[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.

Prayer was offered by Delegate Clark.

Journal of the sixty-second day's session was read and approved.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, as the accounts have all been made up to-day, and there is some little question about the stenographer_I did not want to raise it, but it ought to be decided this morning, and I would call the attention of the Convention to the agreement that you made with the stenographer, to have the understanding made complete this morning. You will willfind it on pages 23 and 24 of the minutes. I believe the stenographer will state his side of the case.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I would suggest that Mr. Lund explain what the difference is, so that the Convention will understand it.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I was not the one who made this agreement, and inasmuch as there is difficulty or a misunderstanding, I think we ought to hear from the Convention at large or else from the committee on stenographer. I have not been able for myself to decide which is right in this case, the Convention or Mr. McGurrin. The chairman, I believe, of this committee would report that the days actually in session do not include Sundays and holidays, and I think that Mr. McGurrin had the other understanding when the arrangements were made.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I move that this matter be referred to the committee on expenses.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, we have no time to refer this matter.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move you that we allow Mr. McGurrin his pay according to his understanding of this matter; that is, that we pay him {1826 - ENGROSSING CONSTITUTION} for the days' session as recorded on our journal.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, as I understand it, Mr. McGurrin has had from these sessions more work than his per diem and his transcribing will make, according to the rate at which he was paid, than thirty dollars per day, and I am of the opinion that Mr. Hart is, that he should be paid by the day as the members are paid.

Mr. BOWDLE. How many days difference are there?

Mr. LUND. There will be nine days, I think, difference.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask Mr. McGurrin a question, will the work when transcribed exceed the thirty dollars a day, counting the ten dollars per diem and fifteen cents per

folio?

The STENOGRAPHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, as I understand it, as we adjourn to-morrow, that will make sixty-five days that the Convention will have been in session, amounting to $1950, and the only difference would be three hundred dollars, if all the Sundays and holidays would be deducted. If what Mr. McGurrin states is true, and I have no doubt about it, I will support the motion of Mr. Hart.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I understand that not only this statement is true, that Mr. McGurrin will not only have to work during the days of the session, but some days afterwards, in order to comply with his agreement with the Convention and the secretary of the Territory.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I move we accept the invitation of the railway company for a trip to Saltair at 3 p. m. to-day.

The PRESIDENT. The train goes at 2:15.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, if there is work for this Convention to do, I am opposed to going out to Saltair at all to-day. We ought to finish our work before we go on any more junketing tours.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I amend the motion by saying that we decline the invitation.

Mr. WHITNEY. With thanks.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order on the amendment. We have accepted the invitation. It is a mere fixing of the time, and the only way we can do away with it is to reconsider the motion on which we accepted the invitation.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I am going to try to get rid of this motion of Mr. Chidester's by moving to lay upon the table_the motion to decline the invitation. After we have once accepted it, it seems to me a little discourteous.

Mr. PRESIDENT. The chair will sustain the point of order of Mr. Thoreson.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. President, I move to postpone the fixing of the time indefinitely.

The motion was rejected.

The motion of Mr. Thoreson was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, as I understand it, Mr. Crane notified the Convention that the engrossing clerk had discharged the help. I would like to inquire by what authority the engrossing clerk discharged the help.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. President, it appears there is no question before the house, but if the chairman of the committee discharged that man, the question might arise, was the clerk competent, or not? I presume the clerk was not competent, and that was the reason he was discharged.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask Mr. Crane if by waiting until Wednesday {1827 - FINAL REVISION} morning, the Constitution can be presented to this house, engrossed in one man's handwriting?

Mr. CRANE. Wednesday morning, yes; so I am informed by the engrossing clerk.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in order that we might reach a conclusion upon this, I move you, sir, that the house reconsider the resolution of Saturday last, and that the engrossing and enrolling committee be instructed to have that engrossing done by one man and report it here Wednesday morning. The purpose of this engrossed copy is that it shall remain in the archives of the State.

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, for centuries.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then, Mr. President, whether it is to be sent to the President of the United States in its engrossed form, or is to be preserved in the archives of the future State, I think, sir, that we owe it to ourselves and to all good taste that we have that engrossing done in one man's hand writing, and not make a hotch-potch copy to be preserved by this State for all generations to come. Gentlemen, let us not be in such great haste that we will commit this blunder against good taste, of having that engrossing done in several men's handwriting. Let us wait one day more, I beseech you, and have this work done neatly, that it will be a credit to our good taste, at least, for all time to come.

