their choice and select the location. I do not think that it is right for any member of the delegation of Sanpete to alone make the selection. I speak now in behalf of the other delegates. We have not agreed upon any particular location, and I do not expect that we would or could, but we are willing to leave it to the voters of Sanpete County for them to make the location and say where it shall be, and

providing this Convention may concede the right to Sanpete for a normal school. This is my position, not that I particularly have any objection to Ephraim, for I have no ax to grind for Spring City or any other place particularly. I might raise objections but I do not think I shall do that, only upon this thing, and I think that the people of Sanpete should say where it should be located, and I hope that the Convention will take this view of it, which I believe would be in the interests of the people. and that they would be better satisfied if the matter is settled in that way, than for us here to-day to say where it shall be located.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I merely wish to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that we have disposed of this question heretofore, when we had the discussion on the school bill. Section 5 of that bill was first amended so as to make the normal schools separate from the university. Then, upon my motion, afterwards, section 5, with all of its amendments, was stricken out, and section 4 was amended by inserting location before establishment. confirming the location and establishment of the university and agricultural college, as they existed by law at that time. Now, the laws of the Territory in relation to the normal school say that the normal school shall be continued as a department of the university, so that if we should adopt any measure, such as is here proposed now, we will have to go back and undo in part the work that we have done, disrupting the deliberate action of this Convention heretofore. While on my feet, I wish to say, if it was right and proper for us to establish at this time and locate a normal school separate and apart from the university, I would favor the location proposed by the gentlemen from the south, but I think it would be very unwise, even if it did not interfere with what we have done. I was very much impressed with the argument made by Professor Kerr, Professor Maeser and Doctor Talmage upon the question of union, and had it not been that we had already established the agricultural college, I should have favored union in all these branches of learning. Now, we are in a position that we can, without sacrifice, maintain union from now on; and I say let us commence to do that which is right and ought to be done.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I did not intend to say anything on this subject. My sympathies very much run in favor of Sanpete. I have been trying to study up something that we could do for Sanpete, because Sanpete is one of the oldest settled counties that we have in the Territory_not the oldest, but one among the early settled, and I would certainly be gratified if we could do something to encourage the people of Sanpete; but I find there are a great many here that are getting in a great hurry. I suppose they want to go home. I have attended a good many conventions_all the conventions that have been held in the Territory. I know how it goes in winding up. I tried to hurry in the start, you are all aware. I tell you gentlemen, I think it would be a great mistake at the present time to put the normal school down there. It would be a great injury to Sanpete. It would be a great injury to every county in this Territory {1732} that has young students, young sons and daughters, to send to a normal school to be trained and qualify them to go into the business of teaching our children, and now we have got all the facilities necessary right here in Salt Lake, with all the great expense of that. But that is not the main thing. If we had a million dollars, there is another thing more important; that is we have got the facilities here of educating students to teach school. It is all right here, and now to go and take it away it would be robbing our students, our young sons and daughters that we wish to qualify for educating and teaching school, to take them off where they cannot get the facilities that they can get here, and post themselves on the branches that they have right here handy, while they are going to the

normal school. But I do hope there is something we can give Sanpete in the way of public institutions, and I shall vote with both hands when that time comes, but I cannot vote today to take the normal school away from the university under the present circumstances. I think it would be a great wrong and injury to the Territory and to the people.

Mr. LUND. I want to say, Mr. President, that the Enabling Act provides for the establishment and maintenance of state normal schools.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, notwithstanding I made the motion this morning to reconsider the action of yesterday, I do not desire to have it understood that I am in favor of moving the state normal school to Sanpete County, or of dislocating it from its present connection with the university. Until conferring with my friend, Mr. Thurman, a few moments ago, I was of the opinion that section 5 in the article on education was passed by this Convention with the amendment that state normal schools might be established in other places than in Salt Lake City, but he calls my attention to a circumstance in connection with that section, that now clearly brings to my remembrance the fact that section 5 was stricken out by the action of the Convention. But with him, sir, I agree that section 4 settles this question, namely, that the location and establishment, by existing laws, of the university of Utah and agricultural college, are hereby confirmed, and all the rights, immunities, franchises, and endowments heretofore granted or conferred, are hereby perpetuated unto said university and agricultural college respectively. He has already read to us the law making the state normal school a part of the university, and now to locate the state normal school in Sanpete County would require a reconsideration of section 4 of the article on education, since this Constitution, by its provision, establishes the university as it now exists by law, including the state normal school with it. In the present status of our educational institutions, sir, the most important part of the university is the state normal school. There can be no question about that, and for this reason I maintain that the Convention, at this stage of the proceedings, is incompetent to make the change contemplated by this vote, to locate this institution down in Sanpete County. I doubt not, sir, that enough of fact has been pointed out here, as to the expense and the inconvenience that would be involved in removing the state normal school from Salt Lake City down into Sanpete County. There is only one other thing that I wish to call attention to in that line, and that is, since this debate has been going on upon the floor of the Convention, the present chancellor of the university has telephoned down to the Convention, that in his opinion the removal at this time of this state normal school from the university would afford good ground for the city authorities to refuse to ratify and complete the agreement by which the present site of the university {1733} buildings in this city should be given to the university. It involves, I hold, too much of expense, too much of inconvenience, to engage in this removal in the present condition of our educational institutions.

And then, Mr. President, while it is true I voted to establish the agricultural college where it already exists, I would also call attention to the fact that if it were possible to keep centralized our educational institutions_that is, our higher educational institutions, I would be in favor of that policy, and I am not at all converted to the wisdom, and the propriety of thinking that each county must have some State institution to build up within its borders. I take, it, sir, that these State institutions are not for the purpose of increasing the benefits and making advantages in counties, but that it is a consideration for the good and welfare of the whole State. Yesterday, I was

tempted to make a speech in a spirit of irony, when there was a clamor from outside counties, demanding part of the State institutions, to call to mind the fact that there are twenty-seven counties in the State, and I wondered for a moment if we were to follow the policy of giving eventually to each county some institution to build up belonging to the State, regardless of the convenience of the whole people of the State, and the mere geographical center is not always an advantage for a State institution. What ought to be more seriously considered, is the center of population and the conveniences of all the inhabitants of the State, and not merely county location. Why, sir, if I was converted to the idea that each county ought to have some State institution, I maintain that my own county of Davis affords facilities for some of these institutions that far outstrip those that are urged in favor of other localities, but, sir, I will have nothing to do with that. In locating these State institu-tutions[*note*], I maintain that the good of the institutions, and as they shall contribute to the welfare of the whole population, is the thing to be considered, and not merely the gratification of local interests and local prejudices. I am not here to stand up for Davis County particularly, but as a representative of the whole people of Utah, and to locate their institutions in the interests of all the people. So, sir, I am not wedded to this idea that seems to prevail in the minds of some members, which causes them to contend for the respective localities from whence they came. Now, sir, for these reasons, I am against the movement to take the state normal school from its present moorings with the university, since it constitutes one of the most important_the most important department of the university, and drift it away off from the center of population in the interests of a county, and I trust it will not be done.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, by the last gentleman who spoke, I would take it that I am accused of wanting to gratify a locality.

Gentlemen, I must say that I am convinced myself that it would be a good thing for the State to place that institution in a central locality_central to those whose ambitions are to become school teachers, and where they can have the advantages of cheap and good substantial board, where they can enjoy the advantages of cheap fuel, where they can enjoy all the advantages that they really need, because the tuition is but a very little part that a normal has to pay when he attends a normal school. It comes in his board and in his lodging, the great expense. The other is no considerable amount and never has been. Now, if we want to place it within the reach of those who desire to attend such school, and get down to the benefit of those persons themselves who desire these accommodations, then I claim that it has not been the local self-gratification {1734} alone that has prompted me to make the motion or introduce this section, but it has been for the good of those who would attend the institution_not that it would be simply a good thing for a city or for a county. We know that it would be; we know that our county is not an out-of-the-world sort of a place; it is only a hundred miles from Salt Lake City. We have both branches of the railroad there, daily communication, and the traveling to and fro does not amount to much when we take into consideration the cheapness of living in those parts. Now, I have not much more to say, but I think it would be a matter of right for this Convention to extend that courtesy and that privilege to Sanpete, because Sanpete has fifteen thousand people; Sanpete is located in the center of the Territory; Sanpete offers some inducements now and has had a great number of pupils always in normal schools in this Territory, and would have a greater support to offer in that way when the school should come down there. I do not wish to take up any more time, but if

it is for the benefit of the State to keep the school elsewhere, or to leave it where it is, leave it there. One word more, the Enabling Act was passed sometime since the normal department of the university was established by the Legislature, and it says, “for the establishment and maintenance of state normal schools, one hundred thousand acres shall be given.” It plainly meant for the establishment, after this act, and I think that therefore you would not be doing a wrong to the section in the educational article that we have already passed.

The amendment of Mr. Jolley was rejected.

The motion of Mr. Lund was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I desire to offer a sixth subdivision for that article as follows:

A state normal school is hereby established and located at Salt Lake City, in connection with the university of Utah.

Mr. SNOW. I arise to a point of order. This was reconsidered for the sole purpose of considering the location at Sanpete.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I just want to make this statement: It seems from the Enabling Act that on the establishment of state normal schools one hundred thousand acres of land are granted. Now, in order to get the benefit of this land, I think it would be a good idea to locate one of the schools. It is not locating any more than one, but just one school at Salt Lake City in connection with the university.

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

AYES_79.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark

NOES_4.
Boyer    
Corfman    
Jolley
Lund

ABSENT_23.
Adams
Buys
Crane
Gibbs
Goodwin
Hyde
James
Keith
Kimball, Weber
Lambert
Larsen, C. P.
Lewis
Miller

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

Mr. CREER. I vote aye, with the same qualifications I had yesterday as to the capitol building.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended and that the standing rule be amended by striking out the word “fifteen” and inserting the word “five.”

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article entitled salaries of public officers.

Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr. HART. Mr. President. I move to strike out the word “salaries,” in line 7, and insert the word “other,” so that it will read as it was formerly reported by the committee.

The amendment was agreed to.

The roll being called on the adoption of the article entitled salaries of public officers, the result was as follows:

AYES_83
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brand ley
Button
Call
Cannon
Chidester

ABSENT_23.
Adams    
Buys    
Crane    
Gibbs    
Goodwin    
Hyde    
Keith    
Kimball, Weber
Lambert    
Larsen, C. P.    
Lewis    
Lund
Miller

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

The Convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article entitled schedule.

Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr, RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to offer a section to be known as section 3, as follows:

Section 3. Persons who, at the time of the admission of the State into the Union, may be confined under lawful commitments or otherwise lawfully held to answer for alleged violations of any of the criminal laws of the Territory of Utah, shall continue to be so confined or held until discharged therefrom by the proper courts of the State.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to section 2, to insert at the end of section 2 the following:

The act of the governor and legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, entitled “an act to punish polygamy and other kindred offenses, approved February 4th, A. D. 1892,” in so far as the same defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to be in force in the State of Utah.

have we accomplished the purpose, as view it, by our declaration in the schedule, sought to be amended, that all laws of the Territory of Utah now in force shall be continued in force. The moment this State enters into the Union all congressional acts of this kind fail, so far as their operation is concerned, within this State. There was passed in 1892 by the Legislature of the Territory, an act substantially_indeed, I may say, literally in accord with, or following the act of Congress upon the subject. That act defines and provides penalties for the specific offenses, polygamy, unlawful cohabitation, adultery, incest, and fornication. Now, that law I apprehend is not in force in Utah to-day, and the reason is that Congress entered upon that field of legislation and covered the whole subject matter. There was nothing left for the territorial Legislature to act upon. That being so, it is not included within this provision of section 2, and if it is desired that there shall be a compliance with the intent of the act of Congress, and {1737} with the understanding everywhere, in spirit, as well as in letter, it would be necessary for this Convention to make some positive declaration adding the force of law, which would be self-executing; that is, that the courts would undertake to execute it without further legislation upon the subject. This act of the territorial Legislature entered a field that was already occupied, and as long as the Congress had occupied that field, of course nothing was left for the territorial Legislature to act upon, and as I desire that there shall be nothing thrown in the way of the approval of this Constitution by those in authority at Washington, I make this suggestion to this Convention for their consideration, whether or not it will not be wise, having in mind the general conditions and circumstances attendant upon the passage of this Enabling Act, and the difficulties that theretofore had existed in bringing to a conclusion a long and laborious struggle, to in terms adopt and enact this first section relating to this particular offense already enacted by the Territorial Legislature.

Mr. MALONEY. You say the Legislature in 1892 invaded the field already occupied by Congress. On the approval of this Constitution by the President, would not that act of the Legislature be in just as full force and effect as any act of the Legislature which is continued in full force by section 2 of this act?

Mr. VARIAN. No.

Mr. MALONEY. Why not?

Mr. VARIAN. Because you can only continue in force a law. If there is anything in the form of an act that is not a law_for instance, we will say it were unconstitutional; simply by a declaration continuing a dead act in force, when it never was in force, does not accomplish what you purpose doing. It is clear what this Convention intended to do_all laws now in force. It did not intend to revivify laws or acts purporting to be laws which were never in force or which were unconstitutional. We take the territorial legislation as we find it, and every law that is in force at the time of the adoption of the Constitution will be continued. I personally care nothing about it.

Mr. RICHARDS. The purpose of this, as I understand, is to make this act irrepealable, so far as polygamy is concerned; is that not so?

Mr. VARIAN. No. I was not thinking of that so much as I was of the positive declaration_

Mr. VARIAN. No, I do not think_

Mr. RICHARDS. I asked you to look at it and think_

Mr. VARIAN. Well, I have said no. I say no again. It would not be the effect of it, and I was going to say, Mr. President, that there is no power on earth, in the Congress of the United States, that can force from this people an irrevocable law. That is the merest illusion in the world. This people can next year amend this Constitution, and strike out. everything concerning polygamy if they want to. Every lawyer knows that. It is just a question of their own good sense and judgment whether they shall do it or not.

Mr. RICHARDS. It seems to me that my question was not apprehended, When I spoke about a law being irrepealable, of course I did not refer to the amendment to the Constitution. That could not be repealed by the Legislature, I take it.

Mr. VARIAN. I don't know why the gentleman should ask me a question like that. Of course, if it is in the Constitution it cannot be repealed by the Legislature. I care nothing about it myself; I am firmly convinced that it will add very materially in aid of the adoption of the Constitution.

Mr. THURMAN. I desire to ask Mr. Varian, if the amendment you propose would not enact a great deal more than {1738} congress requires of us in the Enabling Act.

Mr. VARIAN. In what way?

Mr. THURMAN. Well, if I remember that act, it goes into detail.

Mr. VARIAN. Well, but the amendment confines it to that particular matter. It does not touch the other offenses mentioned in this act at all. It does not touch cohabitation, nor adultery, nor incest, nor fornication.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Varian, will this be in the hands of the Legislature?

Mr. VARIAN. Yes; perhaps I did not make myself clear. The Legislature can of course enter upon this field; but here we are, in this situation: When this Constitution goes back, after it has been adopted by this people, if there is any opposition to it, it will be concentrated at Washington. I presume there are a number of things, possibly, that may be brought up by those who are opposed to the admission of Utah as a State, numbering a large number of classes of people, in the United States. Then, it will be said, I apprehend_the Congress of the United States, as a condition of giving this Enabling Act to the people of Utah, exacted, or attempted to exact from them an impossible condition; that is, that they should make the enactment of a penal prohibition irrevocable; but it was the intention of the act; they will say to the people of the United States, that this people would not only literally but in spirit conform to this Enabling Act, and the wishes of the people of the United States in that particular. They have not done it. They

have evaded that question by putting in a mere declaration which is not self-executing, and the moment the President of the United States issues his proclamation, there is not a law in the State of Utah that affects this question; and who will say when the Legislature will act upon it? Who can say whether you can get votes enough in the Legislature to pass affirmatively an act? That is what they will say. At least, that is what I offered this for, upon the theory that some misapprehension of that kind may exist.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, of course, I am not able to discuss this question from its legal standpoint, but I do believe that there is a great deal in what the gentleman from Salt Lake has just said. You will remember, Mr. President, when this matter came up in the bill of rights, it was suggested by the gentleman from Cache, that it was not broad enough to cover the requirements of the Enabling Act, and he made some remarks upon it, and so did I at the time, and I believe still that the words used in the bill of rights, that it shall be forever prohibited, are not sufficient to cover the requirements of the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act, to my mind, requires of this Convention that they should do something specific, that it should be understood, that it should not be a general declaration. The language is such that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, etc., and ends “provided that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.” Now, you see it is the language of the Enabling Act. It is based upon a condition, and in order to carry out the requirements of that Enabling Act, you must say something specific regarding what this Constitution shall be and how it shall be enforced, and I believe the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian) is very correct in his position. I believe that it will raise a question, when this Constitution goes back to Washington, whether we have complied with the Enabling Act strictly regarding this provision.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am of opinion, as I stated before, when we had the question of ordinance before the Convention, that we have already strictly complied with the Enabling Act. I do not believe that there is any danger respecting the proclamation of the President on that question. {1739} I do not think any issue will ever be made. We have upon our statute books a law punishing polygamy and kindred offenses, and which, as has been stated by Mr. Varian, is properly ineffectual and void, because Congress had invaded the same field of legislation. There has always been a difference of opinion between lawyers respecting that particular question. I believe that the law upon the statute books would be in force upon the adoption of this Constitution, under section 2 of the article we are now considering. If the view be taken that that law was unconstitutional and ineffectual at the time of its passage, a nice constitutional question arises here upon Mr. Varian's amendment, that is, as to whether a void law can be revived and given life by reference to it in the Constitution which we are framing. It is a generally well understood question that constitutional conventions have no legislative power. Although we say that we are legislating all the time in our Constitution, yet in the broader sense we have no power to legislate in a general way, such as is generally given to a legislature. Now, is not this an attempt to do that very thing? Is not it an attempt here in this Convention to legislate upon the statute books a penal law punishing the offense named. That is to say this Convention is attempting to revive what is termed by the gentleman a void law. It is attempting to revive something upon the statute books which in itself was a nullity. Now, I don't take that view. I believe the law was valid. I have always entertained that view, and I believe that it would be in force upon the adoption of this Constitution, and for one, I cannot support this amendment,

because I believe it to be wholly unnecessary and an unusual method of making a Constitution. To revive a law or to make a law out of that which is pretended to be ineffectual and void, by reference to it merely in a Constitution, is certainly a very singular thing.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman, provided this act, approved February 4, 1892, is a valid law, what is to prevent the next Legislature or any succeeding Legislature from repealing it?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There is nothing at all.

Mr. SQUIRES. Then, we certainly will not be complying with the Enabling Act.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There is nothing at all. No. The Congress never understood that the people of Utah would not repeal this particular law which punishes the offense named. As has been properly stated by Mr. Varian, as a matter of constitutional law, we have the right at any time, when we secure statehood, to revise and repeal and amend our Constitution and to leave this out altogether. The people in their sovereign capacity would have the right, if they saw fit, to resume the practices which they have practiced heretofore, by proper amendments to the Constitution. This is an inherent power, an inherent right. Judge Cooley lays it down as clearly as can be in his work on constitutional limitations, and I think no lawyer will dispute it. As I understand it, this is simply designed for the purpose of satisfying the authority which will proclaim Utah a State. That is all. Now, that being the only purpose of it, I think we have fully complied with the Enabling Act, when we use its exact language and say that polygamy shall forever be prohibited in the State.

Mr. EICHNOR. Do you mean to say that any constitutional convention in the future could nullify the compact with the United States?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Oh, no. That is, because of the fact that that would be prohibited by the Constitution of the United States itself, but the Constitution {1740} of the United States does not place any restriction upon the states with respect to the practice of polygamy or kindred offenses. Consequently, we would have a right to reform our government just as we please.

Mr. KERR. I would like to ask Mr. Varian or Mr. Evans a question. In the article on ordinance, is the statement that polygamous or plural marriages shall forever be prohibited. I desire to ask, if, under this provision, the Legislature could repeal the law which defines those offenses and provides punishments for violation?

Mr. VARIAN. Does the gentleman ask me?

Mr. KERR. Either gentleman.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think it would have that right.

Mr. VARIAN. I prefer to answer it myself, if the gentleman is asking me. I am quite satisfied that

my position is confused and not understood, or at least it seems so from the remarks of Mr. Evans. It is this: First, that there is no territorial law on the statute books (when I say law, I mean valid law) touching upon this question. That may be tested by any canon of common sense. There was a congressional law on the statute book fixing certain penalties. Supposing the Territorial law had fixed other penalties, which would prevail? You cannot occupy the same space with two different lawmaking bodies at the same time. Second, that being so, they will say when this Constitution is adopted there is no law touching this question. There is nothing that will evidence the good faith of this people upon this question. And it will be a makeweight upon the proposition, is my idea, unless something of this kind is done, showing that this Convention intends to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the Enabling Act.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If that is your purpose, why not say in the ordinance, it is declared to be a felony?

