[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.


TUESDAY, April 16th, 1895.

Convention was called to order at 10 a. m. President Smith in the chair.

Roll call showed a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Clarence T. Brown of the Congregational Church.

Journal of the forty-third day's session was read and approved.

Mr. Creer was excused for the day.

The following petitions were presented asking that the question of woman suffrage be submitted as a separate article to a vote of the people:

File No. 309, signed by Eliza A. Hall and 125 others from Portage, by Gibbs, of Box Elder.

File No. 310, signed by Geo. Austin and 40 others from Lehi, by Evans, of Utah, by request.

File No. 311, signed by Paul Cardon and 20 others from Cache County, by Warrum, of Cache.

File No. 312, signed by Wm. Pulsipher and 64 others from Paradise, by Hart, of Cache, by request.

File No. 313, signed by G. Mansfield and 40 others from Washakie and East Portage, by Gibbs, of Box Elder.

File No. 314, signed by John Barraclough and 44 others from Beaver, by Roberts, of Davis.

The following petitions were presented asking that an equal suffrage clause be placed in the Constitution:

File No. 315, signed by Jos. Cameron and 114 others of Panguitch, by Chidester, of Garfield.

File No. 316, signed by Thos. Wilson and 52 others of Rich County, by Nebeker, of Rich.

File No. 317, signed by F. M. Neff and 5 others of East Mill Creek, by Chidester, of Garfield.

File No. 318, signed by Caroline Flowers and 303 others from Mill Creek Ward, by Cannon, of Salt Lake.

The Convention, on motion, resolved itself into committee of the whole with Mr. James in the chair, and proceeded to the consideration of the article on labor and arbitration.


Section 1 was read.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer to section 1, as follows: By striking out in line 2, after the word “calculated,” down to and including the word “and,” in line 4. The object of that amendment is to leave the other part of it to the Legislature. I think that will cover all the ground necessary.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by inserting after the word “labor,” in line 2, the words “conciliation and.” The reason I propose this amendment is, I believe that the principal duties of such a board would be in the nature of conciliation. I believe that in New York state, in the last year, the board of arbitration there were really called upon to settle but about eight strikes, and there were some four hundred cases brought to their attention, and in the majority of cases, through the effect of mediation and conciliation, they were able to bring employer and employe face to face, and they effected a settlement before it reached a strike. And also in view of the fact, that the bill which was introduced in Congress last year, provides for a national board of conciliation and arbitration, and I have thought it would be better to add those words.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strikeout all after the word “labor, in line 2, to the end of the section. I think it is purely legislation and wholly unnecessary.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the entire section. My {1033} reason for making that motion is that it is a purely legislative. We have never, in Utah, had difficulties enough of a labor character to require the insertion in the Constitution of a section of this kind. I believe it should be left to the Legislature. I do not think that it is the place to have it in the Constitution.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all the amendments and the motion to strike out, except the amendment offered by Mr. Strevell. There are 11 lines there. I think it comes almost with bad grace for this committee at this time to talk about legislation. Yesterday we legislated nearly all the afternoon, and now when it comes down to the working man, why “don't give him any show.” I admit that it is legislation to a certain extent, but it can bring no harm to any one and it shows a good Spirit.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I hope this motion to strike out the entire section will not prevail. It seems to me that many of the constitutions which I have examined in these new western states have a provision for a board of labor arbitration, and while it may he true, as the gentleman from Salt Lake says, that at this present time there may be no very great need of it, I judge that we are building a Constitution, or attempting to do so, that will last some little time, and it seems to me that this article may be productive of very great good. Many strikes may be averted in this way and there will be a large loss of life and property, and I think it can be very largely avoided, if we have a provision which will create a board of conciliation and arbitration,

and then if that is followed up by having the proper men appointed on the board, I believe that great good can be done, but I hope that this section will not be stricken out.

Mr. CANNON. I desire to ask Mr. Strevell whether or not the Legislature would not have power to create such a board without this section being in the Constitution?

Mr. STREVELL. I Suppose they would do so, but my understanding of the matter is from men who are in a better position to pass upon this question than I am, certainly; they claim that it would be better to have a constitutional provision, and for that reason, I am in favor of the amendment offered by Mr. Peters_I am stretching the answer a little bit, to cut out what is purely legislation and give the constitutional authority for the creating of the board and leave everything else to the Legislature.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I trust the amendment offered by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Strevell, will prevail. The very first line provides that the Legislature shall provide for the board of labor arbitration. Now, that is the foundation stone upon which the Legislature begins to operate and it is wrong for us to ignore the labor interests of this Territory. We have great corporations of great railroads. Last year we saw a strike which assumed national importance_a strike which the military of the government had to put down. Especially is that true in this Territory. Now, if by mediation and conciliation we can bury all these differences, I think it decidedly better for the interests of capital and the labor interests of the country that we do something in that direction, or in other words, lay the foundation by constitutional provision by which the Legislature may take hold of this thing and do something by which these strikes may be prevented. I am in hopes that none of these amendments will prevail, except that offered by the chairman himself. And again, this is in accord with the report of the Wright arbitration measure presented to the house of Congress which I hold in my hand. I say it is a step in the right direction, and now that we are laying the foundation timbers of a great intermountain {1034} State we should not ignore these great labor interests. I say it is highly important that we leave this proposition as it is, with the exception of the amendment offered by Mr. Strevell.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Maloney has covered in his remarks about all I would have said.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, the section as it stands seems to be inconsistent. The first clause down to line 7, down to and including the word employes, provides for a board of conciliation and arbitration. Then provision is made for a tribunal with power to hear and determine all differences and controversies which may be submitted to them by either of the parties. I do not know what the intention is, but certainly that is a very strange provision to have in a constitution or law. Either party to a difference may select a quorum like this and then give such a tribunal power to determine that question. It is investing this board with judicial power, and there seems to be no choice of selection either, It reads, “H either party shall submit a controversy.” Now, there may be no objection to the first part of the section to provide means for the settlement by arbitration or conciliation of controversies, if it can be done in that way, but to take away from either party the constitutional right to trial by court and jury, because the other party chooses to submit it to a board of this kind, I am not prepared to vote for. I think all after the word employe

ought to be stricken out, the first three lines for the reasons I have indicated, and the last three lines because they are unnecessary. The board would perform naturally such other duties and would receive such compensation, and none other, as would be provided by law. I move to strike out all after the word employe [*note*], in line 7. I call attention of the chair that this motion ought to be submitted first in order to perfect the section before the motion to strike out entirely is put.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will hold that the motion is not in order. The motion in order is to strike out.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the chair please indicate why it is not in order_my mo[tion]-to strike out part of the section?

The CHAIRMAN. Your motion is in the nature of an amendment to perfect the section, while there is a motion made to dispose of the entire section.

Mr. VARIAN. I will take an appeal from the decision of the chair. I would like to hear on this question from some gentlemen who have discussed it heretofore a dozen times, my colleagues on the committee on rules; this is an important precedent. I lay down this proposition, that a motion to strike out the entire subject matter of the section, if it is not carried, is equivalent to a motion that the section shall stand and you cannot subtract from any particular portion of that section if the motion shall not prevail. Therefore, we must, assuming the possibility that the motion to strike out may not prevail, we must of necessity, if we desire to perfect the section, submit other motions and the motion to strike out a part of the section, if it shall carry, would leave the section in a condition to be voted upon by the house upon the motion to strike out the entire section, and then if that motion should be voted down, the matter remaining would be just as the house wants it to stand.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Varian, will you explain to me what would become of the two amendments that are already offered?

Mr. VARIAN. Well, I simply say this, I do not claim this motion to strike out a part need necessarily interfere with the other amendments to that, but I say that it ought to be submitted before the motion to strike out the entire section is submitted, for the reasons I have indicated.
Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, as I have repeatedly said, I do not pretend to be much of a parliamentarian, but in this matter, I am decidedly of the opinion that the chair is right As I understand the situation now, Mr. Strevell has offered an amendment, by inserting the words, “conciliation and,” after the word labor, in line 2. Then Mr. Peters moved that all after the word labor, in line 4, be stricken out. Then Mr. Cannon moved that all of section 2 be stricken out. There are three amendments now pending before the amendment offered by Mr. Varian to strike out all after the word employe in line 7. That would make the fourth amendment, which, under any parliamentary rule that I am familiar with, would not be right. But aside from that, I go deeper into the question, and according to my view of it, where a motion is pending to strike out an entire section, it is useless to undertake to perfect that section and then have the motion