Mr. WELLS. Have you any information, Mr. Roberts, as to when that may be done?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was so informed, and that was the reason I made the motion, by Mr. Crane, that he had information that the engrossing clerk would complete his work by Wednesday morning.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. President, I want something more definite than that before I vote on this question. We had it definitely stated here yesterday through the same mouthpiece that it would take until Thursday or Friday, and it was upon that view that we passed the resolution that we adopted yesterday.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am informed by the chairman of the committee on enrollment and engrossment that that work can be finished in the handwriting of the engrossing clerk by Wednesday morning. I am in favor of the motion of Mr. Roberts, and I endorse his position fully. I think we would be committing the greatest blunder of the session if we insisted on having a patchwork made of the engrossing of our Constitution.

The PRESIDENT. The engrossing clerk is here.

Mr. SQUIRES. At what time can you have the Constitution engrossed all in your handwriting?

Engrossing Clerk SMITH. Well, I think that the whole Constitution can be engrossed in my handwriting by 10 o'clock Wednesday morning.

Mr. SNOW. I have no objection to that. I will accept it.

Mr. HART. I move to amend by making the time Wednesday.

The motion of Mr. Roberts was agreed to, as amended.

The following invitation was read:

The delegates and officers of the Convention, including their ladies, are cordially invited to attend a ball and reception, given to them by the citizens of Salt Lake, at Christensen's hall, west First South street, Monday evening, at 8:30.

(Signed)    

W. H. LETT,

GRANT H. SMITH,

D. C. DUNBAR.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then proceeded to the final consideration of Article XIX, which was read and passed without amendment.

Article XX was then taken up.
{1828}
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to call the attention to the fact that there is a repetition in the second paragraph of the third section. I move to strike out the words “are located,” in the second line of the first subdivision.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, in this first subdivision, the State prison is located at the city of Salt Lake. The State prison is not situated in the city of Salt Lake. I move it be transposed so as to read like this:

The seat of government and State fair at Salt Lake City, in the county of Salt Lake, and the State prison in the county of Salt Lake.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I desire to call attention of the Convention to Article XIX, in line 2. I move to strike out the word “the,” before the word “Constitution,” and insert the word “this” in lieu thereof.

The amendment was agreed to.

Article XXI was read.

Article XXII was read.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. President, I would like to make a transposition in section 1, so that it should read like this:

The Legislature shall provide by law for the selection by each head of a family of a homestead of the value of at least fifteen hundred dollars, and for its exemption from sale on execution.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I notice in the printed matter before us to-day, that there are some changes made that mixed this matter up. I would like to have the original resolution as presented by the gentleman from Salt Lake, and we will find the language constructed probably even better than the motion now before the house.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I am in favor of this change suggested by Mr. Crane. I believe it makes the sentence more clear.

Mr. RYAN. I would like to ask Mr. Crane if that would not fix the homestead of one tract or of one town lot as the case might be.

Mr. CRANE. No, I think not. He could have it in dozens, as long as he did not exceed fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. RYAN. I think it fixes it to one tract.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I agree with the gentleman who has just spoken that by using

the pronoun there it is singular, while here as in this section, the homestead might include several pieces of land, and in consideration of that I am opposed to this change, and I move as an amendment to the motion now before the house that the section read as follows:

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

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I just want to make a suggestion. As it is well known that I opposed this and do now, because I think it is all wrong, I am satisfied the way that reads that the Legislature would not have power to exempt as a homestead more than one piece of property. The word homestead is well understood in law and means where the family reside, where the home is made. If the man happens to have a little piece of property that is only worth about two hundred and fifty dollars and lives upon it, and has a detached piece of property some other place, I think that that {1829} other piece of property detached would not be a homestead. I make this suggestion, so that some friend of the measure might remedy it.

Mr. RICHARDS. Is not it a fact that our present homestead law is in practically the same language as this?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No, sir. Our present homestead law says that the head of a family shall have a further exemption of lands of the value of one thousand dollars and five hundred dollars for the wife, and two hundred and fifty dollars for each other member of the family. It expressly uses the word lands in the plural. But this says, “a homestead.”

Mr. ELDREDGE. To strike out the word homestead and insert the word real property, would that not cover the ground?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes, sir; I think if, after the word “homestead,” in line 3, the words were inserted, “consisting of lands,” it would then be definite.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I will make that as an amendment, if the gentleman would accept it.

Mr. THORESON. I will accept that, yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Weber County and which is now accepted by Mr. Thoreson. That was the idea of the Convention at the time it was adopted, because a man who might live upon a small tract in town might, in addition to his little town lot, have a few acres of land upon which he might obtain his living.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I do not see how this amendment betters that. It is not land. Does not the gentleman contemplate also including improvements on land?

Mr. SQUIRES. Does the gentleman think that that would exempt improvements on lands?

Mr. THORESON. It would include improvements on lands.

Mr. SQUIRES. There might be a house on one piece of land where the man resided, and another might have improvements. Now, would these improvements be exempt?

Mr. THORESON. Yes, sir; to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman if his idea would not be better expressed in this way: “which may consist of lands not contiguous in location?” I think that is the underlying thought of the gentleman.

Mr. THORESON. Yes; I would be in favor of that.

Mr. VARIAN. Another thought has been suggested by Mr. Richards. It is just as well, if we are going to enact details, to be certain as to the construction there. Now, my attention is called to the statute as it exists, which has been construed in the way desired, “consisting of lands, together with the appurtenances and improvements thereon.”

Mr. THORESON. All right; I will have the words written and supplied. Add after the word “homestead,” the words, “which may consist of parcels of lands not contiguous, together with the appurtenances and improvements thereon.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, it seems to me the words, “not contiguous,” are improper in there.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, in order to get that matter before the Convention, I move a reconsideration of the vote by which the amendment was adopted. I would suggest the following, “which may consist of several parcels of land, together with their appurtenances {1830} and improvements thereon.”

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I would like to know what the necessity for this tinkering with this article is. I undertake to say that without anything in this Constitution at all on this subject, the Legislature can provide exemption or homestead laws, and by simply making it as we have done, it does not limit the power of the Legislature in any particular.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the amendment of this section.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to suggest an amendment, after the word “homestead,” in line 3 of section 1, I would insert, “which may consist of one or more parcels of land, together with their appurtenances and improvements thereon.”

Mr. THORESON. I will accept of that.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I am going to call for the enforcement of the rule and demand the roll call. It takes a two-thirds vote to amend this section.

Mr. RICHARDS. Let me ask the gentleman from Salt Lake what possible objection there can be to the amendment suggested by the delegate from Weber, If there is any serious objection I would like to know it.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am in favor of making this thing certain, for the reason that the word “homestead” has a definite meaning throughout the United States. There are but very few states in the Union_possibly not more than two or three, that exempt a homestead consisting of the value. Most of them exempt the definite homestead, and even with the wording of our present statute, there has been a difference of opinion, some contending that even under our statute, a homestead is meant; that is well understood to be consisting of one tract upon which the domicile is situated. Therefore, in order to make it certain, and place it beyond the possibility of any doubt of cavil, I am in favor of defining the word “homestead,” in the way suggested by the gentleman from Weber.

Mr. VARIAN. We withdraw the demand for roll call.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, this is exactly the position I took the other day upon this. It may be true that the Legislature, under the article as its stands, could give an exemption in different tracts of land, but I very gravely doubt that question. We say what that exemption is for. It is for a homestead. It is not an exemption for the benefit of a family generally, but the home may be kept together, and it has been defined over and over again, and I know of no definition save in one place, the state of Alabama, in which it has been held that a homestead might consist of more than one piece of land; unless they were contiguous, and for the sake of making it plain and certain, I am in favor of this amendment. I move to amend that by inserting after the word “lands” the words “not contiguous.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It means that. It says one or more parcels of land.

Mr. BOWDLE. Suppose they were different town lots, and were lying right together, might they not then be considered, each lot as a parcel of land.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If they were town lots lying together, yes; but this permits the head of the

family to select one or more parcels, just as he pleases, not exceeding in value fifteen hundred dollars.

The amendment of Mr. Evans, of Weber, was agreed to.

Article XXIII was read.

Article XXIV was taken up.

Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words “which are,” in line 2.

The motion was agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 were read.
{1831}
Sections 5 and 6 were read.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. President, I move the word, “be,” in the fifth line from the top of page 57, be stricken out, and the words “have been” be inserted in place of it.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to strike out the words “in this Constitution,” in lines 1 and 2 of page 57.

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 7 was read.

Mr. BUYS. Mr. President, it seems to me that the semi-colon after the word “Union” is wrong; this is a part of the logical subject, and I think the subject ought not to be divided by a semi- colon. I think it should be a comma and the word “and.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, in section 5 you have exactly the same condition, in the fifteenth line; you have a semi-colon and then the next sentence begins without a conjunction. I think the semi-colon should remain there, but the conjunction should come in, “and all records and public archives.”

The amendment was agreed to. Sections 8 and 9 were read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, in section 8, I move that the words “of Utah” be inserted after

the word “Territory,” in the fourth line.

The amendment was agreed to.

Section 10 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I see no use of the third line, “under the authority of the United States.” I move to strike out the words. They do not hold offices under the authority of the United States, but under the authority of the Territory of Utah. Their appointments are by the President of the United States.

Mr. RICHARDS. I hope the gentleman will not insist upon that motion. Some of these offices are provided for by the Organic Act and act of Congress.

Mr. VARIAN. Well, I will withdraw the motion.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I will move upon that an amendment and say, “under authority of law.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, it seems to me “by” ought to take the place of “under.” I move to insert “by” for “under.”

The amendment was agreed to. Section 11 was read.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, in the fourth line of the proviso, the words after the word “election,” “and are qualified voters,” were stricken out. I therefore move that they be stricken out here.

Mr. VARIAN. I understood that the question was raised but it was suggested that that applied to registration.

Mr. RICHARDS. It was raised and discussed and acted upon, and the words were stricken out.

Mr. FARR. Mr. President, I move that they be stricken out.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, my marked copy as it pass.d the committee of the whole shows that the words “and are qualified voters,” were not there, but in the Convention those words were inserted on the motion, I believe, of Judge Goodwin.

The PRESIDENT. Unless there is objection, the words will be stricken out.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, before we pass from section 11, I want to call the Convention's attention to the fact that as it now reads, it will permit convicts not pardoned by the governor to

vote. The question is whether we want to insert something.

Mr. THURMAN. Does not the Enabling Act permit the same class to vote?

Mr. VARIAN. Yes; I think it does.

Mr. RICHARDS. We are required by the Enabling Act to allow more people_

Mr. VARIAN. I simply call attention to the fact that day after day and week after week you are discharging from the penitentiary up here people convicted of {1832} all sorts of offenses under the territorial law. I care nothing about it myself, but it will permit those people to vote.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to call attention to the Enabling Act, which says that all persons may vote, possessing certain qualifications not in conflict with this act.

Mr. VARIAN. This conforms with the act.

Sections 12 and 13 were read.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I notice that the words “district courts” here are capitalized. We have passed several sections where they were not, this morning.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, in order to test the necessity of this section 13, I move to strike it out. It seems to me it is provided for in other parts of the schedule, and if there is any reason why we should have this_these territorial laws are in force until repealed by the Legislature. They are to be adapted by the State officers until repealed.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman if there is any provision for contest of district judges under territorial laws.

Mr. THURMAN. I think the law is general, is it not, and provides for all officers? Well, we have not time. I will withdraw the motion.

Mr. SQUIRES. I move that wherever “district courts” occurs in the Constitution, it be capitalized.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I hope that amendment will not prevail. In a good many places, it was written in the lower case.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I submit that is not the statement of the fact as it exists. There are a number of places in the Constitution, where I know they were capitalized.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I would suggest, if we are going to have a motion on the subject, I would rather the motion be that it be uniform. Whatever rule they have pursued in the forepart of the document I would like to see carried out.

Mr. RICHARDS. I desire to suggest to the gentleman that my amendment will cover just that case. Whatever rule they have adopted so far let them carry that out.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, in order to sense the Convention on one item in section 13, I would move to strike out all after the word “and,” in line 6, down to and including the word “State,” in the eighth line, and put in lieu thereof “the supreme court.” I notice from this that it makes the secretary, governor, and treasurer, a board, and confers judicial power upon them. I move to suspend the rules.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I think Mr. Eldredge does not understand that this only applies to the first election, and the judges of course cannot pass upon their own qualifications, and there must be some tribunal by which their election might be determined.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I say in answer to that, it is provided for the judges of the district court, and in placing it before the supreme court, certainly does not include the judges of the district court, because they form no part of it.

Mr. THURMAN. Would not that be depriving them of the right to appeal to that tribunal upon a very important question?

Mr. ELDREDGE. There is no provision {1833} for a court of that kind in any other part of the Constitution.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I am going to renew my motion to strike out section 13. The district courts as they now exist under the territorial laws will have the right to pass upon the election of their successors, under the State government, and I see no use of having this in here, as if it was necessary to constitute some new tribunal to try this particular question. I move to suspend the rules, with a view to striking out that section.

The motion to suspend the rules was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, this section 13 provides for a new tribunal or special tribunal to determine a contest as to one particular office, on the theory that the district judges will not have the right to try their own cases. Now, if I understand it right, the judges of the district court of the Territory to-day will continue their functions long enough to determine contests, under existing

laws, between their successors. That is the theory upon which I move to strike it out.

Mr. PETERS. Providing that one of the present incumbents be a candidate for office and he was one of the contestants, he could not very well pass on a case of that kind, could he?

Mr. THURMAN. We have three judges; any one of them is qualified to try a contest case between these candidates. Certainly all of the three judges are not going to be candidates under the new regime.

Mr. SQUIRES. Do not they all constitute a supreme court to which an appeal might be taken?

Mr. THURMAN. Yes; they do; but they will not constitute the supreme courts as it exists to-day, I take it, and be candidates also for district judges.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Mr President, my understanding of this section was, that it was to prevent something which might possibly occur in case the Constitution of Utah is not proclaimed before January 1st, 1896. There may be no contest at all between those judges until the proclamation is issued. On the 1st day of January, 1896, all of our present judges go out, and there may be no tribunal before whom these contested officers might try their cases, except before themselves. My idea was, it was the intention of the committee who reported this article to furnish some independent tribunal so that a man would not be a judge in his own case, and I think there is wisdom in the section. I think it does not go far enough, however. I think it ought to include supreme court judges, as well as district judges.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I am in some doubt myself, as to the real necessity for this section, but I am not clear that it ought to be stricken out, and I shall therefore vote against striking it out.

The motion was rejected.

Sections 14, 15, and 16 were read.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I would like to have the house indulge in one thing further, that I think will reach their minds generally, and that is go back to article 22. I fear that is not just in the form yet to be entirely satisfactory, and to add after the word “lands” the words “and not contiguous.”

Mr. JOLLEY. Mr. President, I think those words should be added to make that plain to the common people of the State.

Mr. RICHARDS. I understand the motion is to reconsider.

The motion was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary will now read the attesting clause. The secretary read the same.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think, instead of {1834 - ADOPTION OF CONSTITUTION} saying “done,” we ought to say “adopted,” and I therefore move that amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I call attention once more to those words upon page 61, “unless otherwise provided for.” I understand that we are providing in this very section for these very things. There is no other place where it can be provided for. I move they be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary will now call the roll on the adoption of the Constitution as a whole.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, we have passed this matter into the hands of the committee on engrossment and enrollment, by sections, without calling the roll. It seems to me it would be contrary to the way we have been doing it all along to call the roll at this time.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, to save all question about it, I move the adoption of the Constitution as a whole.

The roll being called on the adoption the Constitution as a whole, the vote was as follows:

AYES_72.
Adams
Allen
Barnes
Bowdle
Boyer
Brandley
Button
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Christiansen
Clark
Coray
Crane
Cunningham
Cushing

NOES_0.
ABSENT_34.
Anderson
Corfman
Creer
Francis
Goodwin
Green
Haynes
Heybourne
Ivins
James
Kiesel
Keith
Kearns
Kerr
Kimball, Weber
Lewis
Low, Cache
Mackintosh
Maloney
Miller
Moritz
Murdock, Wasatch
Nebeker
Pierce
Ricks
Ryan
Sharp
Spencer
Strevell
Thatcher
Thompson

EXCUSED_1.
Raleigh.

The president declared the Constitution adopted.

During the roll call the following statements were made:

Mr. Raleigh's name being called, and he being present, did not respond.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman must vote aye or no.

Mr. RALEIGH. I have not voted at all yet.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, has Mr. Raleigh been excused?

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Raleigh has {1835 - ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE} not been excused, and under the rules should vote aye or no.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I insist that he vote one way or the other, or give an excuse.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I move he be excused.

Mr. ROBERTS. Let him be excused.

Mr. RALEIGH. I ask to be excused.

Mr. VARIAN. I move that the gentleman be excused.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee on printing reported as follows:

Salt Lake City, May 6, 1895.

MR. PRESIDENT:

Your committee on printing have received bids for the printing of 2,000 copies of the Constitution, and the Tribune job office being the lowest, we recommend that the contract be awarded to them.

Two thousand copies, estimated to make fifty-six pages, will cost $173.40. Fifteen hundred copies, $133.55.

We recommend that there be ordered 2,000 copies.

LAMBERT,

Chairman.

Mr. THURMAN. Among all the members present.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, there is one objection to that motion. If any one has any hopes of Congress passing a deficiency bill to pay those delegates, they will lose all chance of it by dividing the money pro rata. That settles the bill. If we have our roll made, it is all right.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I do not think that is so. I do not think that a distribution of the balance, whatever it may be, pro rata, will bar any future claims.

The motion of Mr. Richards was agreed to.

On motion, the Convention then, at 1:05 p.m., adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.