Mr. VARIAN. Because, I do not agree with you at all in your criticism, that this Convention is not able to legislate in this way. I draw a distinction between legislating in matters now existing in the Territory and legislating in the Constitution for the future State.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, Mr. Evans says it would be an unusual proceeding, and probably it would, but the circumstances are unusual, This has never confronted any other territory, when applying for statehood, and the point in it is this, when Mr. Thurman, the other day, thought that the article in the ordinance was not sufficient, that it ought to be strengthened, I was in hopes his idea would be carried out by the Convention, solely as an evidence of good faith. It won't make any difference in the future. There is no state where the laws are enforced against the public sentiment of the people. Now, if public sentiment of the people of this Territory is that the ordinance shall be backed by legislation which will make penalties and enforce them, that will be done. If a change should come, and the sentiment should be that it was nobody's business, we will do what we please, that will be the rule. The question that confronts us is just this: We know that almost every church organization outside of Utah in the United States will scan this Constitution; they will study it with a disposition to, if possible, find some fault in it. Now, when they do that, and there is merely a declaration that there will be no more polygamy, they will simply laugh. They will say, “those people have simply made a declaration and have provided no means on earth to enforce it.” It is not what is to be after statehood is obtained, but it is how to obtain statehood. For instance, the President of the United States, is, I am told, a member of the Presbyterian church. I think he is a little lax [laughter], but no matter. He may have fixed it all {1741} right with his own soul. He professes to be a Presbyterian. He has a great many Presbyterian friends. He is a lawyer. He construes things exactly as I would construe them, when he has the capacity to. [Laughter.] Now, when this Constitution is carried up to him, we will suppose a case. We will suppose in the same election by which this Constitution is approved, there should be republican officers elected all over this State. He not only will have the Presbyterian church behind him, but he will have every democratic office holder in Washington and all through the country telling him that there is a point where he can afford to delay. It won't make a bit of difference to Utah what is in this Constitution in regard to that particular matter. The idea is to have something to present to the President, which he and his friends can find no flaw in; that is, that the Enabling Act has not only been carried out in the letter, but the means

have been provided to enforce its mandate.

I had intended to offer and try to argue an amendment to the ordinance. This amendment this morning covers the case, and what objection is there to passing it? Are we at this time in the Convention going to say it is legislation? It is on a theme that we have no precedent for. We are confronted here with this condition. The Enabling Act tells us that we must (and I presume means in an effective way) declare forever against polygamy and plural marriages. We ought to do it in such good faith that there would be no question about it. If two years hence, or four years hence, the Legislature desires to do anything else, it can do it. If the Constitution is adopted and Utah is admitted as a State, the people can revise or call a convention, and make a new Constitution within a year or two. Let us go as the sovereign states went. Every one of them had statutes. They had provisions in regard to slavery, that there should be no more slavery or involuntary servitude. It was finally enacted in the Constitution of the United States, and other provisions; and while some of them did not intend to keep those provisions, there was nothing in what they presented that there could be any criticism of. As far as the words go, the words were apt. They said, “I care nothing about the future. I am perfectly willing to trust it. I have perfect faith it will be all right.” But let us fix it so that the President of the United States, at least, cannot, in his obstinate way, say: “It does not suit me, you had better go back and try it over.” You know, Mr. President, he does not want any more silver congressmen. You know he has peculiar ways. Once or twice he has pretty nearly neutralized the law, and when eight or ten of his constituents get around him and tell him he ought to do it, then he takes it upon himself to think that he was raised up by God Almighty to be the savior of the United States, and when a man gets in that frame of mind, there is no telling what he will do. Let us fix it so that neither he nor his friends can criticiseone word. It will make no difference to Utah. Let us act in absolute good faith, so far as our words are concerned, and have it fixed so that a penalty, if that is disobeyed, can be inflicted.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I do not concur in the views of the gentleman from Salt Lake. The Congress of the United States provided that in Utah we should stop these practices and in a great measure have enforced that law. In 1892, through our Legislature, we said we would quit that. Now, the position of the first gentleman from Salt Lake who spoke, is that the act of 1892 is an absolute nullity, that it is null and void, because the Legislature of Utah had invaded a field previously occupied by Congress, and {1742} therefore, it is void. I do not agree with him on that, but, of course, if the two acts were in conflict, the law of Congress must prevail. But they are not in conflict. As I remember, in our act of 1892, we went still farther than the Edmunds- Tucker bill. Now, there is no court that has ever declared the act of 1892 of our Legislature unconstitutional, or null and void, that I ever heard of. I claim it is in force now and has been ever since it was enacted. The reason it has never been enforced is because the prosecuting attorney of the Territory preferred the congressional enactment, and preferred the penalties imposed by the Edmunds bill, and the Tucker-Edmunds bill. If Mr. Varian is right, and that act was void, I say section 2 of this act breathes life into it, and makes it just as valid as any other territorial enactment.

Mr. VARIAN. How can you take that position when it says the laws of the Territory of Utah now in force_

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment. I think that the Enabling Act is fully complied with at present, and I do not think that it is necessary, that we pursue this question with any further special legislation. Therefore, I am opposed to it, and will vote against it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, at first I was opposed to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake until he stated his reasons for it, and having heard his reasons, I shall now support the amendment. I think it ought to prevail. I agree with him (while not wishing to engage in any discussion on that branch of the question) in believing that the law of 1892, passed by the Legislature, was absolutely void and of no effect, and never has been, for the reason suggested by him. I had occasion to go over that ground, in 1888, in the Legislature, and came to the conclusion that the territorial Legislature had no power whatever to deal with that question, unless it might have been perhaps some ancillary legislation_something that had not been touched upon by the Congress of the United States. When he first proposed his amendment, I did not think that that act, not being in force, could be revivified, and thought it was fully covered by section 2 as it stands. I have some doubts whether the ordinance that we have adopted is a sufficient compliance with the Enabling Act, at least in spirit. It is true, that we use the exact words of the Enabling Act, but if this territorial act is without force, and is void, we will at least find ourselves in this position, that while we have declared in the Constitution that polygamous marriages are forever prohibited, when the Constitution goes into effect, and before the Legislature sits, we must say there will be no effective law upon this subject at all in force in this State. The declaration that we make in the ordinance is not effectual except in a normal sense. The moral effect of the whole State by its representatives in Convention, declaring that a certain thing shall be forever prohibited, of course has great weight, but there is a view that may, be taken of that, which is this, that at most it is merely an inhibition upon the Legislature ever sanctioning an establishment of that kind, but it is not a law {1743} against it with penalties. In other words, it is without effect. Now, I think I have taken the position to do everything that I think I can conscientiously and consistently do to present this to the President of the United States, without the instrument containing anything in itself which will afford him a just reason for rejecting it by saying that it does not comply with the Enabling Act. I think, gentlemen, we who have labored here to make this Constitution up to this time, ought now to obtain the fruits of it, to do everything we can upon this or any other occasion, to put this matter before the President of the United States in a way that he will have no excuse in the performance of his duty. For the reason suggested, and by way of showing a more determined disposition upon our part to comply, not only in the letter, but in the spirit, with the demands of the Enabling Act, I shall support it.

Mr. THURMAN. Well, I wish to say to the gentleman from Weber, that upon this proposition, it has come very near requiring it, If it was anything else, I would agree with you, but they say that we must provide by ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that a certain thing shall forever be prohibited.

Mr. MALONEY. Which we have done.

Mr. THURMAN. Have we provided it, or have we merely declared it shall be prohibited?

Mr. MALONEY. We have literally followed the language of the Enabling Act.

Mr. THURMAN. Have we prohibited it?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Let me ask you a question. Is not it just as much prohibited as slavery is prohibited in the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. THURMAN. It seems to me_

Mr. MALONEY. The language is, “polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.” If that is not prohibiting, I don't know what they could do to prohibit. But while on the floor, I will say I will vote for the amendment, but I think it is absolutely unnecessary.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to ask you a question. Suppose a polygamous marriage is contracted after we become a State, is there anything to prevent it?

Mr. MALONEY. There is a constitutional declaration against it.

Mr. THURMAN. Does that prevent it?

Mr. MALONEY. I think it does.

Mr. THURMAN. In what way?

Mr. MALONEY. By the very language.

Mr. THURMAN. It says it shall not be done. Where is your penalty?

Mr. MALONEY. There is an act of the Legislature already in existence.

Mr. THURMAN. I am taking the position that it is not in existence.

Mr. MALONEY. There is where I differ from Mr. Varian.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Then point out the penalty if you can find it, where the penalty is for slavery.

Mr. THURMAN. I believe that when the Constitution of the United States said that slavery should forever be prohibited, every state in the Union had a provision of that kind in force.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Oh, no.

Mr. THURMAN. Well, they came pretty near it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). They were compelled to put it in after that.

Mr. THURMAN. They did put it in, but that has nothing to do with the question. The Constitution of the United States, with that provision, did not have to be passed upon by some functionary above the United States. We are talking here now about what this great_his majesty, may do. I believe {1744} we are all in good faith on this question. I do not understand that anybody here impugns the good faith of this Convention, but the question is to show it.

Mr. VARIAN. May I answer that question, as to the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. VARIAN. The thirteenth amendment provides that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States. That would be made operative simply by the affirmative action of the federal courts, by releasing men from slavery. It would require no further legislation.

On motion, the Convention then took a recess until 12:30 p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, President Smith in the chair.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, section 2, with the amendment of Mr. Varian, is now before the house.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am in favor of adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake, I think, sir, that it should prevail. First and principally, that it may appear without any equivocation whatsoever, that in absolute good faith, the people of Utah intend to carry out the condition upon which statehood is to be granted to the Territory, for Congress did require, by its Enabling Act, an express stipulation upon this subject, and I believe its intention was to have a declaration that would be effective and not merely an empty assertion, and I think a provision of this character is absolutely necessary to the document we are drafting

in order to establish beyond all question the fact that we intend to carry out to the letter our agreement as expressed in the compact with the United States; but, sir, I do not think that this amendment should be adopted by this Convention in the spirit in which it was discussed by the gentleman from Salt Lake this morning (Mr. Goodwin). One of the reasons urged for having a stenographic report of these debates, as I understand it, was for the purpose of assisting those who will interpret the Constitution, in understanding what the intent of the Convention that framed the Constitution was; and, sir, if we adopt this amendment in the spirit in which that gentleman discussed it, those who shall interpret the Constitution in the light of what was said upon the various propositions would be led to conclude that this amendment was not adopted by the Convention with any real intention to have it put in force, but merely for the purpose of removing from the eyes of the President of the United States, who is to pass upon this instrument, and his counselors, and to silence any opposition that might be raised against it on the part of sectarian peoples throughout the United States, and that it was not a real bona fide determination on the part of this Constitutional Convention to carry out that provision with good intent.

Now, sir, I scorn all such proceedings as that. I believe that what we do here, we do with real intent of heart and without nonsense, and for that reason, and in this spirit, we should adopt this amendment, and then have it carried out just as it is intended to carry it out. I hope, sir, that these remarks and the remarks that other gentlemen have made, and doubtless will make upon this provision of the Constitution, will have the effect of removing from the proceedings of this Convention this seeming insincerity, which ought not to exist in a Convention of this character. Why, sir, we would give little credit to the intelligence of the man who is to pass upon this instrument, before our labors shall be finally completed, in bringing Utah into the Union, if we suppose that he {1745} could not see through this flimsy screen that it is proposed to cast over our conduct here, if we let this provision go in under the spirit of that discussion; and, sir, I hold that we ought to adopt it in a spirit of earnestness and with honest intention to make it effectual.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it seems to me that the discussion of this question raises a question of construction on the intent of the Enabling Act, and if that be so, it occurs to me that the way in which we propose by the amendment to remedy any doubt which might exist is not the proper way of proceeding in this case. The Enabling Act provides that the Convention shall provide by ordinance, irrevocable without consent of the United States and the people of said State, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, provided that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. In accordance with that and in the strict pursuance of the letter of the requirement, we have by ordinance provided directly what we had to provide under that Enabling Act. The question comes simply on our compliance with the spirit of the Enabling Act. No one doubts but the letter has been complied with. If it be necessary for us to comply with the spirit of the Enabling Act as well as with the letter of that act, would it not have been the proper way for us to have put into the ordinance, irrevocable, without the consent of the United States, and all the people of the State, the necessary legislation to show that we intended to carry out the spirit of that enactment? If so, the article should have been put in directly following the first subdivision of the ordinance. That not having been done, the question comes as to what is the better way to provide for this meeting the

spirit or supposed spirit of an enactment by Congress. It seems to me that the kind of amendment contemplated is improper and not the best plan for several reasons. The Constitution is not complete in itself. It refers to something outside of the Constitution, as a means of interpreting the intent of the framers of the Constitution. It leaves to future construction the question of whether that was a law, or whether, by our reference to it in this Constitution, we made it a law that was binding upon the people of this Territory and could be enforced, My idea is that if Congress intended anything by the requirement that we should pass such a provision in an article irrevocable without the consent of Congress_if they intended anything more than is meant by the moral prohibition, that would be included in the strict following of the words of the Enabling Act. It intended that by putting a provision of that sort in the Constitution, Congress might, by legislation, refer the enforcement of that compact to United States courts. If they did so intend, the question before us is, does the amendment, as it is now proposed, meet that objection of the act?

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, desire to move the previous question.

The PRESIDENT. With the permission to Mr. Varian to close, as it is Mr. Varian's motion.

Mr. VAN HORNE, Mr. President, I wish to move the insertion of a provision to be called section 3 in this article.

The PRESIDENT. We have just had section 3.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). If the Convention will permit it, I want to make a suggestion or two. I am of opinion, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, that the proposition made by Mr. Van Horne is right. We are now considering what we call a schedule. {1746} If we are simply attempting to comply with the Enabling Act_and want to make a prohibition of polygamy effectual, we should put it in the ordinance, as it is required that an ordinance be passed, which would be irrevocable without the consent of the United States. Of course, I do not recede from the position which I took this morning upon this question, and I now simply want to call attention, gentlemen, to one fact, that the amendment proposed by Mr. Varian points out one class of offenses and seeks to revive and bring into life a law which is admitted by the gentleman to have been ineffectual and void, and it only revives that one particular class of offenses. There are kindred offenses in the law of 1892, indeed, all the offenses which were named in the act of 1887. If this amendment prevails, the result will be this, that if that law is ineffectual, or whether it is effectual or not, the one class of offense, only named in the amendment will be continued in force. So far as the other class of offenses, and many of them are more odious than the one aimed at, it will be repealed, and the people of Utah will be permitted to violate those laws or engage in that class of offenses with impunity. Mr. Varian will not dispute this proposition, because this Constitutional Convention is simply pointing out the one class of offenses, that of polygamy; whereas numerous other classes of offenses in the same law are not covered, not only by any law of Congress, but are not covered by any law of the Territory; and it is class legislation of the worst sort, and not only that, it seem to me like impugning the good faith and the integrity of the

people of Utah when they renounced this practice. If we are not ready to go into the Union under the present condition of things as we understand them, let us stay out. A law which does not have the moral sentiment of the people can never be enforced in any way. That is a common and well know maxim of law. Why, then, point out a particular offense in the manner in which it is pointed out in the amendment of the gentleman, and why undertake to insert it in the schedule, which the Enabling Act does not provide for at all, upon the shallow pretense that it will be satisfactory to the executive of the nation? Gentlemen, if you want a state, do that which is sensible, and do that which is right, do that which is patriotic, that which is honorable. If we cannot get statehood by going through the front door, let us not sneak around like a burglar through the back door, for the purpose of securing that which we are all desirous of obtaining. If you want to defeat statehood, transcribe from the reporter's notes the remarks from the gentleman this morning, castigating the chief executive of the nation and holding him up in ridicule, and send a transcript of those notes to the President and show him the estimation in which he is held in a Convention sitting, under an Enabling Act, whose actions he must approve, and then see what the result will be, and that, too, by one of the leaders of the majority upon this floor. I do not entirely agree with my friend, Mr. Roberts, on this, but I agree with him upon one point, that such remarks coming from any gentleman respecting the chief executive of the nation are an insult to that officer.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to ask if the substitute of Mr. Van Horne is before the house?

Mr. VARIAN. No, sir. Mr. President, I do not propose to attempt to answer the arguments of my friend from Weber County. Driven from position to position he flutters about. and appeals to this sort of prejudice and the other sort of prejudice, when we are dealing with a legal question first, and a question, of expediency next. Whether this shall be admitted into the schedule or the ordinance makes no difference. The {1747} question we are disposing of now is the question as to whether it shall be put in at all or not, and after that shall have been disposed of, we may determine in what part of the Constitution it shall be placed. It is the sheerest pettifogging to distract and disturb the attention of the Convention to a point of that kind.

In 1888, a similar law was introduced into the territorial Legislature of this Territory. My distinguished friend, Mr. Thurman, from Utah County, whose keen and analytical legal mind always adorns and adds to every question he discusses, then was chairman of the committee on judiciary, and he wrote a report to the Legislature right on the line of his speech to-day, in the line of my thought and argument this morning. I do not remember who his associates were upon the committee. I have not been able to get the volume of the journal of that year, but the proposed act was rejected, because it was in conflict with the law of Congress. In 1892, four years later, my distingished friend from Weber County was chairman of the judiciary committee of the council. This present act was presented. It was reported by that committee through its chairman, with Mr. Baskin, now mayor of this city, a lawyer of forty years' standing, presumably acquainted with the jurisprudence of the Territory and of the United States, presenting a minority report at great length upon the same line, resurrecting and adopting with approval the report of my friend, Mr. Thurman, the chairman of the judiciary committee of 1888. It went through, but there was no other lawyer on the committee on judiciary, except my friend, Mr. Evans, as I remember it. It went into the house, there passed without question, a layman being chairman of the judiciary

committee. I take it, that the people of this Territory have once decided in the Legislature that this act, which was subsequently passed in 1892, was in conflict with the law of Congress and void. Now, if that be so, what sort of a law have you upon the statute book to indicate to the people of the United States and to the Congress that you are in earnest and in good faith in your manifesto that you all adopted here two or three years ago? Gentlemen say that it ought not to go into this part of the Constitution, and yet in the preceding lines of this very section, you have undertaken to carry into effect in the coming State all laws which are in force in the Territory of Utah. If this act were a law, if it were in force, of course it would be included within the general provision, and there would be no necessity to make special provision for it; but not being in force, it is necessary, in order to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the act Congress, and the intention of the people of the United States, and as my friend from Davis says, the bona fide intention of the people of Utah, that you should place this declaration upon the statute book. I am tired of quibbling and playing with these questions. I am here in good faith. I gave up two years and a half ago. I want statehood, and I want it the coming January, and I do not desire to play fast and loose with these questions. If you are in good faith, as you say you are, it will be asked, why do you object to placing upon this statute book, the organic law of your commonwealth, the fact you do intend to prevent the crime of polygamy? What does “prohibit “mean? Does it not mean prevent? I ask my friend from Salt Lake, and colleague, inure learned in philological lore than myself, whether it is one of the synonyms of prevent, and if the interpretation must not be put upon the use of that language in the act of Congress, that it means to prevent the practice of polygamy and plural marriage? How are you going to prevent it, unless you put some penal enactment into force that the courts and executive officers under {1748} your State government may be able to administer your law well in that behalf? In reply to the gentleman who last spoke, I did not undertake to inject into this organic law legislation on the subject of other offenses; it was not involved in the act of Congress; I care nothing about them, and simply seek to meet the issue which I believe is tendered to these people, arid I want to remind you all that in the construction of law, civil law as well as the law of God, and religious law, that it is the letter that killeth, and the spirit giveth life.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask you a question. The gentleman will agree with me that your amendment will repeal the other kindred offenses in that statute?

Mr. VARIAN. No; there is nothing to repeal. If you want the other kindred offenses, my answer is, prohibit them by law under penalties. Your Legislature that meets in March next must enact a law. I do not enter upon that subject, because I am not meeting that issue. I am simply meeting the issue which is tendered here, as I think, to carry out in spirit the act of Congress and the will of the people of the United States, so that no stumbling block may be thrown in the way of this onward march toward statehood; and I agree with my friend from Davis_I do not put it upon the grounds that were stated here this morning, I do not like a sneak. I would not desire anything to be done that was not done in good faith, but I believe that this people intend this in good faith, and therefore I believe that they will ratify this action here to-day.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask a question. Suppose the act of 1892 were valid?

Mr. VARIAN. If the law were valid, I should not then introduce_-

Mr. VARIAN. If the law were valid it might repeal by implication, although repeals by implication are not favored.

The motion for the previous question was agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I arise to a question of personal privilege. I find that the harmless remarks of mine this morning have been construed into very great disrespect to the President of the United States. I wish to say no gentleman has more reverence for the high office of President of the United States than I. I wish to say that the man in that office is entitled to just as much respect as he can inspire, and if the present incumbent is entitled to any more respect now than when he was sheriff of Erie County, it is because of his acts. I ask this Convention to put this thing, that there might be nothing in the way of statehood, and I pointed out that he has before now nullified certain laws of the United States_one, the silver law for four months, one, the Chinese law, for four months. I wish now to point out further that he has thrown every opposition over all the west, kept people poor, from settling the lands    

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

The PRESIDENT. I think the gentleman is overstating the question.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Let the gentleman proceed if he wants to drive a nail in his coffin.

Mr. GOODWIN. I only want to say this, my friend from Weber can put it in with the balance of the speech to send to his majesty, as the gentleman from Utah called him, to show that the republicans in this Convention do not care one straw for him personally.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I wish simply to state now for the purpose of explaining my vote, that since speaking I have investigated the question carefully and I have come to the conclusion that the act of February 4, {1749} 1892, is still in force, and this is simply unnecessary.

The roll being called on the adoption of Mr. Varian's amendment to section 2, the result was as follows:

AYES_72.
Allen
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Coray

NOES_16.
Anderson
Boyer
Call
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Heybourne
Howard
Jolley
Low, Cache
Maloney
Maughan
McFarland
Peterson, Grand
Robison, Wayne
Thorne
Warrum.

ABSENT_16.
Adams
Barnes
Buys
Clark
Gibbs

PAIRED_2.
Pierce
Thoreson.

The president declared the amendment adopted.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, Mr. Pierce stated to me just before leaving this morning that he would be unable to be present this afternoon and desired to be paired. I told him I could not pair with him, because I would vote for the amendment, but I would try to get someone else to pair with him. I have not found anyone. I wanted to make that explanation.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I would like to explain my vote. I believe that we are here trying to make an enactment here in this Constitution of a law that is in full force in the State, and will be so after the Constitution is adopted, and I will therefore vote no, but I will pair with Mr. Pierce.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment has been adopted, gentlemen.

Sections 3 and 4 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to submit an amendment to section 4, as follows: Add to section 4, after the word “Utah,” in line 21, the words “and all fines, taxes, penalties, and forfeitures, due or owing to any county, municipality, or school district therein, at the time the State shall be admitted into the Union, are hereby respectively assigned and transferred, and the same shall be payable to the county, municipality, or school district, as the case may be, and the payment thereof may be enforced under the laws of the State.”

The amendment was agreed to.
{1750}
Sections 5 and 6 were read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to strike out section 6 and substitute the following:

Section 6. All actions, cases, proceedings and matters pending in the supreme court and district courts of the Territory of Utah, at the time the State shall be admitted into the Union, and all files, records, and indictments, relating thereto, except as otherwise provided herein, shall be appropriately transferred to the supreme and district courts of the State respectively; and thereafter all such actions, matters and cases shall be proceeded with in the proper State courts. All actions, cases, proceedings and matters which shall be pending in the district courts of the Territory of Utah, at the time of the admission of the State into the Union, whereof the United States circuit or district courts might have had jurisdiction had there been a state government at the time of the commencement thereof, respectively; and all files, records, indictments, and proceedings relating thereto, shall be transferred to the United States courts; provided, that no civil actions, other than causes and proceedings of which the United States courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be transferred to either of said United States courts, except upon motion or petition by one of the parties thereto, made under and in accordance with the act or acts of the Congress of the United States, and such motion and petition not being made, all such cases shall be proceeded with in the proper state courts.

The substitute was adopted.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to offer an additional section, to be numbered section 7, as follows:

Upon a change from territorial to state government, the seal in use by the supreme court of the Territory shall pass to and become the seal of the supreme court of the State, until otherwise provided by law; and the several district courts of the State may adopt seals, for their respective courts, till otherwise provided by law.

Section 7 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I hereby give notice that I will move a reconsideration of the vote adopting the article entitled schedule.

Section 9 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment to this section: Insert after the word “voter” in line 12, the words:

And all persons, who are qualified to vote at elections held under this Constitution after its adoption.

And provided further, that all votes cast by female voters, for or against this Constitution, shall be deposited in separate boxes and canvassed separately, and so certified by the said commission.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I should not occupy any time in discussing this amendment, or proposed amendment, but for the fact that I regard it as one of very great importance, and one which involves statehood itself, and I desire to present, in the best way that I can in the few minutes that {1751} I have under the rule, the reasons why I do this. If I did not believe that statehood would be imperiled if this amendment were not adopted, I think after the manifestation of the members of the Convention in committee the other day, I should not have presented this amendment. I have not time to discuss the question on its merits, as to the reason why the construction that is placed upon the Enabling Act by the gentleman whose communication I read the other day_I say I have not time to discuss the reasons why that construction is a proper one, but I submit that when it appears to this Convention, when it appears to us as the representatives of the people of this Territory, that there is a serious question in this matter, and that there is danger, it is not only the act of prudence, but it is the act of duty that we should pause and hesitate before we proceed to do something that will incur this risk and this responsibility, and possibly this great disaster, when we can just as well avoid it as not. Now, it is not necessary that I should demonstrate to you that the opinion of Judge Sutherland, of Judge Marshall, of Mr. George Sutherland, and of Mr. Dey, is correct. But when I tell you that these men insist that that is the law, although other men may claim that the construction is different, there is a question raised.

Mr. VARIAN. I want to ask you whether their judgment is made after hearing argument or not?

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to ask that this shall not be taken from my time. I desire to say what little I may in this time. Now, I say, when it appears there. is a serious doubt of this question, and it is admitted by the gentlemen on the other side, every one of them, that no possible injury can result from the method I propose, and when they admit in the same breath that if the construction gentlemen are contending for is correct, that the Constitution will fail and statehood will be defeated, if you reject this proposition, then I say that there is but one thing for us to do, and that is to take the course in which there is no risk, and in which there is no hazard, and if we fail to do that, gentlemen of the Convention, we take upon ourselves a grave responsibility. We take upon ourselves responsibility of saying to the people of this Territory, “We will run the risk of depriving you of state sovereignty and keeping you in a condition of territorial vassalage.” My colleague from Salt Lake (Mr. Goodwin), who says he will move the previous question when I sit down, asked me the other day what Congress intended in relation to this matter. I am authorized to say for Honorable Joseph L. Rawlins. the delegate in Congress, the man who framed this Enabling Act, the man who secured its passage, that it is the right of the women of Utah to vote on this proposition. He concurs with the gentlemen whose opinion you heard the other day in

saying that if provision is not made in the Constitution, for their voting, and if they have no opportunity to vote, it will be an illegal submission, and statehood will fail, and what does that mean? Does it mean as my friend from Salt Lake (Mr. Goodwin) said this morning, that it will come back to us to try again? No. It means nothing of the sort. Don't you be beguiled into any such idea. It means if this Constitution fails, because of an illegal election, no other constitution can be had. We cannot assemble here together. We cannot provide for another election. No other election can be had until Congress passes another law. Now, gentlemen, it seems to me that in view of these facts, we ought to pause, and we ought to take the course of prudence, but some of my friends say to me, “Richards, you are unnecessarily exercised. There will be enough male votes cast to save the Constitution. That won't help us any.”

Suppose the male vote was to adopt {1752} the Constitution. If the women had a right to vote the President of the United States might say to us, “You should have given them an opportunity to vote, and possibly they would have defeated the Constitution.” So that it makes no difference which horn of this dilemma we take; whether we get more male votes for the Constitution than against it, or whether it is vice versa. The whole thing will fail, if this proposition is correct that is made by these gentlemen; so I say there is but one thing for us to do, and that is to take the course that is marked out here, which involves no risk, which simply places these votes in separate boxes, and then if they have the right to vote, well and good, and if not, no harm is done. Now, I would expect this proposition to be made from people who were opposed to statehood, but I take it for granted that every man on the floor of this Convention is acting in good faith, and that every man on this floor desires statehood, and when I take that for granted, I tell you, gentlemen, it is incomprehensible to me how any man can stand up and say that by taking the other course we will incur risk, and yet refuse to adopt this method.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, if the gentleman's premises were true, we would grant his conclusion. The difficulty is, he has confused this proposition. So far as the right to vote upon the adoption of this Constitution is concerned, it cannot depend upon what we put An this Constitution. It will depend upon the act of Congress. Now, to legislate and bring in a new class of voters to vote upon the other proposition for State officers, will involve what? An overturning of the whole electoral system of the Territory. Women are not entitled to register. You have got
to recognize your registry law. You cannot, by putting a clause in the Constitution here, bring in and enfranchise a new class of voters, and also by implication, recognize, as it were, the entire system governing the electoral franchise. What is going to be the result? It is in the hands of the Utah Commission. If you put in a declaration that women shall vote for State officers for instance_they are not registered. The Utah Commission and the registrars of election under existing laws would not be permitted to register them, so that to be permitted to vote, without the safeguards and the prudential cautionary measures that envelop and surround the right to vote, or circumscribe, rather, the right to vote, now, would not do at all. There is no necessity for this thing. I understand the gentleman has made a caucus proposition, if I am to judge by the reports in the morning paper, but I submit that is not the fair way to deal with this question, nor is it a fair way to deal with it, and go out and bring in the advice of three or four gentlemen, however distinguished they may be, certainly occupying no higher position than others in the Territory who have not had the audacity as it were to thrust their advice upon this Convention unasked.

Mr. VARIAN. I saw in one of the papers that a number of gentlemen of this Convention belonging to a political party, had held a caucus meeting last night and determined upon this question. I state it not from my own knowledge, but it has been given out through the medium of the public press. I do not mean to state anything offensive to my friend or his associates.

Mr. RICHARDS. Is there anything improper in a number of gentlemen meeting together and considering what is for the best good, in their judgment, of the people of this Territory?

Mr. VARIAN. No; I don't make a criticism upon it in that sense. I simply alluded to it. I say that that is hardly the way to deal with it, any more than it is proper to deal with it through the {1753} medium of the advice of three or four gentlemen thrust upon this Convention in the manner that it has been, and possibly with a mental reservation, as all judges have, of reconsidering the matter at some future date, when more light is shed upon it

Mr. RICHARDS. These gentlemen that you say have thrust their advice upon this Convention without being asked for it_haven't these gentlemen as much interest in the success of this Constitution, as you and I have?

Mr. VARIAN. I do not know.

Mr. RICHARDS. Are they not citizens of this Territory?

Mr. VARIAN. I am not going to be made to criticisethese gentlemen unnecessarily. I charge nothing against them. I believe it is_

Mr. RICHARDS. I ask you, in all candor and frankness as a man as well as a lawyer, whether these men that you allude to, as citizens of the Territory of Utah, with the welfare of the State at hand_whether it is an act of impropriety on their part, if they see that we are pursuing a course that they think would imperil statehood, to come here and admonish us?

Mr. VARIAN. I answer that question, it is absolutely a matter of gross impropriety. The proper course to have pursued would have been to go before a committee, who are authorized to sit in judgment upon these questions, and there make their arguments, not to thrust them in this way. I answer the other question, since I am asked, that I believe one of those gentlemen is not now in favor of statehood.

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

The motion as rejected.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, were it not for the remark made by the gentleman from Salt Lake who has just spoken (AN. Varian) that this question which is before the Convention at present has been caucused and decided upon by a certain political party, by which I apprehend that he refers

to the minority upon the floor of this house, I should not have voted against the previous question; but I did feel that it would be improper for me, at least, to allow that to pass without stating my own position upon this question. I want to say that if any caucus has been held, I was not aware of it, and did not participate in it; that I have not committed myself in favor of the motion proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake and am not now in favor of it. My reasons I wish to state briefly. They are these, gentlemen: In the first place, I understand that under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker act, a certain class of male citizens, and all female citizens of this Territory, were disfranchised. Now, the Enabling Act, in section 2, provides a means by which the disability, so far as it applies to a certain class of male citizens in this Territory, may be removed, and the right to vote be granted to them; but I can find nothing in this Enabling Act that leads me to believe that the operation of the Edmunds-Tucker act is not now in full force so far as the women of this Territory are concerned; and I cannot construe these words in the fourth section of this act to mean anything else than that the present legal voters of this Territory, which is the proposed State of Utah, are entitled to vote, and no others.

Now, while it is true that very able gentlemen have expressed their opinion upon this question, and that it is different to my own opinion (and I profess no great legal knowledge), it is also a fact that very eminent legal gentlemen in this city have expressed their opinion upon the lines upon which mine is expressed, and have said to me just as emphatically as it has been said on the other hand, that if they be permitted to vote, it would absolutely be improper and not in accordance with the conditions of this Enabling Act. I do not believe, gentlemen, that it was ever contemplated. {1754} If it had been, a provision would have been made clearly in this Enabling Act by which that condition could have been made; and I submit that if it was the intention of the men who drafted this bill that the women of this Territory, in case they should be enfranchised, or proposed to be enfranchised, by this Constitution, should vote on the Constitution, they made a bung ling job of it. It ought to have been made plain. I do not believe it was ever contemplated, or ever intended; and I shall vote against the proposition.

Mr. THORESON. I would like to ask the gentleman if a female could be elected at the first election in this State, for State officers?

Mr. IVINS. No, sir.

Mr. THORESON. Why not?

Mr. IVINS. Because she is not eligible to election until after that Constitution shall be approved, neither to vote nor to hold office; and the very fact that she could not hold office indicates that she could not vote. I do not believe it is good law. The gentleman may be a lawyer, but that hypothesis, upon which this whole question is based, is wrong. I believe it is intended for political purposes; and I want to say to you here, that if I knew that by voting for this proposition it would result in victory for my political party in the next campaign, I would vote against it. [Applause.] I do not want a vote if we cannot get it honestly. I do not want this question to be submitted to the women separately, and after the election is over, to have this whole question dragged into the courts, and have such another scene in the Territory of Utah, as we had through the complications that resulted from the operations of the Utah Commission in the last campaign.

I want to avoid that litigation.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would like to ask Mr. Richards a question.

The PRESIDENT. Will you yield to a question?

Mr. RICHARDS. I am not on the floor.

The PRESIDENT. He does not consent to be questioned.

Mr. RICHARDS. No, I do not put it upon that ground. I haven't the floor. If the Judge wants to put me on the stand, I am willing to answer any question I can.

Mr. GOODWIN. The gentleman may take his seat as far as that is concerned. I will get along without asking.

Mr. RICHARDS. The record will show I responded and I was ready to answer.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, the Enabling Act provides as to the returning of votes. Now, if the Utah Commission certify to the President of the United States that a majority of the votes cast were for the Constitution, who is going behind it? I hate to see a man so badly frightened as my friend from Salt Lake seems to have been, when in fact it was only ghost taps. There is nothing in it.

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

The motion was rejected.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I want to call attention of the Convention to section 2 of the Enabling Act. (Reads.) The Congress of the United States, sovereign in this case, has determined what the registration shall be, has legislated upon the subject. By the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake, we would be saying that the Utah Commission, so far from not being governed entirely by the act itself, and the manner in which the act prescribed that the new registration should be taken, should be governed by the action of this Convention, in providing for a new class of registration, not recognized by the laws of the United States, nor the laws of the Territory of Utah. It does not say anything about the registration of the voters who would be qualified under the laws of the State, as their qualification {1755} might be determined by the Constitution itself, but it says expressly, under the laws of the United States and of the Territory of Utah. We have no territorial law that would entitle a woman to register for voting at any election. We have no United States law that will authorize a registering officer to receive the name of a woman as an elector of this Territory, and when we err in the line of putting a new construction upon this, and new duties upon the Utah Commission, other than those that are prescribed by the Organic or Enabling Act, for the proposed State of Utah, we lay ourselves open to having the President, in his wisdom, say, the conditions of this Enabling Act have not been complied with, but conditions forced upon the Utah Commission by the Constitutional

Convention have taken the place of those, and consequently I can refuse to admit the State of Utah,

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I would not ask to be heard on this question, if it had not been for the very extraordinary speech of the gentleman from Washington County (Mr. Ivins). I admit that he has a higher degree of Spartan integrity, perhaps, than I have. He has a right to take any position that he pleases upon this floor. I accord that to him, and I claim it for myself. But when he goes out of his way to brand his whole party with dishonesty, and charges them with doing something simply for political effect, in order to evoke applause from his opponents, then, Mr. President, I feel like arising to my feet and resenting it. It was a remarkable statement: “I, the delegate from Washington (laughter), I! Ivins! I believe that the party to which I belong are playing a game. There is nothing patriotic in all they are doing here. It is a trick. It is a scheme, and I am agin it.” Now. gentlemen, I am surprised that my friend should want to parade his virtue, and charge every democrat on this floor who may disagree with him, practically
with being dishonorable in this movement; and I say that when a man charges that I do anything on a serious matter like this, in framing the Constitution merely for political effect, I say it is charging me with dishonor, and I resent it. And the fact that it comes from a gentleman in high standing, a man whose character is unimpeached and unimpeachable, makes the accusation all the more serious, and I arise, if for no other purpose, to resent the insinuation, and ask him when, by what means, and how, he entered into the consciences of all his political friends here, and found out just what their beliefs and their intentions were? No secret has ever been kept from him, and as far as I am concerned in my action on this matter, I have no secrets, gentlemen, even from you. Why, talk about caucuses! I may say that you caucussed on this floor this morning, quietly, getting ready with your “previous question” to shut off debate, and to throttle men who are here standing up for what they believe to be right_notwithstanding the gentleman from Washington says it was for political effect. There has been too much of that kind of talk upon this floor, about things being for political effect. It came up on this very question of woman suffrage in the beginning. Gentlemen of the majority, man after man, arose and practically admitted that what he had done at Provo was for political effect; and now the gentleman from Washington, following in that line, threshing that same old straw, comes and charges his colleagues on this floor with doing something simply for political effect.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, on the proposed amendment, now offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake, I stand just where I stood in the committee of the whole, and if there is any danger to the Constitution itself, %rising out of this proposition, I am as {1756} firmly convinced now as I was then that it lies in the direction of undertaking to allow unenfranchised people to vote upon its adoption, and not from confining the vote upon the Constitution to the legal voters of the Territory of Utah.

Mr. RICHARDS. Would you kindly point out what danger could possibly arise from permitting the women to vote in separate boxes?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the very proposition to keep the vote of men and women apart on this subject in my mind exhibits the fear the gentlemen have of the illegality of causing them to vote upon the proposition direct. It convinces me that they must, themselves, be full of fear that

to permit them to vote on the proposition involves a doubt as to the legality of that proceeding. Had my friends insisted upon putting this directly into the Constitution itself, without any such back-gate escapement as that separate voting proposition, I might possibly have been led to believe fully and altogether in their theory, but I cannot have any confidence in the proposition, when I see such a provision for retreat made in it, and I am firmly convinced that if there is any danger in this thing, it will come from that very thing.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well. but wherein is the danger? You spoke without answering my question?

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, inasmuch as I expect to vote against this, I do not wish to make any explanation when I do so, and I want to say just a word or two. I notice that Wyoming, placed in a similar attitude to that in which we are placed, the ladies did not vote for the Constitution there, and it did not seem to endanger the Constitution.

Mr. RICHARDS. Was Wyoming admitted under an Enabling Act?

Mr. CHIDESTER. No; I think not.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is the reason why.

Mr. SQUIRES. The women were legal voters there.

Mr. CHIDESTER The women, however, had been voting in that territory, if I understand it aright, for a number of years, and they have not been here for a number of years. I think that would make some difference. Now, while I would very much like to see them vote for State officers, and for the Constitution, I would not like at this time to take any step that would be detrimental to us, or could be construed so, and I have met a number of the leading ladies of this Territory, and shortly after this proposition was mentioned here the other day, they signified to me that they did not wish that matter dwelt upon any longer, that they were perfectly satisfied with it as it stands to-day, and they did not wish to vote for the adoption of the Constitution, nor for State officers, at this election; they would be perfectly satisfied if they had the right to vote after the Constitution was adopted. For that reason I feel at perfect liberty new to say that we have gone far enough, and to vote against the amendment offered.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I thought I saw very clearly on yesterday my duty in relation to this matter, and I will admit frankly that my views were similar to those of my friend from Davis County. I thought I saw clearly that the women ought not to be permitted to vote until the adoption of the Constitution, but I am not lawyer enough, and I have not the temerity to place my feeble judgment against those of such men as Judge Sutherland, Judge Henderson, the Honorable Joseph L. Rawlins; and I am willing to defer to their judgment, especially since it involves no risk whatever, My colleague from Salt Lake asked the gentleman from Davis County what possible danger there was in the women voting {1757} separately upon this proposition, and in keeping the vote separate. The answer was that the fact that the vote was to be kept separate implied a fear on the part of those who supported this proposition, of the legality of the proceedings. I wish to say candidly that I admit there is a fear in my heart, but the fear is this, that

the preventing of the women from voting is the danger. I fear the illegality of that proposition, and as I say, I am willing to defer to these gentlemen who are wiser than I in the law, and since this matter involves no risk whatever, and in the opinion of these gentlemen who are wiser than I there is a risk on the other side, I am willing to take what I conceive to be the safe course and save this point, and I therefore, shall vote for the proposition of Mr. Richards.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, in reply to what my friend, Mr. Thurman, has just advocated on the floor of this Convention, I wish to call his mind to the statement which he made when this proposition was being discussed in reference to female suffrage, I stated that the republican party at their convention in Provo, in section stated that they favored the granting of equal suffrage to women. Mr. Thurman, in reply to that proposition_I wish to quote him correctly; I made a notation of his statement at the time, which I have in my hand. It was thought by his party that they would go one better than the republican party had stated. He, individually, upon my solicitation, handed me the article which he had drawn to be adopted in the platform of the democratic party, which I hold in my hand.

“The democrats of Utah”_I guess I will have to ask him to read it.

Mr. THURMAN. I can repeat it for you.

Mr. HILL. It does not make any difference; this is in his handwriting, but in connection therewith I wish to say that I have not, as a member, occupied much of the time, but it is to me very inconsistent at this period of our Convention for him to take his present position, in reference to the party on the other side. My position has always been conservative. It is conservative to-day, and these aspirations that are being cast from one side of this house to the other I think are irrelevant to the question before the Convention.

Mr. EVANS { Weber). Mr. President, I want to call attention to a principle or two in this matter that we are now discussing; the right of women to vote for the rejection or adoption of the Constitution, I believe depends upon the Enabling Act itself, and its construction. In conventions where there was no restriction in the Enabling Act, by legislative enactment, it has been held, as Mr. Jameson states in his work on constitutional conventions, where he is discussing the question as to the right of a convention to disfranchise a class of people. He discusses it at some length and concludes as follows:

The conclusion at which I arrive, then, is that a convention may, by constitutional provision, affect the disfranchisement of existing electors. Of course, with the question of policy of so doing, in any case, I do not concern myself.

Of these, the highest proportion were cases in which submission was mate to the electors, plus certain designated classes of persons, previously not entitled to vote at such elections, and the residue of cases in

which submission was made to the electors, minus certain classes of persons thus entitled, according to existing {1758} laws. To these should be added two cases in which submissions of constitutions were made to an electorate, both increased and diminished, as compared with that qualified by the existing constitution. Thus the Tennessee convention of 1834, in submitting the constitution of that year, restricted the suffrage given by the convention of 1796, by inserting the word “white,” and enlarged it by no longer requiring a freehold as a qualification for an elector, as did the convention of 1796. The Arkansas convention of 1868, on the other hand, in submitting its constitution, enlarged the previous suffrage by striking out the word “white,” and restricted it by disfranchising persons who were electors according to existing laws, for offenses connected with the war of the rebellion. In a few cases the conventions, by schedules or ordinances, required submission to be made to the electors qualified to vote according to both the existing and the amended constitution. In most of these cases, the effect was on the whole, doubtless, to increase the existing electorate.

Mr. HAMMOND. That is just the way we have been doing all the time.

Mr. NEBEKER. Let San Juan proceed.

The PRESIDENT. San Juan may proceed if there is no objection.

Mr. HAMMOND. I have had my old democratic gun loaded to the muzzle three or four times, and some joke or other will jump up and spring the previous question. Now, on this matter, I am not acquainted with Judge Sutherland nor Judge Henderson. I have heard of those gentlemen and read of them. Now, I am not acquainted with our honorable delegate as a lawyer. I don't know anything about him, and when we San Juan laymen get into a snarl like this and have to depend upon lawyers, I will tell you where I stand. I know Dave Evans, and if he don't know more than all these republicans, then I will sit down. [Applause and laughter.]

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

AYES_34.
Anderson
Boyer
Call
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Francis
Hammond
Hart
Halliday

NOES_53.
Allen
Bowdle
Brandley
Button
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Crane
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Farr
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Heybourne
Hill
Hyde
Ivins

ABSENT_17.
Adams    
Barnes    
Miller
Peters
{1759}
Buys
Cushing
Haynes
Keith
Kimball, Weber
Lewis
Maeser

PAIRED_2.
Kerr    
Pierce.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Pierce and I are paired on the question. I would vote aye and he would vote no.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment is lost, gentlemen.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I move that we strike out all of section 9, down to and including the fourteenth line, except the last word “the.” The rest of the section to stand as a part of what I offer, and insert in place of that struck out the following:

The election for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution and for State officers herein provided for shall be held and conducted according to the laws of the Territory and the provisions of the Enabling Act, at which election the qualified voters of the proposed State shall vote directly for or against the proposed Constitution and candidates for State officers. The votes cast at said election shall be canvassed and returns made in the same manner as was the election for delegates to this Convention.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to include that, of course. I accept that as a part of the substitute that I propose. Now, I only desire to say a few words on that. just merely to call attention to my object in offering this. I have no speech to make, but I have in this language endeavored to strike a ground which those who ate opposed to the women voting, and think it dangerous, ought to compromise on. It follows the exact language of the Enabling Act. It says that at this election the qualified voters of the proposed State shall vote for or against the Constitution, without this Convention undertaking to determine who are the qualified voters of the proposed State.

Mr. CANNON. I desire to ask Mr. Thurman whether the effect of the motion would not be to carry into the courts the contest which we have had here this afternoon?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; and won't the effect of what you have just done be that very same thing?

Mr. CANNON. I think not.

Mr. THURMAN. I can answer it for you, that it most unquestionably will. About the first thing

that will be done, will be to try to determine this matter before the election comes off.

Mr. CANNON. Then, I arise to a point of order. My point of order is that the gentleman is seeking by this motion to introduce again that which the Convention has just decided shall not be introduced. It is in a different form, but it is the same thing under another head.

The point of order was overruled.

Mr. THURMAN. I wish to say now, Mr. President, that in the Enabling Act, section 4 reads that in case a Constitution and State government shall be formed in compliance with the provisions of this act, etc. My amendment contains the language in the Enabling Act. If as a matter of law women have no right to vote, then they are not qualified voters of the proposed State. If they did have a right to vote, then they are qualified voters of the proposed State. I think the amendment ought to be adopted.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, it seems to me that this proposition offered by Mr. Thurman is a very fair one. We are so tenacious about following the Enabling Act, why not follow the exact language in this section? {1760} I am in favor of it, and I think it ought to be adopted. It certainly cannot do anybody any harm. It will be doing that which we ought to do. If there is a serious doubt upon this question, let it be determined in the proper tribunal.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I think we have had this question discussed long enough. I move the previous question.

The motion was agreed to.

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

AYES_36.
Anderson
Boyer
Call
Chidester
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Francis
Hammond
Hart
Howard
Hughes

NOES_48.
Allen
Bowdle
Button
Cannon
Christianson
Clark
Coray
Crane
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Farr
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Heybourne
Hill
Hyde
Ivins
James
Kiesel

ABSENT_22.
Adams
Barnes
Brandley
Buys
Cushing
Haynes
Halliday
Jolley
Keith
Kimball, Weber
Lewis
Maeser
Mackintosh
Miller
Peters
Pierce
Ricks

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I have an amendment that I desire to offer to that section, as follows:

Strike out all after the word “Constitution,” in line 13, in section, and all of line 14 to and including the word “for,” and insert in lieu thereof the following:

And all voters qualified under this Constitution, both male and female, are entitled to vote at the first election for State officers and for members of the Legislature; provided that the vote of each sex shall be taken in separate boxes.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Those two propositions that were made related to the right of women to vote for the Constitution. This is now simply leaving out the voting for the Constitution.

Mr. RICHARDS. If the gentleman will permit me, I will suggest it did not include this, for the reason that in my amendment there was no provision for the vote for State officers to be taken in separate boxes.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I raise {1761} the point of order that this proposition should have come at that time in the form of an amendment. If the gentleman did not wish to carry out the entire proposition proposed by Mr. Richards, he should have proposed an amendment, and after that is disposed of he could not bring it in in this form.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, it would not be germane to the other, because it would not harmonize at all, the other amendments were so different from this. The other two amendments related to the right of women to vote at the election for the ratification or rejection of the Constitution, but in different forms. Now, I propose an amendment that will authorize women to vote for State officers only, and put the vote in separate boxes.

Mr. GOODWIN. Boys twenty years old now, who will be 21 on the first of January_does it include those?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). It includes those who are qualified under the Constitution.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, I appeal from the decision of the chair on this question. I

do not care anything about this amendment that I offer, so far as any virtue that is in it is concerned, because I do not expect that it will be adopted by the Convention, but I want to remind you, gentlemen, of the course of procedure which we have had since the beginning of this Convention. We have always been entitled to offer amendments, and to have them entertained for the purpose of expressing a view which has not been passed upon before. The only thing that is in these other two amendments offered by Mr. Richards and Mr. Thurman, relates to the right of women to vote for the adoption of the Constitution and for State officers. They were competent in the Richards amendment, and in the Richards amendment, it further provided that the votes for the adoption of the Constitution should be in separate boxes. Mr. Thurman's amendment simply followed the Enabling Act for the purpose of permitting the courts to determine who were qualified voters. Now, I simply propose an amendment here that women may vote for State officers alone, that is all. I admit that that is a question, of course, which the Convention may deal with. They can either adopt it or not, but that has nothing to do with this point of order.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, as I understand it, the only ground upon which this could be ruled out of order would be that it is in substance the same as Mr. Richards's amendment. Now, I understand there is a great difference. There is an additional element included in this amendment, and that is that votes for State officers shall be kept separate as well as votes on the ratification and adoption of the Constitution. Now, it will be an impossibility, from the form of these two amendments, for Mr. Evans of Weber to amend Mr. Richards's motion. There is a difference in form. There is no rule anyway requiring him at that time to propose a different proposition, unless he wished to. We have had a right to vote on Mr. Richards's amendment, now we have a right to vote on this.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask Mr. Hart a question. Is it not the original proposition_two ideas conveyed, first, vote for the adoption of the Constitution, and second, vote for State officers?

Mr. HART. I understood it was simply upon the one proposition for the ratification of the Constitution.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, Mr. Richards's motion included an addition in line 12, after the word voter, “and all persons who are qualified to vote at elections held under this Constitution after its adoption,” should have the right to vote, and an addition at the end of the section, “and provided further, {1762} that all votes cast by female voters for or against this Constitution, shall be deposited in separate boxes and canvassed separately and certified.” Mr. Evans's motion provides that all voters qualified under this Constitution, both male and female, are entitled to vote at the first election for State officers and members of the Legislature, etc. I submit, that it is the same proposition in different form, and that by simply changing the verbiage, or selecting a different place in the section, will not accomplish the purpose of keeping us here to vote it down time after time. It seems to me the chair ought to be sustained.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The Richards proposition includes the right to vote for the Constitution and also for State officers, doesn't it?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Some members may be opposed to their right to vote for State officers, but in favor of their voting for the Constitution. Now, I have singled that out so that we may have a vote on that proposition. He has a double proposition, and I have a single one.

Mr. VARIAN. I think that Mr. Richards's amendment included Mr. Evans's proposition. We certainly understood it that way, and we voted twice with some difference in the verbiage upon one or the other of these propositions, once on both of them put together, and on Mr. Thurman's we have voted practically on the same line. It provides that qualified voters of the proposed State should vote directly for or against the proposed Constitution and candidates for State officers.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I insist that this is entirely a separate and distinct proposition. My amendment was that the women should be permitted to vote for the Constitution and for State officers. As was stated by the delegate from Weber, they were both combined, and so far as the Constitution was concerned, it was provided that the vote should be taken separate. This is a separate proposition, for the reason that it brings the question squarely before the Convention alone upon the right of the women to vote for State officers, and for the further reason that it provides for putting the votes in separate boxes for State officers, and my amendment did not provide for that. It is a separate and distinct proposition.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would ask these gentlemen who are contending for another vote upon this proposition, if there was anything in the course of the discussion that would lead them to conclude that this Convention would vote for this single proposition when unconnected with the proposition to tovote for or against the Constitution?

Mr. RICHARDS. Will the gentleman permit me to answer the question he asks?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did not direct it to you.

Mr. RICHARDS. You referred to the gentleman who stated these things.

Mr. ROBERTS. Excuse me. I referred to all of them. I directed my question, not to Mr. Richards at all, and therefore I cannot conceive that I am treating him with discourtesy in not allowing the interruption; but sir, on the other hand, when this question of allowing the women to vote for the officers in the new State government separately was proposed to the committee of the whole, it was voted down, and I contend, sir, that there is no reason that these gentlemen can put forth_that there is anything in the disposition of this Convention to change their vote on this proposition, when it was coupled with the proposition that women should vote for or against the Constitution.

Mr. HART. I would like to ask the gentleman what that has to do with the point of order.

Mr. ROBERTS. In answering that, {1763} I would say, sir, that it helps us in the interpretation of this proposition that is now before the house. The idea is that this Convention has never ex pressed itself upon this proposition singly and alone, and I refer to the action of the committee of

the whole, by which the sense of this Convention may be known or may be properly judged.

Mr. HART. Would the gentleman contend that a motion is out of order unless the mover of it contemplated receiving a majority of the Convention?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I hold that the motion is out of order, for the reason that we have decided this question when it was associated with another question, and there was nothing in the discussion to indicate that gentlemen would vote for it, if separate from the other proposition with which it was connected.

Mr. SQUIRES. And no motion made to separate them.

Mr. ROBERTS. And no motion or amendment made to separate them.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I desire to answer my friend from Davis County. He asks these gentlemen who are contending for this, if there was anything that had occurred to lead us to believe that there would be any difference in the vote. I say yes. I say there are republicans on this floor who have stated time and time again that they were willing to allow women to vote for State officers, but not for the Constitution.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. President, I have voted for Mr. Thurman's amendment and I have not voted for women to vote for State officers. I am certain of that.

The roll being called on the appeal from the thedecision of the chair, the result was as follows:

AYES_43.
Allen    
Bowdle    
Button    
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Crane
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Farr
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Heybourne
Hill

NOES_38.
Anderson
Boyer
Call
Corfman
Creer
Cunningham
Engberg
Evans, Weber
Evans, Utah
Francis
Hammond
Hart
Howard
Hughes
Ivins
Johnson
Kerr
Kimball, Salt Lake
Lemmon

ABSENT_25.
Adams
Barnes
Brandley
Buys
Cushing
Haynes
Halliday
James
Jolley
Kiesel
Maeser
Mackintosh
Miller
Partridge
Peters
Pierce
Ricks
Spencer
Strevell
Symons
{1764}
Keith    
Thatcher
Kimball, Weber

The chair, was sustained.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I want to say by way of explanation, that while I am opposed to the motion made by the gentleman, I am also opposed to the ruling of the chair, and therefore, I shall vote not to sustain the chair.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. President, I move we now adjourn.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment to section 9, and before I present my amendment I desire to say to the gentlemen on both sides of the house, for their relief, that there is no reference whatever to woman's suffrage in the amendment that I propose. I regard this as a very important amendment. In the committee of the whole, on the motion of my colleague from Salt Lake, Judge Goodwin, the words “and are qualified voters” were inserted after the word election, in line 12. That was a mistake. Those words ought not to be there. The Enabling Act provides for the qualifications of certain persons who shall vote on this Constitution, provided that all male citizens of the United States over the age of 21 years, who have resided in this Territory for one year next prior to tosuch election_that is the exact language of the Enabling Act. and the words, “and are qualified voters,” were inserted after, and I move to strike those words out. The purpose of the Enabling Act undoubtedly was, and I think no gentleman on this floor will dispute it, to permit men over twenty-one years of age, who had resided in the Territory one year prior to their election, to vote, who were not qualified to vote under the laws of the Territory_who were ineligible, and were not legal voters except for this act. Now, if we retain these words, “and are legal voters,” it simply means that those men to whom the right to vote is guaranteed by this provision, cannot vote, and those words ought to be stricken out.

Mr. CANNON. Would not the same result that you desire follow by adding “and the qualified voters under the provisions of the Enabling Act?”

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; the words ought not to be there at all, because the committee have undertaken here to prescribe the exact qualification provided in the Enabling Act. Section I provides who may vote, and section 4 guarantees to these people the right to vote. We have been contending that it also guaranteed to other people, in section 4, the right to vote, but certainly no one will deny that it guarantees in inthe latter part of section 2 the right of these people to vote. I suppose this insertion was made by inadvertence. At any rate it would, if allowed to remain here, exclude this class of people from voting, who are guaranteed that right under the Enabling Act.

Mr. CANNON. There is another class, though, on another election here mentioned; that is, in addition to voting for or against the adoption of the Constitution, you also vote for the State officers herein provided for, but at the present time, the officers would not be elected by that class of voters.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I had no thought in making that motion, but to make it conform to another section in this Constitution. The parties referred to by Mr. Richards, as I understood and always contended, were made qualified voters by the amnesty of President Harrison, and later of President Cleveland. My thought was that men who were convicted of such crimes as robbery, homicide, etc., who are scattered through this Territory, and persons also who would be voters if they were registered; I think that without {1765} that, any other man that is not registered at all, can go to the polls on election day and claim the right to vote.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move we adjourn.

The motion was rejected.

Section 10 was read.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, my recollection is that in the article on public lands providing for three land commissioners to locate lands, it was stricken out. If my recollection is correct on that, then, “three land commissioners,” in this section should be stricken out. My recollection is that the section on public lands was so amended. I make the motion, therefore, that those words be stricken out.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I hope that that motion will not prevail. I think it should not prevail. There is nothing in that that will conflict at all with the Enabling Act, as I understand it. Furthermore, it leaves it for the election of these officers by the people, which is a very important matter, as I believe. If this were stricken out, it may be then the Legislature should perhaps appoint some other State officers. Now, I think there is nothing at all in the way here, why we should not elect these as State officers. I do not believe it was the intent at all, in striking out this section, that this should also be stricken out.

Mr. CANNON. Would it not be a strange condition of affairs to have three men elected, when there are no duties assigned to them?

Mr. CREER. The Legislature can prescribe their duty.

Mr. CANNON. The Legislature may see fit to trust it to a dozen men, or half a dozen men, or any number.

Mr. CREER. That is very true, and that is the reason why I say the Constitution should fix it now. I think it is proper they should be State officers.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I remember that these words of section 10, “three land

commissioners,” were inserted here, because, in the committee of the whole, in the article on public lands, we had provided for those land commissioners, but in the Convention that section in the article on public lands, that required the appointment of three land commissioners, was stricken out, and that being the case, the Constitution does not provide for these officers anywhere; and since these officers were provided for in consequence of the section that at that time was a part of the article on public lands, since that has gone, it seems to me but reasonable that the words here also should go.

Mr. CREER. I think, if my memory serves me right that, the section that was stricken out went to prescribing duties of these commissioners, but this simply elects them.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I trust this will not be stricken out. The Legislature can prescribe for their duties. If we are to have these commissioners let us have them elected by the people.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I think it ought to be struck out. This is a schedule. We have no right to put any officer in here, unless he is created in some other part of the Constitution. Have we got it anywhere else?

Mr. ELDREDGE. No, sir.

Mr. VARIAN. Strike him out.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Sections 11, 12, and 13 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move the word “term” be made “terms,” in section 13.

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 14 was read.

The PRESIDENT. The roll will be called on the adpotion of the article.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, the article is now open for remarks, and I simply take this opportunity of saying that as far as the remarks of Mr. {1766} Varian, which related to me, as being a very inferior lawyer and pettifogger and all that, I do not care to resent it especially, except that I will say this, that I believe the amendment which he offered to the section, and which was adopted, ought not to have gone into the schedule. I think if anything upon that subject was put into the Constitution at all, it should have been in the ordinance, and I oppose it seriously upon that ground, and I do not think I shifted around from one position to another. I probably merit all the strictures which he placed upon me. That is a matter which I will leave this Convention to determine. I will say, however, that I believe his work in amending that section is a piece of the worst blacksmith work that I ever saw in a constitution.

AYES_64.
Allen
Anderson
Bowdle
Button
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Crane
Cunningham
Driver
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg
Farr
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Hammond
Hill
Hughes
Ivins
Johnson
Kearns
Kerr    
Lambert    
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lemmon
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Lund
Maughan
Morris
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Wasatch
Murdock, Summit
Page
Peterson, Grand

NOES_18.
Boyer
Corfman
Creer
Evans, Weber
Francis
Hart
Heybourne
Howard
Kimball, Salt Lake
Low, Cache
Maloney
McFarland
Partridge
Preston
Raleigh
Richards
Thoreson
Warrum.

ABSENT_28.
Adams
Barnes
Brandley
Buys
Cushing

During the calling of the roll the following statements were made.

Mr. ANDERSON. I vote aye for the article, but I wish to be recorded as being opposed to section 2, where we are trying to get special legislation in regard to polygamy.

Mr. HAMMOND. I am not altogether satisfied with my vote on the Varian amendment, but I did it merely as an expedient, that is, a republican expedient, and I wanted to help them out as best I could, and so I voted aye. I am ashamed of it. As a democrat I had no business to do it. I will let it go aye.

The PRESIDENT. You will please record that the gentleman is ashamed of himself.

Mr. RICHARDS. I vote aye, with an interrogation mark. I desire to change my vote.
{1767 - MISCELLANEOUS}
Mr. EVANS (Weber). If the article will carry without my vote, I would like to vote no, but I do not want it to fail.

The PRESIDENT. I cannot say.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Well, I will vote no and see whether I can change my vote afterward.

Mr. CREER. Change my vote to no. I vote no.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. I voted aye, and I am willing to vote aye, if Mr. Thurman's amendment had carried, but under the circumstances I believe I will change my vote to no.

Mr. CREER. That is the way I felt.

The PRESIDENT. The article has been adopted, and under the rules goes to the committee on compilation and arrangement.

The committee on engrossment and enrollment presented the following communication:

Mr. PRESIDENT:

Your committee on engrossment and enrollment finding nothing in the rules prescribing the number of copies of the Constitution to be prepared for the signature of the delegates, respectfully ask instructions as follows:

(1.) How many copies of the Constitution shall be prepared for signature of delegates?

(2.) Shall all of said copies be written, pen and ink copies, or may any of them be in typewriting?

Mr,VARIAN. Permit me to suggest to make it a select committee?

Mr. RICHARDS. No; this is a rule.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then, at 6 o'clock p. m., adjourned.