prevail to strike out that which has been done prior to that time. Now, it looks to me like a common sense rule. Here is Mr. Cannon's motion to strike out section 2. If it be the sense of this committee that section 2 goes out, why spend time here for an hour or two trying to perfect something which the house probably is in a temper to strike out? I held that upon yesterday while chairman of the committee, whether right or not I do not know, but it struck me then that I was, and I still maintain that that is the right principle, and I disagree with my brother from Salt Lake, when he says that there ought to be a motion which would permit an amendment to the section which is sought to be stricken out. It would seem to me that if the principle were to prevail that the chair was wrong in this matter we would have an unlimited length of time taken up in undertaking to perfect something which may never be passed upon or approved by the committee. I therefore, shall vote to sustain the chair's decision.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the ruling of the chair is that the motion made by Mr. Varian is not upon the ground that there are already two amendments to the motion, but it is on the ground that a motion to strike out has been made and until that motion has been voted upon any amendment to the question would not be in order. Now, it is true that there are two amendments before the house and if the gentlemen are going to be captious about this matter, why of course, you would simply have to wait until one of those motions are passed upon, but it is a matter of very little question. If Mr. Varian waited until the amendment of Mr. Strevell had been voted upon, then there would have been simply one amendment before the house and his motion would be in order. Now, Mr. Varian, as I understand it, concedes that there being two amendments before the house, his motion would not be in order, if the objection was made on that ground. Of course, as I stated before, he could simply wait for a moment, until the motion by Mr. Strevell was voted upon. That would bring one less amendment before the house and then his motion would be in order. But, as I understand it, the chair puts his decision upon the ground that the motion to strike out having been made, that must be put first and the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Evans) sustains the chair, as I understand it, upon that ground. He takes the position, as I understand it, that a motion to strike out is not an independent motion, but in the nature of an amendment and in the face of the authorities that were read here yesterday, he takes the position that when there are amendments pending and a motion to strike out is made the motion to strike out should be put first. I venture to say that the gentlemen will find no authority anywhere for any such a position as that.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to you, Mr. Hart, for your information, the chair ruled on the question as it stood before the house, without making any particular statement as to all the details.

Mr. HART. (Reading.)

If it is proposed to amend by striking out paragraphs, the friends of the paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by amendments, before the question is put for striking out.

That is from Jefferson's manual, and other parliamentarians are of the same opinion. I do not think there are any authorities that will substantiate the position taken by the gentleman. Now, they go so far as to hold this, that where there are two amendments to a motion, a substitute for

that whole proposition will then be in order. And more than that, that two amendments to the substitute are in order. According to the theory of the gentleman from Weber, that would be entirely out of order, for the reason that there would be five amendments before the house, but that is what is allowed in Congress every day. That is in accordance with their rules, and for the last thirty or forty years that has been the practice in Congress, to permit two amendments to the original motion, then to permit a substitute for the whole thing, and then permit two amendments to the substitute, and their order of voting upon the proposition would be simply this, they would vote first upon the two amendments to the original proposition, then they would vote upon the amendments to the substitute, after they had the original proposition perfected, and after they had the substitute perfected, then they would pass upon the question of whether they would strike out the original proposition as perfected and place in its stead the substitute as perfected. If the chair is going to be captious or members of the house, about permitting three amendments at once, when the gentleman can simply avoid the situation by withholding his motion for a moment, and then placing his amendment before the house, after one of those amendments is disposed of, why of course, the matter can be done, and in that way, but if the chair insists that the motion to strike out shall be made first, it is a very different matter, and a very serious one, for this reason, that a person son might vote to strike out an imperfect proposition, whereas, if the proposition was perfected, he would not move to strike it out. It is reasonable. There is no other reasonable proposition that can be made on that subject. It is reasonable to perfect first a proposition before striking it out.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). May I ask the gentleman a question? You admit that the right so far as this question is concerned, that is that Mr. Varian's motion is not now in order, until Mr. Strevell's is disposed of?

Mr. HART. Well, yes.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Why not sustain the chair then and when we reach the other bridge, cross it?

Mr. HART. Well, you discussed the proposition and the chair placed its decision upon that ground. I do not think the gentleman would make an objection, the only purpose of which would be to hinder business instead of to facilitate, which that objection would be if the only objection to it was that two amendments were already made, because the amendments were not connected. There is no connection between Mr. Strevell's amendment and the amendment offered by Mr. Varian, and the only purpose, it seems to me, in objecting to that would be to obstruct business rather than to facilitate it, because he could present it a moment later as soon as the question was voted down.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You then oppose the chair, because he has given a wrong reason for a right decision, do you?
Mr. HART. Oh, I will sustain the chair upon the proposition of three amendments. I was not aware at the time that Mr. Peters' amendment was before the house.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, it is hardly fair I think for gentlemen to discuss this question upon the appeal as it was taken actually and when driven from that position by my friend from Cache County to fall back upon the quibble that there is another question in it that was not considered. Of course, I did not take an appeal upon the proposition now advanced by Mr. Evans, and as that seems to be insisted upon, I withdraw my appeal. I understood and so did the chair, and so did the gentleman when he first argued it, that the sole question for decision was as to whether a motion to strike out a part of a section should be put before a motion to strike out the whole section. I withdraw the appeal of course.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this subject. It does seem to me that every member of this Convention understands what they are about. It is before them and they know whether they want this section stricken out or not. I think the ruling of the chair is quite right. If a majority of the members of this house want this section stricken out, it ends all controversy, but if they vote no, then the members here can have it amended. They can amend that section as long as it is before them, but if it is stricken out. it ends it, as I understand it, consequently, I think the ruling of the chair is quite right to decide whether we want that section here at all or not. Then if we want it we can move to amend.

The amendment of Mr. Strevell was agreed to.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I trust the amendment that I offered will prevail, I think that the point that Mr. Varian refers to is covered in the word conciliation_    

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. I submit that when amendments commence to be put they ought all to be put until disposed of.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand this amendment to another part of the section. It is not an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. VARIAN. I make the motion now to strike out all after the word employe [*note*], in line 7.

Mr. KIMBALL (Salt Lake). Mr. Chairman, I trust that this will not be stricken out, or that this part Mr. Varian moves to retain shall not be stricken out by Mr. Peters' amendment, from this fact, that it is plainly known by experience that there is a great loss through strikes in our country, and if this shall prevail, it will require the Legislature at once to form a law appointing a board of arbitration. The duty of the board made known here in the part down to employes [*note*], whereby they will be under the necessity in case of strikes and labors_the employers and employes will be under the necessity, if I understand right, of arbitrating in this matter at once, that the difficulty might be adjusted, and that work may be commenced. It will save the employers a great amount of means, as also the employes [*note*], and I see that there would be no harm in retaining that part. I trust that Mr. Varian's amendment will prevail and that this will not be stricken out.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the section will not be stricken out. I do not like it just as it stands, but we ought here to recognize the laboring man's rights. The question of labor and

capital is one of the most prominent questions before the people of the country to-day, and in this Convention the laboring man's rights ought to be respected and they ought to have some show, but I do not believe in legislating particularly upon that point. I believe in leaving something {1038} for the Legislature to do. It is true that we have in a great many cases been afraid that this Constitutional Convention contained all the brains of all the coming generations and that there would not be anything for the coming Legislatures to do or perform. Maybe we will come to the conclusion that there will some follow us that can handle these questions a little as they come up, and as a part of my argument, I want to simply state what my position upon this case is. I propose that the section should read that the Legislature shall provide by law for aboard of arbitration which shall fairly represent the interests of both capital and labor, and shall have such power and perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law. That will provide for a board of arbitration that shall fairly represent both labor and capital, with such powers as may be given_discharge such duties as may be placed upon them. It seems to me it will meet the case better than the section or the amendment thereto.

Mr. STREVELL. I would like to ask for information this question; if you do not say that the board shall have such powers and perform such duties and receive such compensation_would the Legislature not have the power to grant those if you say nothing about it?

Mr. BOWDLE. The Legislature can exercise such powers as it may see fit.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the section as it stands now. I did have a little confidence in the people of the Territory until I heard all this talk here about the Legislatures. They all told how the Legislature was going to be bought up. If they are going to be bought up when all these fellows that have been in before said so, I believe this section ought to stand just as it is, and I am going to vote for it.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Varian, the committee divided and by a vote of 42 ayes to 32 noes, the motion was agreed to.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Peters, the committee divided, and by a vote of 31 ayes to 40 noes, the motion was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, my reason for offering that is this, I am not opposed to a board of arbitration, but I cannot see any advantage that would be obtained now by the laboring man by having a provision in the Constitution to this effect. (Reads section.) For this reason it is very evident the provision does not go into effect until the Legislature acts. I am opposed to it for several reasons. One is that another board is provided for here and if the argument used is good that the people are opposed to the creation of offices and to attendant expense, they will certainly be to the appointment of this until it is needed. Another thing, that I believe the Constitution should be more than a collection of high sounding phrases. This does not provide for anything at this time, except that the Legislature may do that which it already has power to do. I believe that there is no other state in the Union where there has been less conflict between capital and labor

than in Utah.

I believe that the people of Utah have had less labor difficulty than any of the surrounding states or many of our eastern states, and I believe that if we place in here a provision for a board and requiring that a board shall be appointed that it will indicate to the people from the east, capitalists, that there is existing here a conflict between capital and labor. I do not believe that there is such a conflict. I believe in the past when there has been no such board that the people have been able to arrange their affairs satisfactorily. I think that men who labor can go to their employers and can settle their {1039} difficulties with them easier than if they called in a third party. I believe that the principle is not a particularly good one, and I, for one, favor striking out the entire section and leaving it to the Legislature, when it can be changed if found necessary. A board can be provided for at any time, but if we put it in here, it will require considerable trouble to change it, and there may not be a necessity for the board and it would have to be created if we put it in the Constitution, whether we needed it or not.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Cannon, as I understood your remarks, at first, that this, if it was put in did, not compel the Legislature to constitute a board?

Mr. CANNON. Not until the Legislature meets_no board will be appointed until the Legislature meets.

Mr. BOWDLE. But when a Legislature would meet then they would have to constitute that board?

Mr. CANNON. Whether they want to or not; yes, sir.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask Mr. Cannon if he thinks it wise to wait until we get into the midst of a strike before we provide for a board of arbitration? If we leave the matter to the Legislature without making it mandatory, they may not appoint any board or provide for such a board until some great strike has overtaken the State, and then it will be too late. It will be locking the door after the horse is stolen.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to answer that question, if permitted; I suppose it was asked for the purpose of being answered. The provision here would not provide a board, if we had a strike a month from to-day; we would have no board until the Legislature meets. When the Legislature does meet, the Legislature has full power to provide for a board, and I am certainly in favor of keeping it to that.

Mr. SQUIRES. I think it should be mandatory.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of the gentleman's motion to strike out. The statement that the gentleman has just made with regard to the record of the people of this Territory is very praiseworthy indeed, but I apprehend, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, that we are growing, our industries will increase, and that this sentiment prevails so extensively throughout our nation between capital and labor, it is very likely to be entertained here in the Territory and

the coming State, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I approve of the section as reported by the committee. I do not think it will do any harm. It will have a tendency to make the necessary preparations in case anything should happen to us, of this character. Therefore, I shall oppose the gentleman's motion to strike out.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to talk too much on this question. But I would like to call attention to one thing, which was contained in the remarks of the gentleman from Salt Lake. As I understand it, he is a little afraid that if we put an article in the Constitution creating a board of labor arbitration that that is a notice to capitalists that we have had labor difficulties. I do not regard it in that way. I regard the remarks of the gentleman from Iron County as covering the ground; that there may come a time when we will want this very thing, and that the time to provide for it is now, when we can do it; and also in the remarks of the gentleman from Salt Lake, he seems to think that this would be detrimental to capitalists. I would like to ask that, if the majority of the people that have come into this Territory for the last twenty years have been capitalists? and if not, as I take it the answer must be, if this article would not do just as much in attracting the attention of laboring people to this community as it would the capitalists? I will say right now that the committee {1040} have tried to be very careful in preparing this article not to infringe upon any of the rights of capital, but we did believe that there were rights that the laboring people were entitled to inasmuch as they constitute seventy or eighty per cent. of the people. There are undoubtedly wrongs which the laboring people have had to put up with, and if in a measure we can alleviate some of those wrongs without going so far as to inflict an injury upon the capitalists, that is what we would like to do; and I will say this, this report of the committee is practically unanimous, and that we think we have come about as near accomplishing these ends as it is possible for us to do.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment would not he in order. We have taken up the amendments and perfected the question and now have come down to the motion to strike out.

Mr. MORITZ. Mr. Chairman, I hope the motion to strike out will not prevail. I can talk about experience in this matter. I have engaged a great deal of laboring men during my time, the last twenty-three years in Utah, and I found such a section as this, the way it is amended, is quite unnecessary. We, as manufacturers, had no cause whatsoever of getting justice in arbitration. It was always a one-sided affair if we had any difficulty with our laboring men. They have demanded certain hours and certain amount of wages per month, and if we did not like it, they say, “We will go out, we will quit.” The consequence was we looked around for some other skilled labor to take these gentlemen's places, if they would insist upon it. We found we could not obtain that kind of labor which is desirable for our business, therefore, we were handicapped and the consequences have been we have had to give in every time. We had no arbitration. It was merely a matter of a bulldozing arrangement, and therefore I hope the striking out will not prevail, and such a matter as this is asked for will be put in our Constitution.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I trust that this section will not be stricken out. The point was raised by the gentleman from Salt Lake that it would not be in favor of the capitalist. I

claim that it will be as has just been argued by the gentleman_

Mr. CANNON. I arise to a question of personal privilege. I have not claimed that that was stated by Mr. Strevell, nor the present speaker. I have not claimed that this section would be opposed to capitalists.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). That is the inference that I have but I claim it is a protection to capitalists and also to labor, and as for the expense part, this is the way to avoid the expensive part. There is a proposition in my mind respecting this arbitration that if it could be carried out, will make it much less expensive than going into the courts and it can be adjusted in a very short time. That is, suppose the Legislature should arrange for an arbitration board of this character to appoint a board whose duty it shall be to adjust difficulties between employer and employe [*note*].

They will meet together and arbitrate upon this proposition immediately and settle this difficulty. If it be in favor of employers then it will also be in favor of employes [*note*], and settle this without bringing it into courts and making it very expensive, and keeping the poor men out of their employment and also keeping the doors closed of the manufactories.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that some provision ought to be left in the Constitution making it obligatory upon the Legislature to appoint a board of arbitration. The exact manner I care nothing about, but I do agree with the gentleman from {1041} Salt Lake that capital would take warning from the fact that we have a board of labor arbitration here and consider that we had more labor troubles than we have. I think the effect of it will be just exactly the contrary. Labor and capital are by nature absolutely one in their interests. Where capital is well employed labor has good wages. Where capital is not productive, there are no men employed in work. The whole trouble is falling out between the two. That could be settled properly if coolly and calmly considered by a board of arbitration and if you gave notice to capitalists, “No, we are not liable to have labor difficulties in Utah, because we have in our Constitution a provision that when such difficulties arise, they shall be determined by a board of arbitration.” They will say that labor and capital are acting as friends_are arbitrating their differences instead of fighting them out to the bitter end, and you will find that they will think under those circumstances that there is less danger of the disastrous strikes and long continued lock-outs that are had in many states than there would be if there was no board of arbitration.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee on labor and arbitration, if there is another constitution of any state that has an article like this, taking the whole article?

Mr. STREVELL. Yes, sir, several of them. The ones that come to my mind first are Wyoming and Idaho, Montana has an article, not exactly for the board of arbitration, but, providing for rights of labor, so that I think a board of arbitration could be appointed under that article.

Mr. SMITH. Has the gentleman any information as to how it has worked? I was told in Wyoming not a great while ago that it was more trouble to them than otherwise.
Mr. STREVELL. I cannot answer that question. I do not know

Mr. SMITH. It seems to me there is too much of the article, and if a proposition could be brought in here that should provide that the Legislature might provide for arbitration if in their judgment it was proper and right, I should be pleased to vote for it, but it strikes me that this is not a thing that is going to tie up capitalists alone, but labor, and it is going to create confusion that all of us will regret in time. I have observed that in the early days in this Territory under certain conditions the Legislature went to work and put the law making power in the governor's hands and then they tried to law-make it out of his hands, and whenever any effort is made in a constitution to accomplish a specific purpose, it is just as sure to return and plague time parties as that they do it, and as to this, it seems to me a simple provision that should enable the Legislature to enact some law in regard to this matter would be much more fruitful of good than the possibility of our arranging this thing in a form one day and wanting to change it the next. I am a laboring man myself, and I expect to labor, and it seems to me under the circumstances that a proposition of this kind we are hedging up the road, and if there is a possibility of cutting this down and shaping it in a form that it shall leave the Legislature to do something and not want to legislate here so much, I am in favor of that part of the proposition as a whole.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words. Now, if gentlemen have studied up this labor and capital question, probably they will have discovered that the one is dependent on the other all the way through. It is just as important to the laborer that capital should be condensed or brought together, in order to establish great enterprises, in order that the laborer may have something to do. Well, the laborer when he strikes injures the capitalist and shuts out from himself {1042} a source of livelihood. Now, they should harmonize and if something can be done here that will set them to studying upon the question properly and harmonize and be united to a greater extent than they are at the present time, it will do some good, and I am in favor of an article being placed in the Constitution sufficient to enable or to require the Legislature to make a provision something like the present one that is before us, but not so extensive.

Now, I know very well and everybody knows that if capital was in use there would be labor sufficient for every man. The trouble is now and has been for some considerable length of time here, it is not in use in this Territory or this locality at least. Prices have become too high for labor. There is not circulating medium sufficient in the country to carry on the business of the country at the prices being so high. Now, if a laborer will perform his work for what it is worth, after it is performed in the construction of buildings, or anything else, the capitalist will invest, but if the laborer will not perform that labor for what it is worth, why then he withholds. Now, they should economize. They should see to each other's interest, the laborer should be diligent in sustaining the part of the person that employs him_the capitalist, and thereby the capitalist would be interested in the laborer, to furnish him labor, by the capital that he has and wishes to invest. Now, if something could be done, I should be very much pleased myself, in this direction, and it should be the study of the people, both the capitalist and the laborer, to study each other's interest and harmonize and not be eternally at war, as they have been in the other parts of the country. It is true, it has not been in Utah simply because this strike element is not here, to the same extent as it is elsewhere. It does not belong to this community, that is to the community that came here first. There is none of that element in that portion of the community.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I dislike very much to interfere with the work of a faithful and

careful committee, after they have prepared with a great deal of labor an article to be submitted to this Convention, but the situation is peculiar in this day. Within the last few years two causes have been at work, which have a tendency to cause differences between employers and employes [*note*]. The first is the establishment and the unanimity of the work of labor unions, not always in the hands of broadminded men. The second is the steady fall in prices, which amount to fifty per cent in the last twenty years. Now, to cure that, this committee has proposed that a board shall be established that shall endeavor by mediation and conciliation to effect a settlement. Suppose the employer and employe both laugh at that arbitration, and do not arbitrate? They are simply authorized nnder this to try to effect a settlement. I shall not vote to strike out the section, but I shall be very glad to see it returned to the committee so that it can be amended in a way that they arbitrate always; if such a board is established, that it shall have authority to act. Of course, I am working for you and you and myself may quarrel, and three better men than either of us may decide mediate and conciliate matters, and if we are not in the humor of being conciliated we will simply tell those gentlemen to go about their business. I do not see anything in this section that gives the proposed board power to act, and if you are going to have a remedy it has got to amount to something more than a poultice in a case of this kind. This is all this does, as I construe the language. I think there ought to be something in the Constitution directing tersely a Legislature to so legislate that when the difficulty comes between {1043} labor and capital, there shall be some immediate court that can say to labor, stop here, or to capital, stop here.

It looks to me as this is constructed, that of all places in the world, I should dislike most to be one of those arbitrators. For instance, to go before a board and say to them, “You are wrong,” and be told, “It is none of your business, suppose we are.” We go to capital and say, “You are right, you can dispose of those men and get new ones,” and capital will say, “If I do those who have been employed will run my men off of the ground.” This is something that either needs a remedy or letting it alone. I know something about the business. I have served in nearly every capacity and I know that while it is the habit of capital very often to become arbitrary where, especially in this country, as machinery is more and more used, the real owners of capital are drawn further and further away from their employes [*note*]. At the same time employes are not always considerate of the rights of the employers. Sometimes, when times are hard, when prices are falling, and what was a paying investment a few months before has ceased to be so, capital is in trouble and labor makes up its mind that it will not make any concession. I know a case of that kind. I do not believe that this board as provided could interfere with that. I shall vote to retain the section and then if some gentleman will move to refer it back or make it more specific, or if some gentleman will amend it so as to make it more specific or offer a substitute which will cover the case better, I shall vote for the amendment or the substitute. As the section stands, it is a recommendation simply. The only authoritative thing is that it compels the Legislature to appoint a board of arbitration. It does not instruct that Legislature or make it mandatory upon that Legislature to surround that board of arbitration with authority to deal with the question, and unless it does why it will only be an irritant instead of the poultice that is intended.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. I would like to ask Judge Goodwin a question. Would there be any binding and legal effect upon the decision of any board of arbitration between employer and employe [*note*]?

Mr. GOODWIN. Not unless the Legislature had the power to make it binding.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Would they have the power_could you give them the power?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Could you compel a man to go to work, if the Legislature says so?

Mr. GOODWIN. You could not compel a man to go to work. The laws of this country have been trying to make men like Mr. Mackintosh work for the last fifty years, but they could not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the proposition is now to strike out section 2. I shall vote for striking out that section, and if it were possible, I would like to vote for striking out all the sections, for the reason that I believe that subsequent sections will materially interfere with several rights guaranteed by the other parts of the Constitution. I suppose it is now in order to offer a substitute for the whole article?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. But when that time shall come that it is in order to do so, I shall offer the following as a substitute for the whole article:

The Legislature shall provide by law for a board of labor arbitration which shall fairly represent the interests of both capital and labor, and it shall be the duty of said board under such regulations as may be provided by law to endeavor by mediation and conciliation to effect a settlement of difficulties between employer and employe[*note*].

I believe, sir, that that is about as far as the Constitution ought to go in dealing {1044} with this question. To my mind the greater part of this article_in fact the whole article, is purely legislative in its character, and the general provision requiring the Legislature to provide by law for a board of arbitration, and to authorize it under such regulations as may be fixed by law, to attempt mediation and conciliation, between employer and employes[*note*], is about as far as we can go. I wish to make this general explanation of my reasons for voting against this section 2, and the subsequent sections also.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommit the whole article to the committee on arbitration and labor with instructions to bring in an article covering about two sections that shall answer the purpose of this matter.

The motion was ruled out of order.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I hope the motion will not be carried to recommit this to the committee for several reasons. If this matter is referred to them, I do not know what they would do, but improve this. This is the idea of the committee, we knew that it would be cut and slashed here, we went there sure of that, but we were a committee to report our ideas. We have done that. If the committee sees fit to change it, very well.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, this matter which is now under consideration is one which I know many members upon the floor feel a great delicacy about expressing opinions upon. Indeed it is one of those matters which require our best thought, whether in the Constitutional Convention or whether in the Legislature, is a matter about which people will honestly differ. When we see all around us difficulties springing up between capital and labor, the natural impulses of us all is to try to devise some plan by which those difficulties might be averted and by which a different and a better condition of affairs might exist. But I fear, gentlemen of the committee, that there are many things in this article which would prove detrimental to the very man whom we believe it would benefit, that is, the laboring man. I am a believer myself in the question of arbitration between capital and labor, but I know of no constitutional rule by which it can be done, except by a voluntary submission. I do not know of any rule by which a compulsory submission to arbitration between capital and labor can be accomplished. