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

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

Roll call showed a quorum present. Prayer was offered by Delegate Eldredge.

Journal of the sixty-first day's ses-was read and approved.

The following communication was read:

Salt Lake City, Utah Ter., May 4, 1895.

To the President and Members of the Constitutional Convention:

GENTLEMEN._Will you be so kind as to furnish me with a copy of the Constitution, to be sealed up in the construction of a table whereon will be signed the first bill passed by the first State Legislature of Utah? I now have in my possession a representative piece from each of the governors of the states and territories. If the copy could be printed on some light material so that it would not be too bulky.

If your honorable body will comply with this request, you will confer a lasting favor on

Yours with respect,

JOHN R. WILSON.

Salt Lake City, Utah Ter.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to suspend the rules and correct a matter concerning section 4 as printed in the article on schedule, for the purpose of enabling the committee to proceed with its work. I move to strike out, under suspension of the rules, “and the people of the United States in the Territory of Utah.”

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, would not it be better to leave out this last “Territory of Utah,”and make it “thereof?”

Mr. VARIAN. That could be included in one motion. I accept that. The committee, as I understood the chairman last night, did not feel authorized to make this change, and they recognize the fact that it was not consistent or harmonious. I make the motion now so that the section will read “or to any official board for the benefit of the Territory of Utah, or the people thereof.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would like to ask Mr. Thurman if the balance of that {1814} line where the amendment is inserted adds any strength to it. Would not it be just as well to include in his amendment_    

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, I think that should be there to cover the amount of bond and matttersof that kind.

Mr. GOODWIN. All right.

The motion to suspend the rules and amend as stated was agreed to.

Mr. Eichnor offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:

Resolved, that the following attestation be placed at the end of the schedule of the Constitution immediately preceding the signatures of the delegates of the Convention:

Done in Convention at Salt Lake City, in the Territory of Utah, this __ day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and nineteenth year.

The committee on compilation and arrangement reported the arrangement of the proposed articles for insertion in the Constitution as follows:

1. Preamble and declaration of rights.

2. Boundaries.

3. Ordinance.

4. Elections and rights of suffrage.

5. Distribution of power.

6. Legislative.

8. Judicial.

9. Apportionments.

10. Education and school lands.

11. Counties, cities and towns.

12. Corporations.

13. Revenue and taxation.

14. Public debt.

15. Militia.

16. Labor and arbitration.

17. Water rights.

18. Forestry.

19. Public buildings not educational.

20. Public lands.

21. Salaries of public officers.

22. Miscellaneous.23. Amendments.

23. Schedule.

On motion of Mr. Squires, the report was adopted.

The Convention then resumed the final consideration of the article entitled counties, cities, and towns.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Is the word “stricken” in the first line of the article as passed? It seems like a strange formation.

Mr. IVINS. It seems to me the word “detached” would be a better word there; I move that the

word “detached” be subsituted[*note*].

The motion was agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 and 6 were read.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I wish to move, in section 3, line first, after the word which stands now “detached,” and formerly was “stricken,” the substitution of the word “taken,” so that it will read, “no territory shall be taken from any county,” I do not think Mr. Ivins will object to it; I have consulted with him.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HAYNES. Mr. President, in section 3, the last word in line 2, I move to amend by striking out “such” and inserting “said.”

MR[*note*]. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I have some slight doubt that that would better it.

Mr. CRANE. I think it should be left just the way it is.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to strike out, by consent, from the last line of page 37, in section 3, the words, “applicable to the whole State.” All general laws are applicable to the whole State.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move to strike out the article “a,” there before “general law.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I think the word “transcribed” there {1815} should be changed to “provided,” so as to conform to the other sections.

The amendment was rejected.

The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of Article XII, entitled corporations.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. THORESON. I move that the words, “as to such business,” be restored in the next to the last line of that section, for this reason, that I do not believe the Legislature could limit legally or restrain corporations. We can only restrain the business that such corporations are doing in our State. They may be incorporated under some other state constitution, and we only regulate the

business that they are doing.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words, “at any time,” in line 4; it is sufficient to say that they may be amended or repealed by the Legislatnre[*note*].

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I do not quite understand the meaning of the last clause in the section. Literally it would simply prevent them from having the benefit of any future legislation, without reference to existing legislation, which is carried by this Constitution. Was that the design of the article, or was it simply an oversight? In other words, is it the intention of the Convention to require all corporations to file an acceptance of the provisions of this Constitution with the secretary of state? If so, why limit it under the proviso that they shall not have the benefit of future legislation? That would leave it open to go on under their existing charters, which are carried over under the new Constitution by its general, provisions. I confess I do not know what the committee intended by that_whether they intended to have every corporation in existence file with the secretary of state an acceptance of this Constitution.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, this was debated about an hour when it was up, and that purpose was gone into. There was no other intent by the committee that adopted this_the committee of the whole, other than expressed in the language, and that was that they should not benefit by legislation unless they should file an acceptance of the provisions of the Constitution. That was all there was to it, and all there was in it.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I was trying to get some information on this subject. It seems to be a little dubious to me, but the statement of the chairman is as I understood the discussion in the committee of the whole. I desire to call attention that the language of this section in one particular is not as the langugeof the original article. In the third line, “all existing charters, franchises, and special or exclusive privileges under which an actual bona fide organization has not taken place,” is the language in the article as presented now, and as it was passed it was “shall not have taken place.” I think the latter is the proper form. Of course it has not taken place now. This is in future. Therefore, I would. move that that amendment be made.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I suppose that the gentleman has considered that this reads on “has not taken place” at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is not correct.

Mr. WHITNEY. I am inclined to think the gentleman is correct.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GOODWIN. How can you find out whether a man is in good faith when he commences business?
{1816}
Mr. WHITNEY. Why not strike out the words, “in good faith?” You can hardly go to a man's conscience.

The PRESIDENT. Do you make the motion to strike that out?

Mr. WHITNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SQUIRES. The way this sentence reads now, it seems to me that if a bona fide organization had taken place, that would make the charter valid, with the word “nor” in there. If you put the word “and” in place of the word “nor,” then it would require that a bona fide organization had taken place, and business commenced. I think the word “and” should go in there in place of “nor.”

Mr. WHITNEY. I think so, too.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move the substitution of the word “and” for the word “nor.”

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I think the word “nor” is the proper word there.

The PRESIDENT. The question on Mr. Whitney's motion is the striking out of the words “in good faith,” in the fourth line.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I hope those words will not be stricken out, because they have peculiar significance. The insertion of those words was, no doubt, intended to avoid, and it could not attempt to avoid the law by simply making a pretense of commencing business. It must be an actual commencement of business. Evidently the object of this section is to avoid this condition. A corporation or individual may get a franchise, then, without a bona fide organization, or without actually commencing business in good faith, continue the life of this franchise. Now, it is to avoid that; it is to require that they either have an actual bona fide organization, for the purpose of exercising the franchise, or they must commence business in good faith. They might commence business by doing something that might technically be regarded as a commencement of business, and yet not do it with any intention to carrying on that business, but simply for the purpose of holding the franchise, and it is to avoid that, that I understand these words are inserted. It is language that is frequently used in that connection, and I think it should be retained.

Mr. WHITNEY. I would like to ask Mr. Richards, after the word “actual,” would not be better, then?

Mr. RICHARDS. I think not, for the reason I suggest. They may actually have commenced

business, but with no expectation of continuing business, but simply for the purpose of holding a franchise.

Mr. WHITNEY. How can you tell whether a man intends to conduct it or not?

Mr. RICHARDS. That is a matter that is easily told.

Mr. WHITNEY. By simply commencing?

Mr. RICHARDS. No. Such questions are arising constantly and being adjudicated as to the actual commencing being in good faith.

Mr. SQUIRES. I will ask Mr. Richards this question: Suppose a company starts and actually commences business and then in a short time closes business, would not that be an evidence that they had not opened in good faith?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir. If an attempt were made to forfeit their charter or franchise, the burden of proof, I take it, would be upon the government to show it was simply a pretense, and that they were not acting in good faith, and if the State could show that clearly, they ought to have a right to forfeit it. If they could show it, it would not have that right. It is a matter that is frequently presented in this way.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I hope that this Convention will amend the word “and” there, and leave the words “good faith” in. It is the language in almost every constitution. It is found everywhere, and as it was debated here {1817} on the floor in the committee of the whole and in the Convention on third reading_

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I raise the point of order, to save time. That amendment is not before the house.

Mr. JAMES. I am speaking of the word “and.”

Mr. SQUIRES. That is not before the house.

Mr. JAMES. The other part of it_I am speaking on both together.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I will withdraw my objection to the phrase out of deference to the legal gentleman, Mr. Richards.

Mr. SQUIRES. Now, Mr. President, I present my amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the change from “nor” to “and.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I shall object to the striking out of that word; I think it is necessary to the balance of the sentence.

The amendment was rejected. Sections 3 and 4 were read.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move a reconsideration of that vote by which “nor” was stricken out and “and” was inserted.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, my object in moving that the word “and” be inserted there, was so that it will require both things to be done. I believe that if the word “nor” remains there, if a bona fide organization shall have taken place a charter will be valid without the other.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am opposed to the change from “and” to “nor.” I prefer “and” for the reason that the purpose of it was to make not only the organization take place, but also business to be commenced in good faith first. Now, if you insert “nor,” if business is commenced in good faith, whether the organization is perfected or not, the existing charters would be perpetuated. I think the “and” should be required.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I think the word “and” should remain, but in case a vote to change it prevails, I insist upon it being “or” instead of “nor.”

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, the way the paragraph reads, if the corporation fails in either, then it can be attacked, and if the word “and” is put in there_I may be dull, but I do not see any sense at all in it. I think Mr. Whitney's amendment is all right, to make it “or.”

The motion of Mr. Squires was agreed to.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move that the word “prescribed” be stricken out and the word “provided” put in its place, so as to conform to other actions already taken.

No second.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move to strike out the letter “a,” in the 7th line, before “general law.”

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, in the fourth line from the bottom, section 5, I move that “nor” be changed to “or.”

The motion was rejected.

Section 6 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I notice the committee has inserted the word “of” in the first line. I think the sense is better without it. I move to strike it out.

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided, and the vote standing 24 ayes to 22 noes, the motion was agreed to.
{1818}
Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Mr. President, I move to amend that section by striking ontthe words “of the,” in the first line, and the word “limits,” at the beginning of line 2.

Mr: SNOW. Mr. President, I move a reconsideration of the vote by which “nor” is retained in line 4, after the word “stock.” I think it should be “or.”

Mr. WHITNEY. I second the motion. I contend that “or” is the correct word. It is merely an alternative.

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 37 ayes to 12 noes, the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question is, shall it be changed to “or?”

The question being taken on the motion, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 40 ayes to 10 noes the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HAYNES. Mr. President, I move that the last sentence of section 5 be stricken out, “all fictitious increase of stock or indebtedness shall be void.” It is not a constitutional provision, to say that a fictitious increase of stock shall be void.

Mr. SNOW. That requires a suspension of the rules.

Mr. HAYNES. Then, I move for a suspension of the rules.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I move we take a recess until 2 o'clock.

The motion was rejected.

Sections 7 and 8 were read.

The motion was agreed to.

Sections 9, 10, and 11 were read.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I move that in section 9 the words “in the same,” in the third line, be stricken out.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I do not think that that should be stricken out in this sense_that is a very material change in the section.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to ask the gentleman a question. Does “in the same” refer to the State or place of business? It is ambiguous the way it is and may refer to either.

Mr. CRANE. In the State. “State” could be replaced. Certainly to eliminate the three words would make a very material change in the section; if that is stricken out, Mr. President, the agents might be in another state, the way I read it, and not in this State. It certainly must mean that the agents must be residents of this State or in the same State, or something of the kind.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, the purpose, as I understand it, is different than that explanation by Mr. Crane. In the places of business is what “same” refers to, as I understand it. I think it itis proper that it should remain. We want the agent in the place of business.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I move an amendment to the amendment; strike out the word, “and” in line 3, and insert the word “with” in lieu thereof, and strike out the words “in the same.”

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, the gentlemen really do not understand what they are doing, when they move to strike this out. This is the language precisely of five or six of our constitutions, and not only that, there is not a single new constitution adopted in this western country that has not got it.

Mr. THURMAN. Let me ask the gentleman a question. What does “in the same” refer to_places or state?

Mr. WHITNEY. It sounds as if they might always have to be in their offices.

Mr. JAMES. Not necessarily. It is not so technical as that, Bishop. You cannot go into details and say they must be in their office. It says they must be either in their office or on the street where process can be served upon them_where their headquarters are.

The question being taken on the amendment to the amendment, the Convention {1819} divided, and by a vote of 30 ayes to 16 noes, it was agreed to.

The motion was rejected.

On motion, the Convention then took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Convention re-assembled pursuant to recess, President Smith in the chair.

Roll call, to ascertain if a quorum was present, resulted as follows:

Adams
Allen
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Corfman
Cunningham
Cushing
Eichnor
Engberg
Evans, Utah
Francis
Gibbs
Hammond
Howard
Hyde
James
Kimball, Salt Lake
Kimball, Weber
Lambert
Larsen, L.
Larsen, C. P.
Lemmon
Lowe, Wm.
Lowe, Peter
Low, Cache
Lund

Mr. Snow presented the following resolution, and moved its adoption:

Resolved, That the committee on enrollment and engrossment be instructed to report the earliest date that the engrossed Constitution can be submitted for final reading.

The Convention then resumed the consideration of Article XII.

Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 were read.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I do not see why the change was made in this section. This change was proposed by Mr. Cannon.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). That does not change the sense of the section.

Mr. JAMES. As I understood Mr. Cannon, this was the statute as it exists at the present time in Utah.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). That is true as to banking corporations, but it is not true as to any other corporations, and the transposition does not change the sense of the section at all. It leaves the

section just as originally reported. It does not affect that.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think it does affect very materially, and I object to the change.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). The original section does change the effect of the present law, because there is no such law on the statute books to-day as embodied in that section, except as to private banking law of this Territory.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. There are three or four men talking here.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I move that the transposition of the committee be not accepted, and that the paragraph be left as in the original copy. There is a very material change in the sense, as I understand it. The section as it now reads, or as printed in this copy, is that a stockholder in every corporation and joint stock association for banking purposes, in addition to the amount of capital stock subscribed and fully paid, shall be individually responsible for an additional amount equal to the amount of their stock in such corporation, for all its debts and liabilities of every kind. That is to say, a man's liability is still by this section limited to the amount of {1820} stock he has in the company and an additional amount equal to that. But with the change that the committee propose to make, he is first individually responsible for all debts and liabilities of the company, of every kind, and then, in addition to that, he is liable for the amount of stock that he has in the corporation. Now, why should that be so? What is the purpose of law in making a man liable for twice the amount of stock that he has in the corporation? It is to pay the debts. That is the only object of it, and there is no reason in the world why a man should be liable in any additional amount after the debts are paid. But the purpose of this is to make him liable for the amount of his stock, and then, for an additional amount, equal to the amount of his stock, out of which to pay debts, and then if the debts are not paid, the man's liability ceases.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). Now, I would like for Mr. Richards, or any man on this floor, to point out to me where there is any difference between the section as transposed and the original proposition, except the transposition of the terms that the individual stockholders shall be liable for all debts and liabilities of every kind in an additional amount equal to the stock subscribed. That is the way it reads in the original article_except the phraseology in the amendment suggested by the committee and placed there by the committee, it is a little more euphonious, and makes it read a little better, that is all. And after all the debts and liabilities are paid, Mr. Richards's bugaboo is out of the way anyhow, because a stockholder could not be liable beyond the debts and liabilities in any event, and when the debts and liabilities are paid, the liability of the stockholder ceases, and I submit that the change in phraseology in that makes it read a little more pleasantly and makes it better.

Mr. JAMES. Doesn't this cover what the effort was made to cover; doesn't it provide for all we attempted to cover?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Their reading does.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Simply because it reads a little more pleasantly and would answer the criticisms of grammarians a little better, that is all. And in the absence of the members who purport to be champions of grammar here, I am in favor of the change made by the committee.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I hope that the Convention will not change this correction made by the committee. I think it is a good one, the way it now reads. It will not change the liability of the stockholders. I think that change that the committee has made is a good one and is grammatically correct. It does not change the meaning, but has much better phraseology.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. President, the original writing of this is correct, and the change made by the committee is not. It makes stockholders individually responsible for all debts of the bank or the company that they are associated with, and then double the amount of their stock besides, and that is not intended. The original writing is correct, and whether it is quite as euphonious and grammatical or not, it is written so that it can be easily understood, and ought to remain as it was originally, without the amendments made by the committee.

The motion of Mr. Richards was agreed to.

Section 19 was read.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, ought there to be a comma after “obtaining,” in the fifth line? I move to strike it out.

The motion was rejected.

Section 20 was read.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I desire {1821} to know why the words, “for that purpose,” were struck out. I move those words be reinserted.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, in order to test the sense of the Convention, I will suggest this, that at common law, no statutes were punctuated and no contracts were punctuated, and I suggest now to save time that we follow the common law rule and quit this punctuation. I make that motion.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, it seems to me that the pronoun “it” ought to precede the word “may,” in the next line to the last one of that section. I move the insertion of that word.

The motion was agreed to.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. President, I move you that in the punctuation, that when a person makes a motion or suggests a comma, or anything of that kind, if there is no objection from the house, it shall stand.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I move that any person making a suggestion, cite a rule for so doing. I think that will suppress all these suggestions.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I object to that motion. Some of us are not as wise or as well informed as the gentleman from Sanpete; and do not want to be called upon to expose our ignorance.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. President, in regard to section 20, I think that other articles will come in contact with this section. In relation to the combination of the soap factories in this city_and this will touch them, and govern them in their actions. I would like very much to get a little information on this. I belong to a firm of a combination on mills. I have heard many making a remark, it was a trust to regulate prices, or to raise the prices. I find another about to be incorporated or united together of four corporations of this city.

The object, I understand it, then, is to cut down expenses and cost. While we have four soap factories in this city to-day, it is more than the market demands, and they are all losing money in their competitions, and not able to keep in full capacity. They are going to form a combination to cut down expense that they may be able to compete with foreign markets. Some might construe this, according to this section, a trust that will raise the price of that article, while the object, in fact, is that they want to stop operating one or two of these factories, and cut down the expense. Will this section reach that class? I think it is a serious thing.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I am of the opinion that this section will reach the class that Mr. Morris alludes to. I am further of the opinion that it would be very proper that it should reach that class. This is an article against combinations or trusts, to keep them, as the common phrase is, from cornering the market on any particular product. While it is true that this section may be a hardship to one particular industry, in the great majority of instances it proves a public good, and promotes the public welfare. Now, there is no law passed, either by a legislature or by Congress, but what in isolated cases will prove a hardship, but the hardship is only the exception to the rule, and because in this Territory there may be one industry that will be retarded, and will be made to suffer a loss by this section, in the outcome the section may prove a benefit to the public, for the reason that it prevents combinations and corners, and I submit that, notwithstanding {1822} the objection of the gentleman, this section should stand.

Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, in the sixth line from the bottom of section 2, I move that the word “and,” beginning the section, be stricken out. It is entirely superfluous.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think the words “in this State,” should be inserted after the word “taxed,” in the twelfth line. They are in my copy.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, the debate took place upon that for about a half an hour, after which the Convention refused to insert the words which the gentleman wants inserted.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I offer the following amendment to that section: To strike out after the word “of,” in the second line on page 43, “the United States, the State, counties, cities, towns, school districts, municipal corporations,” for the reason that there is no power in this State to tax either one of those. The State would not certainly tax its own property; it cannot tax the property of the United States; and it is certainly unnecessary to have in here a provision that the Legislature of this Territory cannot tax the property of the United States or of the State, or of the counties, cities, towns, school districts or municipal corporations.

The PRESIDENT. Do you move to suspend the rules?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I do not think it is a motion to suspend the rules, because it does not touch the substance. If necessary, I move to suspend the rules and take up the consideration of that section 3 for the purpose of making that motion.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I notice the committee have changed the first word at the top of page 43, and have it read debits. As it was originally it provided that a deduction of debts from credits may be authorized. I move that that be changed to its old form; the language is taken from Washington.

Mr. EICHNOR. It is all right.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I move to amend the word “proceeds” to “profits.” It was a word that

I overlooked at the time, but after it had been adopted by the Convention on its passage, my attention was called to it, and I believe that if the word was changed to “profits” in place of “proceeds,” although it is intended to cover that very proposition, it is more comprehensive and better understood by mining people.

Mr. BUTTON. Do you move to suspend the rules?

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). It is a very radical change.

Mr. JAMES. I take it not. It is put there to cover and mean “profits.” I move to suspend the rules.

No second.

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). Mr. President, in that section I desire to make an amendment, by striking out, beginning with “which,” in the fourth line of that section from the bottom, and including the word claims, in the fifth line. It may be thought that is a radical change. I move to suspend the rules for the purpose of making that amendment. You see the preceding section taxes all mining machinery and all surface improvements, appurtenant to the mine and mining claims. If you strike out what I move to strike out, it will leave that all taxable. You leave in the words that I move to strike out and it leaves it uncertain there as to what is valuable for mining purposes and what is not valuable for mining purposes.

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman {1823} permit a question? I desire to know, if I understood you correctly, to say that all mining men on this floor favor the change?

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I believe there is not a mining man on this floor_there is not one that I have conversed with, at least, but what favors that change.

Mr. GOODWIN. I will ask Mr. Kimball if he understands why that was put in?

Mr. KIMBALL ( Weber). I do not, sir. I have talked with several mining men on this floor and they have been unable to say why that was put in.

The motion to suspend the rules was rejected.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I would move to suspend the rules and strike out, commencing in the first line after the word “claims,” down to and including the word “depositors.” I do that in the interests of simplifying the section. If you leave it as it is, the first time some claim is taxed, they will make the county prove that it is mineral bearing in some particular, and it will give rise to litigation, while if it is stricken out, everything is covered anyway. I think it should be stricken out.

The question being taken on the motion to suspend the rules, the Convention divided, and by a vote of 26 ayes to 22 noes, the motion was rejected.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I move that in section 9, the second line on page 45, the word “eight” be stricken out and the word “seven” inserted.

The amendment was agreed to. Section 10 was read.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move to insert the letter “t” before the word “herein,” in line 2.

The motion was rejected.

Sections 11 and 12 were read.

Mr. Snow offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:

Resolved, That the committee on enrollment and engrossment be instructed to employ the necessary help to report the engrossed Constitution to this Convention for final reading on Monday, May 6, at 2 p. m.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I would like to know why it should be in one hand if we direct several men to do it.

Mr. SQUIRES. I see a good reason why.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I would like to amend that and make it Tuesday morning, as there are a great many here that would like to vote for it on Tuesday.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I would like to move as an amendment to the gentleman's motion, that the chair appoint now a committee of five to consider this matter and report at once to the Convention.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. President, I raise the point of order that that is not an amendment.

The resolution offered by Mr. Snow was adopted.

Mr. Kimball, of Salt Lake, offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:

Resolved, that the sergeant-at-arms notify, at once, each absentee to be present Monday morning, May 6th.

The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of Article XIV. Sections 1 and 2 were read.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I move that the word “whatever,” the last word in that section, be stricken out.

The amendment was agreed to.
{1824 - PRINTING CONSTITUTION}
Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I move still another amendment in that section, in the second line from the bottom, after the word “applied,” I would insert the word “only.”

The amendment was agreed to. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were read.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, before we leave this, I wish to call attention to one thing, section 1, the last three lines, “all moneys arising from loans herein authorized shall be applied solely to the purposes for which they were obtained.” The word “solely” and the word “obtained” are used now in the next section. We say, “but the money arising from the contracting of such debts shall be applied only to the purpose for which it was raised.” I move to strike out the word “only,” in line 4 of section 2, and insert “solely,” and strike out the word “raised,” in line 5 of section 2, and insert the word “obtained,” to harmonize with the language used in the section above.

The motion was agreed to.

Article XV was then taken up.

Section 1 was read.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. President, I would like to get the consent of the Convention to reconsider and change this. Change the word “citizens,” occurring first in line 2, to “inhabitants,” and strike out “and males who have declared their intention to become citizens.” Change “laws” to “law.” And strike out “of the United States or of this State.”

Mr. THURMAN. If you will change the “forty-five” to “forty-three,” I will second the motion.

Mr. RYAN. That follows the requirements of the United States statutes. This section as it is now fixed looks like a raw recruit, you might say, and “inhabitants” now covers everything, because if he is an alien he could not be forced into the service anyway, and, if he is exempt under the laws of the United States, he could not be forced into the State service, so that it would then be compact and uniform. I move a suspension of the rules.

The motion to suspend the rules was agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to. Section 2 was read.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I want to give notice that if I can formulate anything to satisfy myself, I am going to add a section to the water rights article.

The PRESIDENT. It seems to me there ought to be something whereby the State claims the water.

Mr. Lambert offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Convention order 1,000 copies of the Constitution printed, and that a copy be sent to each official in the Territory and five copies to each member of the Convention, and two copies to each newspaper printed in the Territory.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I do not understand the resolution. Have we passed a resolution heretofore authorizing the printing of the copies?            

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, the reason I asked to have it laid on the table was that I wanted a little time to consider whether this distribution was just what we wanted. Five copies to each member would dispose of 535 copies. Now, there are 465 copies to go elsewhere, and it seems to me that the members ought to have more than five copies each. I wanted to find out how many newspapers there were in the Territory, to know how to distribute them.

Mr. CRANE. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee on printing what this will cost?

Mr. LAMBERT. Until we had some authority, we did not feel at liberty to {1825 - STENOGRAPHER'S COMPENSATION} ask for bids. I intended to ask for bids in paper covers.

Mr. SNOW. Law sheep will not cost more than about three or four cents more.

Mr. LAMBERT. Fifteen cents more.

Mr. SNOW. It won't cost that. I will agree to get them for five cents more.

Mr. CANNON. I move the offer be accepted.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, my motion to lay on the table having failed, I now move to postpone further consideration until Monday.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I move to amend that, that the committee find out what they will cost and report Monday.

Mr. SQUIRES. Certainly.

The motion of Mr. Squires was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. I withdraw the motion to postpone it.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. President, I move as an amendment to the amendment that any surplus copies be divided among the members.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think there is a misapprehension of this motion. I understood Mr. Squires to withdraw his motion to postpone and accept the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Salt Lake, that it go to the committee on printing, to report on Monday the cost of this work.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is correct. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move we adjourn until Monday at 10 o'clock.

The motion was agreed to, and the Convention then, at 4:35 p. in., adjourned until next Monday at 10 o'clock a. m.