[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.

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

The Convention then resolved itself into the committee of the whole and resumed the consideration of the article entitled miscellaneous, Mr. Eichnor in the chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I observe that the chairman of the committee reporting this article is not present and for the information of the committee, I wish to state the circumstances under which this report has been made. There were, I think, a number of suggestions in regard to an article for the Constitution on the subject of exemptions. The committee, in consequence of having so much other matter before it, had but little opportunity to go into this matter in detail for themselves and make any personal detailed examination of the subject, but one of the files that was referred to this committee contained this article that is now reported to the committtee of the whole. It is an article drafted by Judge Cooley and is taken bodily from the Michigan constitution, and the committee on schedule and miscellaneous were of the opinion that it is a subject that ought to be considered and disposed of by the Convention, and they, therefore, in consequence of the great reputation of Mr. Cooley as a constitutional lawyer, concluded the best thing they could do would be not to attempt any improvement on his production, but to report that as a working basis for the committee. The position, therefore, of your committee on schedule and amendments is this, that while they have reported this article to you, they are not standing in the position of recommending or urging its passage at all, but have merely reported it here for the action of the committee or of the Convention.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that this ought to be left {1768} to the Legislature. Therefore, I move to strike out section 1.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of this committee, but I sincerely trust that motion will not carry. The article as reported is copied literally from the constitution of Michigan, and I am informed by Judge Miner, who is a distinguished jurist in this Territory and a native of Michigan, or a resident of that statel that Judge Cooley drew it. It has worked most admirably in Michigan, and they would not part with it under any circumstances. This question was discussed before the people in our county. The people up there demand something of this character. I sincerely trust it will pass. If the question comes down to this, whether the money power should be protected or the widows and children, I think this Convention will take care of the little children and keep this provision in the Constitution.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this motion will not prevail as to this section, nor any other section in this article. I trust it is the will of this committee to give that much protection to

the little homes, and to the orphans and widows of Utah. Capital will take care of itself. This does not apply to any mortgage legally drawn. If those debts should be contracted by a husband that is called away, and left his children without any protection, or a man without the consent of his wife, to take the little from them_this is the only thing that we have left in the Constitution to protect them. They say it is legislative matter. That may be very true. I maintain that it is good constitutional matter, and matter that will be to our honor long after we have gone to the grave. So I trust, gentlemen of this committee, that there is not one section of this article that will get a jar at your hands.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, it may be true that it does partake a little of legislative matter, but if we have never done any legislating in the Constitution, I would be in favor now of entering upon that new field. If the assertion of gentlemen on this floor be correct, we have played a little at that heretofore, and some way it has turned out that whenever there was anything that seemed to look out for the interests of those that we ought to look out for particularly, we hear the cry that it is legislation. In nineteen constitutions of the United States (the names of the states I have before me, but I will not read them), there are provisions protecting the homestead, and the people entitled thereto. California, in its late constitution, made a declaration that the legislature should pass laws protecting the homestead exemptions, and those states that have been lately admitted to the Union_Wyoming, Washington, South Dakota, and Montana_all have provisions of some kind on the question of the exemption of homesteads. Now, the only thing, in my opinion, is whether this article is the one that we want or not. I am fully of the opinion that we ought to say something on the subject in this Constitution. This article I have looked over very carefully. It is clear, explicit, and simple. I do not see how we could get the substance very much shorter than we have it in this article. Now. if you commence to strike out, I apprehend that the whole article will go. That is our disposition when we once start that business. We do not stop short. So that I want to defend the first section of this article, not for what it contains so much as
what is in the subsequent sections. It is the policy of this government, every state in the Union, to protect people named in this article, in the possession of something to keep them from want, and I oppose the striking out of this first section. I think that it is just exactly what we want on that subject.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not strike this section out. {1769} It is a provision tending to protect the poor and weak_those who need protection. The money lender and the rich man take care of themselves. If a section of this kind or an article of this kind is in the Constitution, they will be more careful. I think an article of this kind should be in the Constitution, and, therefore, I shall vote against the striking out.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, the present law of the Territory is that the debtor is entitled to an exemption of property, at least equal to this. I am in favor of retaining the first section. It will prevent the Legislature, in case there shall be any disposition, which I do not fear, from reducing the exemption of personal property. I am in favor of retaining the first section, although I am opposed to the second section, and will give my reasons for that when that comes up.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer as an amendment to the motion to strike out, to precede the section with the words, “until otherwise provided by law.”

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, in order to save time, it seeming to be against the wishes of this Convention, I will withdraw the motion.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I make the motion to strike this section out. It has been asserted that the first section is to protect the poor man. I think this other section is to protect the money lender. Under our present law, the head of the family is allowed one thousand dollars, five hundred dollars for the wife, and two hundred and fifty dollars for each child. Now, I think that this is not as good as the law that we already have. The exemption of forty acres of land is not a good provision because one piece of laud owned by one party may not be as good in value as that owned by another. I think it should be placed on a money valuation basis.

Mr. SNOW. Doesn't this section provide for a money basis of fifteen hundred dollars?

Mr. CHIDESTER. Well, if I understand it aright, it is not true.

Mr. SNOW. Do you not understand that “not to exceed fifteeenhundred dollars,” applies to the forty acres as to the city lot?

Mr. CHIDESTER. I understand that the exemption is to be forty acres of land, or instead thereof, at the option of the owner, a city lot. If he has land and also a city lot, he can take his choice, but if he has not the city lot, the land is his exemption, and no matter what the value of it is, why, that is all that can be exempted. I think it should be on a money basis. If he has not the town property, then we have got to take his exemptions in forty acres of land, let it be good or bad. Now, under the present law, there is so much exemption, and I think it is a much better law than this. Then, besides that, I think this is a piece of legislation that should be left to the Legislature. They never have shown any disposition to rob the poor man or to change the exemption so but that the debtor was well protected, and it is my opinion that they never will seek to change it to injure the poor man, and for that reason I think that this section should be stricken out.

Mr. BOWDLE. How would this protect the money lenders, Mr. Chidester?

Mr. CHIDESTER. Because it seeks to make the exemption less than the amount that we have at present.

Mr. BOWDLE. It might or might not, might it? Suppose that described a man and his wife under the present law, he would not have fifteen hundred dollars, would he?

Mr. CHIDESTER. Well, that is true, but if they had eight or ten children, they would only have the same amount; I think it is unjust in {1770} that, too. I think the larger the family the more exemption they should have.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will have to add to the remarks of the eloquent gentleman from Cache. I do not wish to wear out the good patience of this committee discussing this all day. It is useless, for I think the gentlemen have come to the conclusion that this is a very good article and will maintain it. He says the same state of affairs does not exist in Utah that exists in Michigan or California. Now, {1771} it is very necessary for the orphans or widows of Utah to have protection, just as well as in those states. Reference has been made, if the gentlemen will remember, by most every member of the legal fraternity on this floor since this Convention opened, to Judge Cooley. It has been stated that he was an able constitutional lawyer. Not

belonging to that fraternity, I listened to their eloquent praise on this matter, and thought he was, too, but since I have examined this article in the constitution of Michigan, I concede to the gentlemen that he was more than eloquent; he was a true man, to protect the poor of the state he was in, and I trust the motion to strike this out will not prevail, and not only this, but any section in this article.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the gentleman has not given this section deliberate reflection or else he may not be fully conversant with our present laws. I agree with the gentleman from Cache (Mr. Hart), that this section is not suited to the condition and situation of the people of this Territory, because a great many of the owners of real estate live in small towns, villages, and settlements, and as he has remarked, under our present law, it is valuation. Now, under this law, it would prevent the man who had a little homestead, city lot, small home, from having anything else exempt than that. As he remarked, the law as it stands now, the land can be taken in detached pieces, and it is exempt to the amount he stated, one thousand dollars to the head of the family, five hundred dollars to the wife, and two hundred and fifty dollars to each of the children. That is not the only objection; we have lien laws. This would sweep out, to my understanding, the protection that there is to the contractor; to the builder, to the material man, and the man who labored in building the house, there is no protection. It simply would remove that protection away, because it is a protection against any and all contractors. Now, I think that the laws are very good as they stand to-day, that it should be the valuation of the homestead, and our law as it stands is much more liberal than this is. It gives a better opportunity for the man to secure his home, and, furthermore, this will place the single man precisely on the same grounds.

Mr. CORAY. May I ask the gentleman a question? If the town lot or city lot mentioned in this section should happen to lie under the Gardo house, would not you think the exemption sufficient?

Mr. CREER. I understand it is only exempt to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars, no matter where it may be. It names the amount; but there is another objection to the section, and that is that the single man stands exactly upon the same ground as the married man. He may have a homestead to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars. You are talking about the widows and children. Why, you are protecting the single man to the detriment of the man of family. If a married man, the mortgage would not only be valid without the consent of his wife. which clearly means that a single man can have an exemption to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars. Now, our laws do not grant that privilege at the present time, and I think the whole plan or system of this section is entirely wrong. I am in favor of striking it out. It is not fair.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask the gentleman, if he can, to explain how this section affects the mechanic's lien laws in this Territory?

Mr. CREER. Of course, it makes provision that any debt contracted after this Constitution_but I say it is in opposition to the present system, to our own lien laws as we have them today_the mechanic's lien and the material man_he who furnishes the lumber and the material, simply because they are protected; they have a mechanic's {1772} lien and this does not provide anything of that kind, but simply independent of any debt whatever, it gives him a protection of

the homestead. I say it is entirely different, whatever the situation of the people of Michigan may be. I think that our system is much better than this provides.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to this section, by striking out all of section 2, down to and including “constitution,” in line 14, and substitute the following:

Every person, the head of a family, shall have exempt from execution, real estate to the value of fifteen hundred dollars, together with a house thereon.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Well, I do not know; it seems to me that fifteen hundred dollars and a home on it ought to be enough. I think men ought to pay their debts, and I am highly in favor of protecting the family in the homestead right and with some land. Now, my reasons for offering that is this: Under this, as I comprehend it, if a man had a little city lot, as many of our people have in villages, with perhaps half an acre of land, just barely enough for him to live on, and a very small garden, that under the provision of section 2 as I have comprehended, if he should select that as his homestead, it would cut him off from every other particle of land that he may have. He may have forty acres of land that would be worth very little more than this half acre of land would be in the townsite. I know of such cases in the town where I live. When you take in consideration the fact that he has a little house and that in addition to that lot, his selection would be that little home, thereby depriving him of five acres or ten acres of land that he may have had in the field. The object of this motion is that he should be protected first in his home, if it shall be a home that is worth fifteen hundred dollars, exclusive of the house thereon; then he ought not to be exempt from more, but if it shall be a little lot, that is worth three hundred dollars or four hundred dollars, then if he has a small farm, he ought to be protected in that, that they could be joined together. so long as in the aggregate they do not exceed fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. JOLLEY. The homestead_the little home and the piece of land, suppose it lays a distance from the homestead, would that make any difference?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I think that this would cover it, if a man owned in the city a lot worth five hundred dollars, and he owned a farm in the field that is worth a thousand dollars, that this would exempt it.

Mr. IVINS. Is it not a fact that under your amendment, an exemption would be granted of lands to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars with the house that was on them, regardless of the value of the house?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir.

Mr. IVINS. Then, a man might own a city lot, and he might have a house on it worth twenty or thirty thousand dollars.

Mr. MALONEY. I did not hear your amendment read, but would not it meet the objection by striking out the words “and occupied,” in lines 10 and 9?

Mr. CREER. I desire to offer this as a substitute for the entire section. I think it is much better:

A homestead, as provided by law, shall be exempt from forced sale, under any process of law, and shall not be alienated without the joint consent of husband and wife, when that relation exists, but no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes, or for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said premises, or for the erection of improvements thereon.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of liberal exemptions, and I am therefore not in favor of the section as it stands, in the report of the committee. It is not in my opinion a good provision; that is, it is not a provision that is applicable to the condition of the people of this Territory. The gentleman from Summit seems to think that it necessarily follows that because Judge Cooley is a great constitutional lawyer (and I say in passing that no man has a greater reverence or respect for his ability in that capacity that I have), that therefore everything that Judge Cooley may prepare or recommend or suggest for the state of Michigan must be exactly the right thing for the Territory or State of Utah. Now, this provision may be all right in Michigan. I do not propose to say anything about that, because I do not know how it works there. I am told by gentlemen who do know or claim to know, that it works well, but I say that it is not applicable to the people of this Territory or of the new State. We have now, as has been stated here, an exemption law that is infinitely better than this, in my estimation. It is a law by which the head of the family is entitled to a homestead of the value of one thousand dollars in his own right. If he has a wife he gets an additional five hundred dollars in valuation, and for each minor child, he gets an additional two hundred and fifty dollars. Now, it seems to me that that is a much more equitable and proper way of estimating exemptions, according to the size of the family, than to make an exemption of a specific sum, or of a homestead of a specific value, to apply to a man whether he has any family or not. I think the value of the exemption should be determined by the size of the family. That is my idea about that. Now, as has been pointed out to you, in regard to the selection of the homestead, it has been held by the courts of this Territory, under the statute that I have referred to, that a man, if he has a little home in the town that is worth five hundred dollars, he may select that, and then he may select in addition to that a farm, or a meadow, or a pasture, or any other tract of land that he may, by which he obtains his subsistence, and the subsistence of his family. Isn't that just and right? I think so. I am not in favor of this provision. I think myself, that if we were to adopt such a provision as there is in the constitution of Washington, that that would be perfectly safe. There they provide in the Constitution, as is usual where any mention is made of exemptions, that the Legislature shall provide for the exemption of homesteads and personal property, to judgment debtors, the heads of families.

Now, I think that that would be sufficient, but if that is not deemed sufficient, then let us have

something similar to the provision in Wyoming, or something that will be broad enough to give us such an exemption as I have spoken of that may be adapted to the size of the family, and the condition of the family. I am not in favor of the section as it stands, but am in favor of striking it out.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the suggestions made by my colleague (Mr. Richards). It seems to me that this section as it stands is not only legislation, but of an extremely undesirable nature, and the amendment offered by Mr. Creer seems to contemplate matters that might properly be left to the Legislature. I do not see why, as suggested by one of the gentle men, in place of sections 2, 3, and 4 we might not content ourselves with the provision “the Legislature shall provide by law for the selection and exemption {1774} of a homestead from sale on execution.” That is all that is necessary, unless we desire to tie the hands of the Legislature, and it may be, and probably will be, the case sooner or later that the people will want a change in that particular. Exemption laws are of great benefit, particularly in times of financial crises and distress, for the protection of the people. And I am utterly and entirely opposed to putting into the Constitution any fixed limitation, either of a maximum or a minimum, in regard to that matter. If the matter were now open for amendment, I should offer substantially what I have read, in lieu of section 2, and then move to strike out sections 3 and 4, if it should carry, because all that follows, as a matter of course, if there is an exemption.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment prepared that I was thinking to offer, but as it is so that I cannot now, I will simply make it a portion of my remarks, and read it that the delegates may have it before them in considering their vote upon the question now pending:

To all heads of family, there shall be an exemption of lands and the improvements thereon. not exceeding in value one thousand dollars, and if such head of a family be married, five hundred dollars for the wife and two hundred and fifty dollars for each minor child.

The amendment of Mr. Evans, of Utah, was rejected.

The substitute offered by Mr. Creer was rejected.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I now move to amend section 2, by striking out the words, “not exceeding forty acres,” in lines 1 and 2, and inserting in lieu thereof the word “consisting,” and also striking out, in line 4, all after the word “thereof,” and all of lines 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, and part of line 10, to and including the word “State.”

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment now to section 2 as a whole.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment meets all the objection that has been brought out in opposition to the provisions of the section as it now stands. It will cover the peculiar conditions referred to by my colleague, from Cache, of people that may own a small portion of land adjoining the town and live within the town or vice versa. They may own part of

the town lot; it may be a farm, and they may live immediately outside; as long as the value of their land does not exceed fifteen hundred dollars, it is exempt; also, to cover circumstances peculiar to our country. Supposing a man goes out on to 160 acres of dry land, under the present section, 120 acres of that land could be taken from him through failure of crops or otherwise, by which he could not meet his obligations. Now, if his homestead was not worth more than fifteen hundred dollars, it would be retained to him and his family. I think we should guard the homestead to this man, and I do not think the limit is too much under the circumstances that we find ourselves in, and I believe it covers the conditions of the Territory, and it conforms to a great extent to our present law.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to have my substitute read now.

The same was read as follows: Strike out section 2 and insert, “The Legislature shall provide by law for the selection by heads of families of exemptions of homesteads from sale on execution.”

Mr. VARIAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, why should we undertake to fix these matters of detail for all time, or at least until the Constitution shall come to be amended? Of necessity this question of exemptions from sale for the protection {1775} of the property of debtors from the exactions and demands of creditors, is one of public policy, depending from time to time upon the condition of the people and the necessities which exist. I believe, although I do not speak by the book, because I have not made the detailed examination, but my general impression is from what I have read heretofore, that very generally throughout the country this idea is contained in the several constitutions. At all events, it seems to me that it is so manifestly reasonable and in accordance with the general intent and idea of constitution making, that it ought to be accepted to provide a limitation upon the Legislature beyond which they may not depart. That is to say, insist that there shall be the necessary exemptions for the protection of poor debtors, or the people, but leave that necessity to be determined from time to time by the Legislature, which is better enabled to pass upon the question, as the several legislatures meet, than this Constitutional Convention.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman. while Mr. Thoreson's amendment is a great improvement over section 2, yet I am in favor of the substitute offered by Mr. Varian, and I do not think it would be wise to define just what the homestead should be. I think we should provide as California, Washington, and other states have in a general way, that there shall be a homestead, and then leave it to the Legislature to say what that homestead shall be. Mr. Thoreson fixes it at fifteen hundred dollars. In some cases that will not he large enough. A man has a family of ten, twelve or more, a homestead of fifteen hundred dollars may be almost exhausted by the house and lot within the city limits, and then his farm that he should retain in order to support his family would be taken from them and sold to pay his debts. Whereas, if he is permitted to retain his farm, he would be able to pay his debts from the proceeds thereof.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, this matter has been talked upon one side, but there is another side to this question that seems to me ought to be taken notice of. Now, my ideas in regard to a large exemption are, that in many respects it is very detrimental. There are some men that are always willing and struggling to pay their debts, and there is another class that are not willing, and they will make any agreement, either with a poor man or a man of means, and will

make any promise, and of course that promise is very frequently accepted, and yet after they have contracted the debt, if they know that their property is inside of the exemption, there is very little exertion made by the persons to pay their debts. Now, it has a bad tendency, let me tell you, to have a very extended limitation, for this fact that people are not careful; if they know that the limitation is pretty contracted_pretty small, they will endeavor to work within that limit, but if they have a very liberal exemption of property by the Legislature, or by any means that there is an exemption, then they feel perfectly at ease to go into debt. Now, I contend that our present depressed times that we are now passing through, we will look back to and see that they are an advantage to the people in this respect. People will become more careful than they were formerly, and it is upon the same principle that you extend a large exemption to people, and they will be very careless and indifferent in regard to their indebtedness. Some men, it makes no difference how poor they are, will pay their debts, but there are many men, or persons, that will not pay their debts, and you cannot get it. The transaction is frequently between poor men. Of course men of means are able to take care of themselves_at least they do so, but I think that there should {1776} be a restriction, and that men of small means, that contract debts with other men of small means, it is just as absolutely just that these men should pay their debts as it is that men should have an amount of property exempt. Now, this is a feature, perhaps, that some may not have thought of, but it is calculated to make men more extravagant and more ready to go into debt, if they know that their exempted property will warrant them to do so. I speak of this, that you may have that side of the matter to look at. The exemptions that are contained in this article here, seem to me to be quite sufficient for any reasonable man.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, all the states recognize the justice and necessity of homestead laws. It is well under our Constitution to do the same, but it is a matter which the Legislature ought to regulate from year to year. A fifteen hundred dollar exemption would not be any more than a five hundred dollar exemption was twenty-five years ago. Probably a fifteen hundred dollar exemption will not be any more than a three thousand dollar exemption twenty-five years hence. The value of property is changing every day. The value of property is changing every day, and the necessities of men are changing every day, and that being the case, it ought not to be fixed and rigid in this Constitution, but after the principle is recognized, the whole business should be given to the Legislature to regulate from year to year. I favor the substitute.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, I am in favor of this substitute. As a rule, when anything is sprung on us from a republican, I am dead against it, but this substitute, I favor and I have my reasons. I do not wish anything fixed in the Constitution that shall in any way militate against the prospects of San Juan. While we have no widows there that I am aware of_I do not know of a widow in the county, but with the surroundings and prospects, we are living in an Indian country, we do not know what may transpire any moment, and the time may come when we will have as many widows there as they have in Sanpete to-day, and I want a provision or want the Legislature to be foot loose, so that they can take care of this matter as the exigencies of the case may required from year to year. Therefore I am in favor of this substitute from the gentlemanly gentleman, of Salt Lake.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, if the gentleman from San Juan had not spoken when he did, but had waited until he found out the position which I take, his vote might have been

different; I believe, gentlemen, in a Constitutional Convention, that we ought to recognize a substantial right to people owning homesteads and who have families and children dependent upon them. I do not believe that the article as first proposed would meet the conditions of our Territory. It has worked, I am told, admirably in Michigan. It was drawn there by the shrewdest constitutional lawyer living, and of course, he kept in mind the particular conditions of Michigan people. There usually people do not live in settlements as they do in Utah. That is not so much the rule, so that I think it would not be right to make a man either select a lot or his farm and lose one or the other. I believe that he ought to have a certain amount exempt in both lots and farms, because here they live in little cities and have their farms lying just adjacent to the town; but I do believe, gentlemen, that we ought to do something to recognize the right of the homestead. I am unqualifiedly in favor of that. The Varian amendment simply says the Legislature may do this. It has that unqualified power without our saying anything at all.

Mr. HART. Does not it say that the Legislature shall do so?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Well, that would {1777} be construed the same as may. It is not compulsory upon the Legislature when we say it shall do so.

Mr. HART. Would it be construed the same as may?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It is simply directory, you could not compel them do it. I believe the Legislature would. The argument has been made that it will have a tendency to make people go into debt. I have heard that matter discussed a good many times and there is a serious difference of opinion on that question. My own view is that the tendency is to keep people out of debt. I will tell you why. The creditor will extend credit more tardily when he knows that the man is secure in his home and his possessions up to a certain amount, and the individual owning the farms and homes will not go into debt so readily, because the creditor will not extend the favor. It will keep people more out of debt. It will make creditors and debtors alike more careful in going into debt, and anything that will prevent indebtedness I believe is a good thing for the people.

Mr. President, I have formulated an amendment here which is not in order now, and I will read it, which I believe ought to be inserted, and the substance of it is, following Michigan, that it allows a homestead of at least fifteen hundred dollars in separate parcels of land, so that the Legislature may grant more, but my own idea is to fix it constitutionally, that the man owning a home and having a family will be secure in his home against any creditor who might issue an execution, and have it levied upon his home, and have it sold out, and thereby divest his family of shelter which is so much needed. I will read it as a part of my argument:

Every homestead of not exceeding forty acres of land and the dwelling house thereon and the appurtenances, to be selected by the owner thereof; or instead thereof, at the option of the owner, any lot, in any city, village, or recorded town plat, or such parts or lots thereof, and its appurtenances, owned by any resident of the State, of at least the value of fifteen hundred dollars, shall be exempt from forced sale on execution or any other final process from a court for any debt contracted after the adoption of this Constitution. Selections may be made from one or more parcels of such lands, to the amount of the sum herein designated. Such exemption shall not extend to any mortgage thereon lawfully obtained, but such mortgage or other alienation of such lands by the owner thereof, if a married man, shall not be valid

without the signature of his wife to the same.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). He cannot have more than forty acres of land, if it is of at least the value of fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. CHIDESTER. As I understand it, no matter what the value is, he cannot go over forty acres?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think that would be the proper construction of it.

Mr. CHIDESTER. So that, in that respect it stands the same as in the original section?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). But I will say this, if he owns a farm that is not worth fifteen hundred dollars and he owns a city lot, which would make the two worth fifteen hundred dollars, he could claim both.

Mr. CHIDESTER. But if he did not own a city lot and only owned forty acres of ground, no matter what its value might be, he could only take the forty acres of ground.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). That is right.

Mr. CHIDESTER. And the land might not be worth five hundred dollars.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Exactly; but if it is worth more than fifteen hundred dollars, of course it could be sold.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman from Weber that we should have something in this Constitution to guard the homestead of our residents and those who may be. {1778} We expect an influx of people into this new State, and sending them our Constitution, we want to send them our guaranty that when they dispose of their property east and move into our State, with the wife and the children of such families, they may have some guaranty that they will be provided for at least to the extent of fifteen hundred dollars. Now, it is stated that this may be left to the Legislature. I have heard time and time again by the representative men of this Territory, expressing their want of confidence in future legislatures, and it is a question in my mind if the people of this Territory entertain the same lack of confidence, and I say in looking over the constitutions of so many states, we find that this is provided for as a guaranty to the families of the residents of the state or those who may be, and I think we should do something definite on this subject. I believe furthermore, that fixing the exemption at fifteen hundred dollars, and without including land, whether that be forty acres or one hundred and sixty acres, or whether it be confined to the one acre, so that it is the land that is used for the homestead and upon which the family subsists, that it will be guaranteed to that family forever from encroachments of any kind. I believe, gentlemen, that if a man gets in debt over and above this amount that he ought to pay the debt. If the man leaves his wife and children, whether he has a

large family or a, small one, with fifteen hundred dollars, it is a safeguard and a satisfaction to them, and I do not think that they could ask for much more, which in our Territory would be an average endowment, and that which is provided now by law_both exemptions, and the right retained on the widows and children from the estate of their deceased husband and father. I hope that in considering my amendment to this provision_it leaves the field open as regards the amount of land. It allows the head of the family to designate the appurtenances belonging to that homestead. Some objections have been made that water rights should be included. I say that water rights are the appurtenances unto the land and he has a right to designate and select them; also a home and such other property to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars, with the provisions we have already adopted in section 1; two thousand dollars I think is a liberal law on this subject.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I did not intend to say anything on this question until I saw that there was a disposition to say everything on one side and nothing on the other. The only gentleman that I have heard on the floor that seems to view this thing from both sides of the question is Bishop Murdock. The balance of them have all been talking that they must appoint a guardian to take care of the people. and they see nothing beyond that proposition. Now, I want to say to you, there is another side to this question. I call this Convention's attention to the fact, in place of bringing people into the Territory, the provision of the gentleman from Cache will keep them out of the Territory. Let a man travel down through the newly settled portions of Nebraska, Kansas, and that country where the poor honest man goes out from the city or some foreign country and locates on a piece of land, and all he has got in the world may be is a pair of cows or a yoke of oxen, or a single mule, or something of that kind, and he goes to breaking up land, under the right of homestead. He goes to the merchant near by and he says to him, “1 want a few supplies to tide me over this summer until I can raise a little crop. and I will pay you back.” The merchant credits him, but these gentlemen would make a provision here which would prevent him getting credit. He must have a house of fifteen hundred dollars, and he must have so on, that will be exempt from the payment of certain debts. {1779} Why, you are just simply putting a prevention in the way of the poor man of going to the store and getting credit.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Those people could give a mortgage on this under this proposed amendment, could they not?

Mr. JAMES. They have not acquired title to their home yet.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Then they could not take it away?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes; they could sell out their possessory right under execution.

Mr. JAMES. Of course, I want to see something done in the way of protecting people, and leaving something to orphans and widows, but I believe it will be much more safely done by Mr. Varian's amendment, by leaving it to the Legislature.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I want to say a single word in answer to what Mr. James has said. He speaks of Kansas, as though there was no exemption law. I would like to remind the gentleman that the constitution of Kansas provides that there shall be a homestead of 160 acres of

farming land. That is a good deal more liberal than we are proposing to give in this Territory.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Permit me to say that I will change my substitute, if we ever reach it, to 160 acres, because it will make no difference anyway. The value should be fifteen hundred dollars. While I am upon my feet, I simply want to say that for the purpose of securing in the Constitution that much value to the settlers, and those who have families, this provision should be adopted.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President. I will take up but a moment of time. With the change made by my colleague from Weber County, I will be glad to vote for his amendment. The gentleman from Salt Lake who just addressed the committee, argued that it would keep people out of Utah, if they came here, and could not get credit. I want to say to this committee, that a iiberalexemption law, or homestead law, is what built up the great state of Kansas. People by the hundreds and thousands came there because of the great protection that the poor people have. We have a proposition here to leave it to the Legislature. I want to say to you, when you leave it to the Legislature, you will find it changed at almost every meeting of the Legislature, like it was in some of the states east of the Mississippi. What we want is to fix it in the Constitution, and make it permanent, so that no Legislature can alter it. Now, when it is fixed, that is the end of it. In so far as the amount is concerned, when you leave it to the Legislature, it is continually being altered at every session of the Legislature, and you will see a great many complications growing out of the fact that it was one amount at the time of one contract, and another at another, and the courts will be flooded with litigation. I say make it permanent.

Mr. HART. How many changes have been made in the homestead exemption law in the last eight years in Utah?

Mr. MALONEY. I do not know that any have been made so far as real estate is concerned, but so far as changes have been made with regard to the exemptions of personal property_

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask how many changes have been made in personal property within the last twenty years?

Mr. MALONEY. I do not know, but there have been changes made several times within the last ten years with regard to the personal property exemptions.

Mr. CREER. I think the gentleman is mistaken.

Mr. HART. It made it more liberal.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The Legislature of 1894 exempted the clothing of a man. Prior to that time, his wearing {1780} apparel could be taken right from the hook, hanging in the house.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am opposed to the original section and also to the amendment of Mr. Thoreson, for the reason that in both of these the amount is left the same for a man who has no family, as for the man, the head of a large family.

No distinction is made and no difference would be allowed in either case. I think that a difference should be allowed. The Evans amendment, if it were presented, is one to which there would be less objection, and the only objection I would have to it would be the fact that it leaves it for the Legislature to change from time to time. I am in favor of fixing this matter_-

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It cannot be less than fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. CANNON. I understand that it cannot be less. I say to that extent I favor it, but at the same time, I say it would be better to fix it in our Constitution and leave it so that it would not be subject to change from time to time. I believe that the present law is one which is satisfactory to the people of Utah, and for this reason, whenever it is presented, I shall favor the amendment offered, or that will be offered when opportunity is presented, by the gentleman from Summit County, Mr. Eldredge. I believe that that comes nearer to giving justice to the people than any other, and I believe that it is one that should be fixed. To that extent I agree with Mr. Maloney and believe that in the Constitution is the proper place to provide what your exemptions of homestead shall be. I think that it would be eminently proper to fix it now, and I believe that men who loan money and men who give credit where it is fixed in the Constitution, will be better satisfied with it, than if it is left for change from time to time. I shall therefore vote against the original section and against these amendments, and if given an opportunity shall vote for Mr. Evans' substitute with some amendment, possibly.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I understood will be proposed, which is not before the Convention now, of the gentleman from Weber, confines the exemption to a certain number of acres of land. In regard to my amendment, it leaves the amount open. We have land in this Territory worth all the way from twenty-five cents to a thousand dollars an acre, and when you come to define the number of acres, I do not see where the consistency is. Confine it to so much money, fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. LUND. I would like to ask a question of some member of this committee. Will this exemption extend to promissory notes?

Mr. THORESON. No, sir; the first section does.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this will be left to the Legislature and that they will not make the exemption very great. For instance, if I were a married man and I should buy from some neighbor who thought I was honest, land and the improvements thereon, and he left it to my honesty, and it was not worth fifteen hundred dollars, and my property was not worth that much, he would be turned out and I would be turned in. He would not hold anything in the world, and I would own all that he had owned, and I would be exempt; execution could not be served upon me. I think that this exemption is not a very fair law. I am very much of the opinion that Mr. Murdock has expressed.

Mr. THORESON. Are you opposed to section 1 or 2?

Mr. LUND. Both of them.

The Legislature shall provide by law for the selection by each head of the {1781} family an exemption of a homestead of the value of at least fifteen hundred dollars from sale on execution.

Mr. HART. I would like to ask Mr. Richards the purpose of that_if it is not to require the head of a family to make his selection and to record it as required in some states, such as Idaho, and if he would omit to declare that he desired to retain that homestead, he would not have a right to do so, having it made a matter of record by the county recorder.

Mr. RICHARDS. I suppose it would require a selection. I presume, however, that if he desired it to be modified in that particular, the gentleman from Salt Lake would agree to it. In that particular it follows the language of Mr. Varian's amendment, so that the question should be directed to him.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It would still be statutory. The Legislature could provide for it.

Mr. RICHARDS. Certainly.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). And it could repeal that act whenever it wanted to.

Mr. RICHARDS, Yes, but it could not provide for less than a fifteen hundred dollar exemption.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is, if it provided for it at all; but it would not have to provide any exemption at all.

Mr. RICHARDS. It is hardly to be supposed they would not provide some exemption.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, there are just three or four objections that I desire to call attention to. Taking the last question of Mr. Hart first, it does not necessarily follow that the selection shall be made in the form indicated. It may be, as now, selected at any time_when execution is levied, if the Legislature shall so provide; but let me call the attention of the committee to the fact that we have, I presume, what is deemed to be a good exemption law. it has been on the statute book for a number of years. Under this Constitution it would be continued in force until changed by the Legislature. Now, this constitutional provision simply guarantees that it shall never be changed, or that it shall never be obliterated. It must be maintained in some form or other. As to the objection that the word shall be construed as may, as I understand, that would do violence to all rules of statutory construction. Where the word shall is to be deemed directory, always, is made to depend upon the meaning of the Legislature in that particular, and that is to be gathered from the context. Nothing is to be determined here except the fact that the word shall means just what it says, that the Legislature shall provide by law. In relation to the suggestion made by Mr. Thoreson, in regard to water rights, that simply indicates now the difficulty of attempting to

legislate upon this subject in the Constitution. Water rights are not part and parcel in all cases of the realty here, or appurtenant to the land. In many instances, under your laws, they are considered personal property. Then, again, you are confronted with this other difficulty. Under the United States laws. men holding homesteads of 160 acres of land, under the laws of the United States, have them exempt. The Legislature, in dealing with this question, would regulate the whole subject with reference to the exemptions and necessities of the case.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I agree with you about your construction of the word “may” and “shall” in legislative enactments, but in this sense, where a Constitutional Convention directs the Legislature to do a thing of this kind, by using the word shall, is it compulsory upon the Legislature?

Mr. VARIAN. I think it is, without question. “Shall” means what it says, otherwise, why say anything about it? If the Constitution means that it shall be left to the Legislature to do it or not, {1782} there is no necessity for putting anything in there at all. Now, this is in accordance with the constitution of many of the states, certainly of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, I believe, and I simply was endeavoring to show the difficulty of doing exact justice in the matter by attempting to put in details and surrounding the matter with restrictions and limitations. It ought to be left to the Legislature, because, just as sure as you undertake now to cover the subject, you will ascertain that you have omitted something, when it is too late, or conditions and necessities of your people may change. There may come a time when you would want an exemption of five thousand dollars. Then again the time may be when the people of this State will want it two thousand dollars, or, as has been suggested by Mr. Cannon, in relation to the number in the family; but as it stands now, with this provision in the Constitution, the existing law will be maintained until the Legislature shall modify or change it, but it never can wipe it out.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I only want to call attention to the one fact that water rights are personal property, and another, that the provisions of this Constitution are mandatory.

The amendment of Mr. Thoreson was rejected.

The question being taken on the substitute of Mr. Varian, the committee, divided, and by a vote of 53 ayes to 15 noes, the substitute was adopted.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I move that section be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 4 was read.

On motion of Mr. Squires, section 4 was stricken out.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to insert after the word “by” and before the word “gift,” in line 4, the word “purchase.”

Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the whole section.

Mr. LUND. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that that word “purchase” should be inserted there, because I do not think it is a correct principle that property should ever be exempt from sale for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of the same.

Mr. VARIAN. That is not what it means.

Mr. CHIDESTER. As I understand it, that does not reach the objection of Mr. Lund.

Mr. LUND. I will introduce that as a new section.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I fear that this section will go out, be cause the others have been stricken out, and I do not think if the gentlemen understand it they will strike it out. Under the old common law, whenever a woman married, her property became the property of her husband. They were in law one. This is simply a recognition of the right of women to acquire and dispose of property after marriage, just the same as while single. I think that right ought to be recognized. It is in keeping with all the advance of recent years.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, we have in this Convention been working hard to give women equal rights with men, and we have done so up to the present time, and I propose giving them the same rights in this. For that reason, I will make the motion to strike out all of section 5, commencing with the word “and,” in line 6, and insert: “And may be sold, devised, or mortgaged by her, but such sale, or alienation, if a married woman, shall not be valid, without the signature of her husband to the same.” [Laughter.]

Mr. VARIAN. I want to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the first part of this amendment is unnecessary. It is included in the right of {1783} property recognized in the section as it stands, and it would be manifestly unjust, and an unnecessary restriction upon the recognition of the right of property to require the signature of the husband. That would practically give him the control over her property.

Mr. SNOW. I arise to point of order. That was not seconded.

Mr. VARIAN. Well, I will discuss the motion to strike out, then. This is simply a literal statement of the law as it now exists on the territorial statute books, as I recollect it, and it is, as suggested by Mr. Evans_it was to meet the rigor of the common law rule, by which, when a woman married, her property_her personal_became transferred to the husband and the right to the use and occupation of her realty, and I hope that if any recognition at all is to be given to the

property rights of women_dowers will have been abolished when the Constitution goes into effect, that at least this much will be accorded to them, that the estate of the woman when she enters the married state shall be her own, to be disposed of just as she sees fit, without any control or limitation by the husband.

Mr. CANNON. Did I understand you to say that the dower will he abolished when the Constitution takes effect?

Mr. VARIAN. I understand so, because there is no territorial statute giving the right of dower. There is a territorial statute regulating that right as it was created and given by the act of Congress, and of course the act of Congress would fall in its operation here.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly think this motion to strike out ought not to prevail, and I believe that every gentleman who will give the matter proper consideration will come to that conclusion. I am very much surprised to hear the motion made. I think it must be under some misapprehension. It is not only the statute of this Territory to-day, but it is the law in very many of the states of this Union, that women shall have separate property rights, and that is all that this section is intended to preserve. I regard it as a very important section and think it ought to remain, but I think that a woman ought to have the right to purchase property, as well as the right to receive by gift or inheritance. If she happens to have money_if she receives a bequest in money, she ought to have the right to invest that money in property and by purchase acquire the title. That is the reason why I propose the amendment to insert the word purchase in the fourth line.

Mr. RALEIGH. Would not that allow the woman to purchase the husband's property, too, and screen it from his debts?

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, it is possible that she might purchase property from her husband, but if she did purchase it, she would have to pay for it, and of course the matter of screening from debts_I do not see how it could affect that at all, because if the purchase was not a bona fide purchase it would not affect the creditors, and if it was a bona fide purchase and she paid value for it, then the creditors would have a lien on what she paid him.

Mr. RALEIGH. Yes; but it is too easy to keep that purchase money out of sight.

Mr. RICHARDS. I submit that that can be no excuse for denying a woman the general right to purchase property; because that right could be abused is no reason why she should be deprived of the right.

Mr. RALEIGH. I am in favor, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, of the section as it stands.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask Mr. Raleigh, if you would prohibit a man from selling his property to another man who desired to purchase it?

Mr. RALEIGH. No, but I_-

Mr. RALEIGH. Well, I would not if there wasn't some shenanniganabout it. [Laughter.]

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, shenanniganwould be a different proposition. Purchase is all we provide for, and I think it is eminently proper it should be granted.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. Chairman, I think the Richards amendment ought to prevail. This might prevent a woman from purchasing a farm and owning it after she had purchased it. It might prevent her from purchasing a horse and buggy. The rigor of the common law might come in and simply give it to her husband, because she could only acquire title under this by gift, grant, inheritance or devise. The word purchase is usually used. I think it is in our statute.

Mr. RICHARDS. It is in our statute, and I think it is omitted here in an inadvertence.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). This must have been an accidental omission.

The amendment of Mr. Richards was agreed to.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe I seconded the motion to strike out section 5. The reason I did so was that the mover_thinking he was a man too much married and wished to take away some of the liberties of woman.

The motion to strikeout was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, that ends the article, and I would like to call Mr. Varian's attention to one thing which he has already indicated and which I have had in mind. The only dower act which we have is that of Congress. As soon as this Constitution is adopted, and Utah becomes a, State, dower will be repealed. Then a man can dispose of his property if he desires to, without the consent of his wife. I just want to suggest, if it would not be a good idea to add to the Varian amendment, as amended by Mr. Richards, that he should not alienate or mortgage his property, without the signature of his wife. Otherwise, there will be a little period between the adoption of the Constitution and the sitting of the Legislature when this condition of things might exist.

Mr. HART. I would like to ask the gentleman whether he is sure that the territorial laws do not provide for right of dower for women, as well as the United States law? My impression is that there is a territorial law in addition to the United States law. There was an act passed on this question last winter which provided that they should not have dower under both acts. That is why I am very certain that there are two acts.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I am inclined to think not. Mr. Varian, himself, will say that he prepared that dower act and it was only in aid of enforcing the act of Congress.

I am in sympathy with the sentiment underlying what my friend from Weber suggests. I am in favor, and was, of incorporating in this Constitution a recognition of the community system, and in that view I presented to some one of the committees, at the beginning of the session, an article drawn in exact conformity with the constitutions of California and Nevada on that subject, which enables the wife to participate equally with the husband in all the earnings and accretions derived by either of them during the marriage, but it was not reported upon, and I took it for granted it was not in accordance with the sentiment of this people, so I did not press it. I will withdraw the motion to arise now.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, on further thought, I am satisfied the gentleman from Weber is correct about there being no territorial law of dower. What I had in mind was in regard to succession, and the act passed last winter would prevent a dower, and also a succession under the territorial law.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to introduce four sections to add to the article on miscellaneous, and the four sections treat of three different subjects, and I would ask you to be patient and hear them, and if there is any merit in any of them, why retain them; if there is no merit, why, of course, the committee will dispose of them as they think best.

The sections referred to were as printed in the article reported by the committee on water rights, irrigation and agriculture.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. That section has been killed at

least four times in this committee and in the Convention.

The CHAIRMAN. The point is not well taken.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order, that the subject matter of those sections has been acted upon by the Convention, and through the regular committees before, and that this is out of order.

The point of order was overruled.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, my point of order was that section 4 is exactly the same thing that we have passed upon in this committee four or five different times. I shall appeal from the decision of the chair.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, before you put the appeal, did the chairman understand that this same section, word for word, was stricken out in committee of the whole and also when it came to third reading in the Convention?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands it.

Mr. SNOW. Twice or three times it was stricken out. We have a rule that equivalent motions must not be entertained. If the chair understood it right, I am surprised at the ruling.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, this is almost the question that we voted upon last evening, except that there is this {1786} difference. This is the exact thing that we voted upon once before and killed. The question last night was not exactly the same thing, and yet that was ruled out of order and the decision of the president sustained. Now, if that was right last night, the chair will have to be overruled in this instance, for this is exactly the same thing, and the consideration of it is not only prohibited by that special rule that the gentleman from Utah County quotes, but it is sustained by every principle of parliamentary law. There is no rule of parliamentary law which does not say that this would be out of order.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, if I understood the motion of the gentleman from Beaver, it was to have four sections admitted into this article. Now, I submit if any one of those sections comes under the objections raised by the gentleman from Cache, and the gentleman from Utah County, that particular section may be ruled out when we reach it, but the proposition is for the consideration of four sections, and I think we should take them one at a time and consider them and raise the point of order when we reach the section that comes under the prohibition.

Mr. HART. The point is as to all four of the sections.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). They were read here to the Convention. I take it that they being permitted to be read as a whole, no point of order being raised, it could not be raised now, that each should be considered separately. Permit me to say that this matter in substance, if not in the exact language, was stricken out in the committee of the whole and also in the Convention in the bill of rights. It

was again introduced in the committee of the whole under head of mines and mining. It was again killed there, reintroduced, and there killed, and it is for that reason that I raise the point of order.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, how are we to know whether every section contained the same matter that was brought before the Convention before, unless we take them up as we come to them? As Mr. Squires has suggested, if section 1 has been dealt with and it. is the judgment of this Convention that it should be declared out of order and the chair not sustained, dispose of it that way. There may be one of these sections or more that it may be shown that the rule does not cover.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, I understand the objection applies only to section 4?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair is of the opinion that if the point of order is made as to section 1, it is well taken, but the chair holds that we have no right to go to section 4, and raise the point of order on section 4 until we reach it.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). If that be the ruling, I do not object to it. I will withdraw the appeal and the objection also until we reach it.

The first section of Mr. Murdock's amendment was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, before any point of order is raised on this question, would it not be well for us to look at the matter a little? Granted that we have at one time stricken this section out, members of the Convention realize_

Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, I object to this proceeding. I raise the point of order now on the same ground.

Mr. THORESON. I make the point of order.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the committee to rise for the purpose of allowing the committee on rules to report to the Convention, in accordance with the resolution on yesterday, because the committee on engrossment are waiting for our report. I move that the committee now rise.

Mr. CREER. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would not defer that {1787 - FINAL REVISION} motion for a few moments and then we will probably get through this article.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present an amendment or an additional section. If the committee desires to rise now, that would prevent it.

The motion to rise was agreed to. The committee of the whole, having risen, reported as follows:

Mr. PRESIDENT:

The committee of the whole have had under consideration the article on miscellaneous, and report progress.

MR. PRESIDENT:

The committee on rules, in accordance with the resolution of the Convention 85 A (herewith returned), report the following resolution and recommend its adoption:

Resolved. That the Constitution of the State of Utah be carefully engrossed, without blot, erasure or interlineation, on parchment sheets, 11x17, and that the same, when properly attested by the president and secretary of the Convention and signed by the members, or a majority thereof, be bound between lids, in enduring form, and then be deposited in the office of the secretary of the Territory for delivery to the secretary of state for the State of Utah; and that a true copy thereof, attested by the president and secretary of this Convention, and bound in like manner, be delivered to the Utah Commission for submission to the President of the United States.

VARIAN,

Acting Chairman.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Convention re-assembled at 2 p. m., pursuant to recess, President Smith in the chair.

The PRESIDENT. I want to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that there will have to be an address to the people in connection with the Constitution, and a committee should be appointed for the purpose of drafting it.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, if it is order, I would make a motion that a committee of seven be appointed.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, if the motion does not so state, I move to amend that the chair appoint this committee.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I wish to amend that by adding, of which committee the chair should be one.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, my understanding is that the chair appoints the committee.

Mr. JAMES. That makes it a committee of eight.

The motion was agreed to.

Article V was read.

Article VI, section 1, was read.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I move to insert the article “a” after the word “and” and before the word “house.” If it were not for the fact that subsequent sections show there are two houses, the way this sentence now reads, it would mean that there was one house only. You might just as well insert it any way.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not prevail. The Constitution of the United States, all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I make the point of order, anyway, that this would not be a proper amendment at this time.

The PRESIDENT. The point of order is well taken.

Sections 2, 3, and 4 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, it seems to me that in the seventh line it should be 1895, instead of 1896.

Mr. SQUIRES. Senators will not be elected until 1896.

Mr. RICHARDS. Why not? I do not understand that there is to be any election of State senators in 1896. The {1788} members of both houses are to be elected in 1895, as I understand it. I therefore move that the figure 6 be stricken out and the figure 5 substituted.

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). Mr. President, this refers to the senators and they are elected by the Legislature which meets next January.

Mr. RICHARDS. No; these are State senators.

Mr. BUTTON. Isn't this just as it was passed by the Convention? We have to elect on even years, not on odd years.

Mr. GOODWIN, Mr. President, as I understand it, the intention is to adjust them so that the regular election will come on the even years.

Mr. RICHARDS. As I understand it, the first senators are to be elected this year.

Mr. RICHARDS. If that is so, it is right as it is.

Mr. GOODWIN. I do not know what the gentleman had in view when he wrote it, but I presume that was it.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I call Mr. Richards's attention to the fact that it was discussed in the committee_this same article providing for the regular election of members of the house of representatives, to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1896, and biennially thereafter.

Mr. RICHARDS. I withdraw my motion.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I move that the semi-colon after the word “election” be changed to a. colon, in the sixth line, and that the word “that,” in the seventh line, begin with a capital letter.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, are not those amendments a matter for the revising committee to look after? We should not waste time in this body attending to those slight matters.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I understand that our engrossing clerk is an authority on grammar. Mr. Kerr is a member of the committee on engrossment and enrollment, and I therefore move that all the matters of punctuation be left to the committee on engrossment and that they be left to adjust it.

The PRESIDENT. That is the way the chair understands it.

The amendment of Mr. Thoreson was agreed to.

Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 were read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the last word in that article ought to be “therein.” Herein undoubtedly refers to this Constitution.

Mr. LAMBERT. It refers to this State.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that that change be made.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I trust this correction will not be made, making it “therein;” it refers directly to this State. When this Constitution is adopted, then we will be within the lines of this_“herein.” When you are talking about the furniture in this room, “I own this room and all the furniture herein.” If I own the furniture in the other room, I say, “and all the furniture therein.”

This does not refer to this paper or this book when it refers to this Constitution when it is adopted next November.

Mr. THURMAN. Suppose you are writing a lease referring to that house and you use the word “herein.” What would it refer to, the lease or the house?

Mr. CRANE. Why, it would refer to possibly the house, but then you were not in the house at the time; you were not talking in the present tense. Now, {1789} you are talking about this State and everything within this State.

Mr. THURMAN. Suppose you were in the house and were writing a lease about it, would you say herein or therein?

Mr. CRANE. If it referred directly to the house, I would say herein.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Crane, in speaking with reference to the Constitution, we used in a number of places, haven't we, “herein?” Now, there we refer to the Constitution, don't we?

Mr. CRANE. And here you are talking of the State_of this State.

Mr. BOWDLE. If we use the word “herein” when we refer to the Constitution, should not we use the word “therein,” when we refer to the State?

Mr. CRANE. I think not. I will say that the corrections that were made here day before yesterday, all those distinguished scholars in this Convention agreed that they were wrong and that “herein” was proper in this case, when we are referring to this Constitution.

Mr. RICHARDS. I would like to ask Mr. Crane, whether in the former part of the Constitution, where the changes were made to “therein,” that remains so, or whether it has since been changed by anybody?

Mr. CRANE. It remains. It has not been corrected, but the committee are under the impression that it was entirely wrong and that the “t” should be stricken out wherever it is used in that sense.

Mr. RICHARDS. That may be, but this Convention has passed upon that question once or twice or more, and I wanted to find out whether or not the committee was changing this after the Convention had passed upon it?

Mr. CRANE. No; we do not change anything, but I wanted to draw it to the attention of the Convention now, so that we should know hereafter, in revising the article, whether we should add the “t” before the “h” and make it “herein” or “thereto,” and so on.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, that was the purport of our motion.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I suggest that this Constitutional Convention is the only body

that is doing the business in this Constitution. If this definitely refers to the State and doing business within the State, and it refers to a State already accomplished, it should properly be “herein.”

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I just wish to mention one point, and that is, when we use the word “this,” we will certainly have to use word “herein.” If we say the “laws of the State,” then we could use the word “therein,” or if we use the words “that state,” we could use the word “therein.” This can be changed so that “therein” could be used, but if “this” is used, “herein” is correct.

Mr. SQUIRES. Will Professor Kerr kindly answer the question asked by Mr. Thurman? If he was drawing a lease on a house, and the furniture within that house, would he say, “that house and furniture herein?”

Mr. KERR; When you say, “that house,” then “therein” should be used, but if you use “this,” then “herein.”

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 21 ayes to 42 noes, the motion was rejected.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I do not like to leave that word “herein” there at all. I move that the words “or doing business” be inserted before the word “under,” so that it will read “incorporated or doing business under the laws of this State.”

The amendment was agreed to. Section 27 was read.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, the word “this,” in the last line but one, of section 27, being used, the word “herein” must be used. I move the word “this,” in the last line but one, be changed to the word “the.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, if it {1790} is in order, I would like to call attention to the amendment we just adopted in section 26. It seems to me the way that now reads, “incorporated or doing business under the laws of this State,” might be construed to mean incorporated under the laws of this State, and would not reach a foreign corporation at all. The evident intention of it was to reach a company incorporated in this State, or any kind of a company doing business in this State, but we have got it now, that they have got to be incorporated and doing business under the laws of the State before they can be reached.

Mr. VARIAN. Let me ask sou, if you insert “or within” after the word “of,” so it will read, “incorporated and doing business under the laws of, or within this State”_I make that motion.

Mr. THURMAN. I will second that motion.

Mr. THURMAN. I second the amendment.

The PRESIDENT. You withdraw yours, do you?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir.

The amendment of Mr. Roberts was agreed to.

Sections 28, 29, and 30 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think that the striking out of the word “to,” in the seventh line, is a mistake. If it has been stricken out, I move that it be inserted.

Mr. CRANE. I should like to ask what is the reason that the gentleman asks that that be reinserted?

Mr. RICHARDS. Because it belongs there, that is the reason.

Mr. GOODWIN. Does it strengthen it at all, will it strengthen it or give it a new meaning?

Mr. RICHARDS. I do not think it will give it a new meaning.

Mr. GOODWIN. Then is it not superfluous?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; it is not superfluous, in my judgment. The change made by the committee is not a good change. Therefore, I move to reinsert it.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, in order now to make the section harmonize and be consistent with itself, I move to strike out the word “to,” in the second line, the second word “to.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 31 was read.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I want to call attention to a change that was made yesterday on page 7. I think it ought to be uniform with the wording on page 15. As it is now, it is “this State_therein.” I would suggest that in line 16, the word “this” be changed to “the.”

Mr. KERR. I will accept that suggestion, strike out the letter “t,” in the 16th line.

The amendment was rejected.

The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of Article VII.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, perhaps some gentleman can turn to the article in the schedule, which provides, as I remember it, for the taking possession by officers-elect on the Monday after the issuance of the proclamation of the {1791} President. There seems to be an inconsistency between the two.

Mr. ROBERTS. In section 9 of article on schedule, there is a provision made for the election for the adoption or rejection of this Constitution, and for the State officers herein provided for.

Mr. VARIAN. No; it is section 14. I call attention to the provision in section 14 of the article on schedule, with a view to going back to the consideration of section 1. That provides that they shall take office on the first Monday next succeeding the issuing of the proclamation. Now, this article provides that the term of office shall begin on the first Monday in January, after the election, except that the terms of office of those who are elected at the first election shall begin when the State shall be admitted into the Union, and shall end on the first Monday in January of the fourth year thereafter. My attention was called to that last evening. I confess now that I do not see any consistency in it as it was suggested to me.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would like to ask how long this first governor will serve under this arrangement. It seems to me that ought to be either in the third or the fifth year.

Mr. THURMAN. That is what I was going to ask. I had an amendment to propose, if you will permit me, that it shall end on the first Monday in January, in the year 1900. That fixes it beyond question, and that is what was intended here.

Mr. GOODWIN. It ought to be 1899 or 1901.

Mr. THURMAN. The question is, do you want the term to begin in the even years or odd years?

Mr. GOODWIN. Begin in the odd years. The elections are in the even years.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, as I understand it. the officers-elect under this Constitution will not take possession of their offices until the Monday following the issuance of the proclamation by

the President, which may be in January, February, or March. We cannot tell when it will be. Now, the object of this amendment by Mr. Thurman is to provide for a possible inconsistency at the end of the term_of the four year term.

Mr. GOODWIN. Beg pardon, the object is to get the election in the even year.

Mr. VARIAN. Not at all. We are not dealing with that question now. We are dealing with the question of how these terms shall be regulated, and the first term, if we say, shall end on the first Monday in January and every fourth year thereafter_it ought to be corrected in some way so as to fix the date of the expiration of the first term. It ought to be on the first Monday in January, and the fourth year thereafter. That is the year of our Lord nineteen hundred, as I figure it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, the trouble I see in the matter is, a doubt would arise as to when the term would end? Now, it says, “in the fourth year thereafter.” The question is whether you count 1896 or not. If you did, then it would end in 1899. I did not believe that that was what was intended by the bill. I thought it was intended to bring it out in the even year so that the governor's election would come at the same time as that of the President of the United States.

Mr. GOODWIN. If you would say the last day of December, 1899, that would be all right, but the first day of January, takes another year.

Mr. THURMAN. I understand. The only question is whether we want the governor to serve more than four years in order to bring it out to 1900. If his office should take effect early in 1896, he would serve over four years.

Mr. GOODWIN. If the election is on even years, the first governor must serve substantially either three or five years. Now, fix it either way. We {1792} have got to have an election for congressman and Legislature a year from November, and the governor's term would naturally begin then, but we have got to have a governor in the meantime. Now, do you want that governor to serve three years, at the next election, or five years, until the next succeeding election?

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I was going to ask the same point that Judge Goodwin made. If this office expires in 1900, then the election would have to be held in odd years and would conflict with other portions of the Constitution, and the question is whether he should serve three or five years.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, it seems to me this should be made uniform, not only as to this officer, but to all of the other State officers, and as the gentlemen have suggested, it is a question how long the first term may be. The first term may be one year or three years or five years. But I do not see how we can make it any other than one, three, or five, and have the election on the even year. It seems to me the suggestion made by the delegate from Utah, if instead of making his motion 1900, he will say on the first Monday in January, 1901, that will cover the thing as I understand it, and give the governor a five-year term, the same as the others.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, if I understand the situation now, Mr. Thurman has moved an

amendment inserting the year 1900. Now, I move as an amendment to that, that the year 1899 be inserted_giving him a athree-year term.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I have one reason why I am opposed to that. I think we ought to elect the governor on the same day the President of the United States is elected, and have one red hot election every four years. If it takes 1901 to do that_I see that it does, I am in favor of that, although there might be some gentleman elected that we would not want to hold five years, and then we might have a gentleman elected that we would like to have ten years if we could, but I am willing to take chances.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move as an amendment that we make the year 1901.

Mr. THURMAN. I will accept that as my motion.

The amendment of Mr. Hart was rejected.

The amendment of Mr. Squires was agreed to.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment in the seventh line. I move that the words, “who were,” be stricken out. The reason for that is manifest. It speaks of an election that is to take place in the future as in the past tense.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment, on the sixth line; after “January,” add “or so soon thereafter as the proclamation announcing statehood shall be made.”

Mr. VARIAN. That, Mr. President, is provided for in two lines further along, I think.

Mr. GOODWIN. I believe it is. I withdraw it.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. President, I move to strike out “the first Monday in January,” and insert in lieu thereof “the thirty-first day of December.”

No second.

Sections 2 and 3 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to call attention to the fact that under this section there will be no person eligible to elect as attorney genera at the first election, for the reason that it requires a person in order to be eligible, to be 25 years of age, at the time of his election, and to have been admitted to practice in the supreme court of the State of Utah.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I was just going to make a motion on that, to insert after the word “the,” in the {1793 - SCHEDULE} fourth line of page 19, before the word “State,” the words

“Territory or of the.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Sections 4, 5, and 6 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, at the request of Mr. Whitney, a member of the committee on revision, I move the following amendments: That the words “have been,” in line 4, be stricken out, and the words “is to be” inserted in lieu thereof.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RICHARDS. I also, Mr. President, move to strike out the word “they,” in the same line, and insert the word “it,” and strike out the word “they,” at the end of the fifth line, and insert the word “it.” This is also a suggestion of Mr. Whitney. Strike out the word “were” and insert the word “was.”

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman if the grammatical construction is deemed by Mr. Whitney to be wrong. I understand that the use of the word in that way is proper in either the plural or singular.

Mr. RICHARDS. I understand that either is correct, the plural or singular.

Mr. VARIAN. This will involve the correction of the entire section. It seems to have passed the committee. They did not report any change in it, and I understood when this matter was under discussion before, Mr. Richards took the same view that it was hardly worth while.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Whitney could not be present this afternoon and he requested me to propose these amendments.

The amendments were agreed to.

Section 7 was read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I move the insertion of the word “that,” after the word “provided.”

Mr. CRANE. I will say that “that” was in there, I think, in the original copy and it was stricken out. It was considered unnecessary.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, referring back to section 6, my attention has been called to the fact that we have the verb there in the past tense, when it should be in the present_the word “was” I think should be “is,” in line with the amendment that was made in the fourth line.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, it does not amount to much, but it seems to me that the word “is,” in the third line from the bottom of section 7, ought to. be “be.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I would like to go back now to the year 1901. [Laughter.] I mean 1901 herein or therein, whichever is right. I move to strike out the words “in the year.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move we now resolve ourselves into committee of the whole to finish up the calendar.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if this matter goes into the hands of the engrossing committee from this body, without any motion, or does it require a motion?

Mr. HART. Mr. President, it is not clear as to whether we can refer this matter without a motion to the committee on engrossment and enrollment. I therefore move you that we refer articles from 1 to 6, respectively, and also the first seven sections of Article VII to the committee on engrossment and enrollment.

Mr. RICHARDS. I ask the gentleman to confine his motion to the first six articles.

Mr. HART. I will agree to that. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, according to notice given, I move to reconsider the vote by which section 2 of the article on schedule was passed by this Convention.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, a few {1794 - ELECTIONS AND SUFFRAGE} days ago we had a similar proposition up here, and it was decided by the Convention that the only motion in order would be to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the article was passed, and bring the article back.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I make the motion in that way.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I must rise to a point of order. There was a motion to go into the committee of the whole, before the motion of Mr. Van Home was made.

The PRESIDENT. That is correct.

Mr. THURMAN. I ask the unanimous consent to withhold that for a moment. At the suggestion of a good many gentlemen on this floor, I want to call attention to section 9 of the article on elections and rights of suffrage.

Mr. SQUIRES. I call attention to the fact that this will require a suspension of the rules.

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir. In fact, if I had not thought it was pretty generally wanted, I should not have urged it.

Mr. SNOW. I would ask the gentleman, does he want to suspend the rules for this special occasion, or as a general thing?

Mr. THURMAN. Not as a general thing, by any means. I move that the rules be suspended in order to pass this amendment.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, it seems to me if we are going to change this section, we ought to leave the matter to the Legislature, and instead of making the amendment that is proposed, I offer as an amendment that we add after the world “held,” in the fifth line, the words “unless otherwise provided by law,” so that the Legislature may not only change the matter with reference to the municipal elections but with reference to the other.

The motion to suspend the rules was agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I now move a reconsideration of the vote by which the schedule was adopted, for the purpose of considering section 2 of that article.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I want to get the notice that was given there. As I understood it, Mr. Van Horne gave notice that he would move to reconsider the vote by which a certain section was carried. He went away and before he returned, or at least on that or the next day, the article was passed on its third reading, and there was no notice given to move to reconsider the vote by which the article was passed on its third reading. My point of order is that no motion to reconsider that vote was made, and the whole article passed its third reading. The gentleman did not give any notice of a motion {1795 - MISCELLANEOUS} to reconsider, and did not vote for the article at all.

Mr. VAN HORNE. I appeal from the decision of the chair.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, before we can vote intelligently on the appeal we want to know what the record says. The journal shows that Mr. Van Horne was not present at the final passage of the article.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, the subject matter of the section that was being considered was the addition of the words at the end of the section, adopting the act of 1892, and it was upon that that Mr. Van Horne gave notice that he would move to reconsider the vote whereby section 2 of the article on schedule was adopted, and that ended it, until the entire article was passed, and as I stated, he did not vote on that, and under the rule is not entitled to move to reconsider the article.

The decision of the chair was sustained.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, in numbering the sections of the Constitution, they ought to be numbered from 1 up regularly all the way through, so that when you want to cite the Constitution, you do not have to cite the article and the section, but simply the section. When you open the book or pamphlet containing the Constitution, in looking for a section you will know whether it is behind you or before you, and it is much more readily found. Some of the constitutions are numbered that way, and it is a very great convenience. I therefore move that the committee having this matter in charge be instructed to number the sections from 1 consecutively all the way through.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I think that the engrossing clerk has been engaged in his work now, and since it requires that there be no erasures or interlineations, or anything of that kind, he might have got so far that this would interfere with the work that he has done, and I can hardly think that it is a matter of such importance as to change.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, I hope this motion will not prevail. I believe there are only two states in the United States that follow that idea_Louisiana and Georgia are numbered similar to the motion of Mr. Maloney.

Mr. MALONEY. The gentleman is mistaken. The whole constitution of Kentucky is numbered that way, so is Louisiana and some of the other states, I think, but I am not sure. You can much more easily find what you are looking for. It is either before you or behind you; you do not then have to cite the number of the article, but simply the number of the section.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I understand that the enrolling clerk has got considerable enrolled already. It may require his commencing all over again.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, that would be remedied by double sections; have each article numbered and the section of that, and then the section as numbered from the first.

On motion, the Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Eichnor in the chair.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I have a section which I desire to present as an additional section to the article on miscellaneous.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, the chair was just about to decide a point of order that was pending before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. Thoreson made a point of order that section 1, as proposed by Mr. Murdock, of Beaver, had been considered by both the committee and the Convention.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise to a personal privilege on this floor. I desire to make the statement, in regard to the position {1796} that I take in this matter. I think that my idea of putting these questions forward was not for the purpose of crowding anything upon this body before me, but simply to get, if I could, something in the interest of the first section. My object of bringing this forward was not to put anything upon this body, that would be absorbing their time unnecessarily, but I had been interrogated by several members that they thought the matter disposed of very hastily, and for that reason I thought under the article of miscellaneous, that probably it would come in very properly. I have introduced four sections, and three of them are upon different interests, and I would like the body, if they cannot accept the other, that is, the first two sections, because they have been produced here, why, I desire to have them consider the other sections, and if there is any merit in either of them to do so. If not, I shall take no offense. I supposed the first two sections would be met with some favor, from the fact that it was accepted when it was thoroughly understood_was accepted very favorably by the committee, and for that reason, I desire to get the feeling and the sympathy of the committee upon this question, and see if there could not be something done, and for that purpose, perhaps, as that is regarded out of the regular order, I would substitute a new section, or two new sections, in regard to the water, but it will be left, of course, with you. Now, I wish you to understand my motive is simply to have this before this body, and if there is any virtue in either one of the sections, I wish them considered, if not, I shall take no offense, but I supposed they would be received with more favor, from the fact that individuals had intimated to me that the water question was dealt with very hastily, and with all due respect to you, gentlemen, perhaps it is out of the general order to so present a matter, but I have done so with a good purpose, to see if there could be nothing done. I have two sections that would be a substitute, if it would be received with any more favor.

The point of order was sustained.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order, that this cannot be considered in committee of the whole. It cannot be introduced here. We cannot take anything here that is not referred to us from the Convention. I am not now opposing the principle of this, but I am opposing the manner in which it is being done.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee arise and report the article on schedule.

Mr. Cannon offered the following section:

No county shall be released or discharged from its or their proportionate share of taxes to be levied for State purposes, nor shall commutation for such taxes be authorized in any form whatever.

Mr. CREER. I raise the further point of order that it should be referred to the committee on printing and that we should have a printed copy.

Mr. SQUIRES. I suggest to Mr. Roberts that we might save time by considering this matter now.

The point of order was sustained.

On motion, the committee then rose and reported as follows:

Mr. President, your committee of the {1797} whole have had under consideration the article on miscellaneous and recommend that it be placed on its final passage for third reading.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move we suspend the rules and take up the third reading of that article entitled miscellaneous.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to section 1. by striking out the word “five,” in the fourth line and inserting the word “one.” I believe the whole section ought to be stricken out. As I understand it, this exempts personal property to the amount of five hundred dollars to an unmarried person, and I think it is altogether too much. I believe if this Convention will consider this, that they will see that if it will exempt personal property to that class of

persons, it is going too far, and then I believe it will do away with the present law that we have in relation to liens of landlords and hotel keepers. The present law, as I understand it, gives the hotel keepers a lien on personal property for the hotel bills. I think this will do away with that, and I think it is exempting too much, that unmarried persons should not have exempted five hundred dollars in personal property, because it would defeat the ends of justice by doing so.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I trust that this motion will not prevail. In our day and age, in order that a young man might get married, he has to have a start in the world, and one hundred dollars is not enough, he cannot get a living. Now, to marry him, with only one hundred dollars backing him, is not enough, and I am in favor of leaving five hundred dollars, as a stake for single men, and married men also.

MR. MALONEY. Mr. President, I trust that will not prevail. Five hundred dollars is enough. Now, as to the lien of hotel keepers, that is not endangered at all. There is nothing in this suggestion that the gentleman makes, and I trust the section will pass as it is.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. President, I would offer as an amendment to the amendment, to strike out the word “one” and insert “three.” I, too, am of the opinion that five hundred dollars is altogether too much. I believe that three will be nearer right.

The amendment of Mr. Boyer was rejected.

The amendment of Mr. Chidester was rejected.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I move to strike out the word “miscellaneous,” and insert “homesteads and exemptions,” as the caption of this article.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I wish to offer to section 1. It is to insert after “date,” in line 7, and before “contracted” the words “except taxes due and owing.” My purpose is this: It may be that that would be construed to not apply to debts that are due for taxes that have been levied. It sometimes transpires that men have only personal property in the county at the time the assessment is made. That may be removed, and at the time that the collection becomes necessary, the debtor has nothing that the assessor can seize and sell. He is then required under the law to make settlement of that tax himself, and his only recourse against the debt then becomes the collection of that debt as any other personal account. Now, the question I want to determine is as to whether or not he ought not to be authorized to seize any property of the debtor for taxes that have been levied and are due and owing. Some of the constitutions contain the provisions as I have offered it; others do not have it. To remove the doubt, I thought that I would like to have it inserted.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President., there is no necessity for the amendment. {1798} There is nothing exempt from taxation in this State or anywhere else, as far as that is concerned. It is copied from the Michigan constitution. That is construed there not to exempt from taxes or

assessments, or purchase money, for that matter.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, under existing territorial statutes, after the time has expired for the collection of taxes_I do not remember the date_the assessor no longer has any lien upon the property. It becomes a personal debt that he owes. He is obliged to settle with the Territory, and he can only collect that from the debtor through a civil suit. When it becomes necessary to plant a civil suit for the collection of taxes, I do not want his property exempted, as I apprehend it would be under this section.

Mr. MALONEY. I think not.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I move
to strike out “five” and insert “four.” The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to section 1, by placing at the beginning of the section these words, “until otherwise provided
by law.”

As this has passed so far, the Legislature cannot change it. The Legislature has never seen fit to pass such a law as this, and we are passing a section, in my judgment, that would be detrimental to the interests of the people. I do not think that a young man should be shielded in that kind of a way. I think it is wrong. I think it is wrong for us to make that kind of a law in the Constitution. It would be had enough for the Legislature to do it when they can change it.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment, for the reason it would have the same effect as to strike out the section entirely. This is a restriction upon the Legislature, compelling them to at least exempt four hundred dollars; they can exempt more if they so choose. But, if the amendment shall prevail, providing that it shall be so until otherwise provided by law, the Legislature at its first session may provide by law that only one hundred dollars may be exempt, and it appears from the journal of this Convention that they have decided that they want at least four hundred dollars exempt from execution, and if this motion should prevail, then I am in favor of striking the whole thing out, but I had rather that it would remain just as it is.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I move that section 1 be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I notice that there are not many more men than a quorum voting, and I think that we should consider this matter carefully, and I move that we adjourn.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. Eldredge offered the following substitute for section 2:

To all heads of families, there shall be an exemption in lands, and improvements thereon, consisting in value of not less than $1,000, and if such head of family be married, a further sum of $500 for the wife and $250 for each minor child, which shall be exempt from forced sale on execution or any other final process from a court, for any debt contracted after the adoption of this Constitution. Such exemption shall not extend to any mortgage thereon, lawfully obtained, but such mortgage or other alienation of such land, by the owner thereof, if a married man, shall not be valid, without the signature of his wife to the same. But no property shall be exempt from tax sale.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask a question. Your reference to striking out of the section does not refer to the section that was passed by the committee?

Mr. VARIAN. Yes; there is a motion pending to strike out.

Mr. ROBERTS. Did I understand you to be in favor of striking out the section that was passed through the committee?

Mr. VARIAN. No; I hope neither motion will prevail, and let it stand as it came from the committee. We have passed upon this question within three hours.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, we passed upon this subject this morning. but I do not believe it was fully understood. The substitute, if I understand the nature of it, does not reach the point that the gentlemen argued should be covered, if anything at all was done in this regard; that was where a person living in a town, upon a piece of property, and had other property outside, the piece of property in the town was not of the value as expressed in the substitute, so that he might add to that what he had outside and make it of the value of fifteen hundred dollars, or whatever the amount might be. Now, this substitute does not cover that case. He says that he shall have a homestead of the value of fifteen hundred dollars, or not to exceed that. Now, what is a homestead? A homestead is where the person lives, and he could not go outside, if it is defined as a homestead, and add to that. It would be whatever he occupied. It would be a piece of land in the city or town, or whatever it might be. That is his homestead. There is where his home is, and he cannot add to it. Now, the idea this morning was, so that in a case like that he should have, in addition to his little home in the town, or wherever he might live, property outside.

Mr. HART. I call your attention to the fact that our present statute gives an exemption of a

homestead consisting of a certain value; it does not require them to be together at all.

Mr. BOWDLE. I am not talking about the present statute. I am talking about the language of that substitute, that it does not cover the point that was intended, as I understood the discussion this morning.

Mr. SQUIRES. To which substitute do you refer?

Mr. BOWDLE. I refer to the substitute of Mr. Varian that was adopted this morning. That does not cover the point sought.

Mr. VARIAN. I will ask the gentleman if he understands that in that substitute that was adopted this morning, the underlying principle was to leave it to the Legislature and not enter into details?

Mr. BOWDLE. I submit that it does not cover that point.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I am in favor of the substitute as it came from the committtee[*note*]. I think it makes it secure that there shall be a homestead at least of the value of fifteen hundred dollars. Now, it seems to me it would be better to leave it to the detail as to how that must be selected, and I hope that this will not be stricken out, because it is in conformity with the provision made in most of other constitutions. The Legislature can adjust this, either to conform our present law or change it in any manner they see fit. I am certainly in favor of the substitute as it came from the committee this morning.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, it seems to me, after we have left out the first section, which was definite in its provision and left that subject to the Legislature, and under our present law {1800} there are better and more liberal sections than provided in the substitute of the gentleman from Salt Lake, let us leave the entire matter with the Legislature and let them provide an exemption law.

On motion of Mr. Snow, the previous question was ordered.

The substitute of Mr. Eldredge was rejected.
                                
The motion to strike out section 2 was rejected.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I feel a little timid in arising here, to ask this Convention to adopt another section, but I shall, however, make the effort. The matter that I am going to ask this Convention to adopt has been before it three times and voted down, but not in the form that I shall put it now. When it came up in the bill of rights, it came up in the form that allowed men to enter upon other property and it should be declared as a public use. I offer the following section:

The necessary right of way for tunnels, flumes, pipe lines, roads, and ditches [laughter], as a means to the

development of the mineral and agricultural resources of the State, is hereby declared a public use and subject to the control and regulation of the State.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. President, I move to strike out section 5.

No second.

Mr. Cannon offered the following new section:

No county shall be released or discharged from its or their proportionate share of taxes to be levied for State purposes, nor shall commutation of such taxes be authorized in any form whatever.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. We are considering another subject here entirely. We have a matter that has been passed upon relative to taxes, and I think the proper thing to do would be to consider that question by a suspension of the rules, and it ought not to be permitted to be entertained with this subject.

The PRESIDENT. I think the point of order is not well taken.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I arise to the further point of order that it is not germane to the article now under consideration, which is homestead and exemption.

The PRESIDENT. That is well taken.

Mr. RICHARDS. I just want to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that it seems to me we made a mistake in changing the title of this article from miscellaneous to homesteads and exemptions. The last section relates to the property rights of women, and I think the title should be miscellaneous, or it should be expressed by the objects. I move to reconsider the vote.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. As I understand it, Mr. President, the title now remains as it was, and I can introduce my section.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move to amend the motion by adding “and real estate titles.”

No second.

The original motion was rejected.
{1801}
Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move the previous question.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. President, I had a motion to strike out section 5. It was seconded and never was put before the house.

The motion was put and rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I move the previous question.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the adoption of the article.

Roll call on the adoption of the proposed article, miscellaneous, as amended, resulted as follows:

AYES_58.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christianson
Clark
Coray
Creer
Cunningham
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Engberg

NOES_5.
Kerr    
Maloney    
Page
Thoreson

ABSENT_43.
Adams
Buys
Corfman
Crane
Cushing
Driver
Evans, Weber
Francis
Goodwin
Green
Hammond
Haynes
Heybourne
Hill
Howard
Hyde
Jolley
Kiesel
Keith
Kearns
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lambert
Lewis
Low, Cache
Mackintosh
McFarland
Miller
Moritz
Murdock, Wasatch
Nebeker
Pierce
Preston
Raleigh
Ricks
Robertson
Strevell
Thatcher
Van Horne
Warrum
Wells
Whitney

Mr. Cannon, Mr. Bowdle and Mr. Gibbs gave notice they would move to reconsider the proposed article, miscellaneous.

During the roll call the following remarks were made:

Mr. BOWDLE. I shall vote aye for the article and I give notice that I shall make a motion to reconsider.

Mr. CANNON. I vote aye, with the understanding that I will move to reconsider.

Mr. GIBBS. I vote aye, but I give notice that I will move to reconsider.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. You cannot give notice to reconsider until after the result is announced. How can we know how the vote will go until after the vote is announced?

Mr. JAMES. I vote aye, with the understanding that I get my mining article in. [Laughter.]

Mr. MALONEY. I desire to be excused from voting on this. A banker writes an impudent letter to this Convention {1802 - FINAL REVISION} and the Convention follows his dictation. I do not care to vote on it.

Mr. THURMAN. I would like to be excused. I am directly interested in the question.
                    
Mr. CHIDESTER. I object to Mr. Maloney being excused.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I object to Mr. Thurman being excused, either.

Mr. THURMAN. I vote no.

Mr. MALONEY. I vote no.

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

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move now to reconsider the vote by which this was carried. I do it for the purpose of speeding the business of this Convention. We can vote this motion down and that will let it go right into the hands of the committee to-night.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I move a suspension of the rules, and that we adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow.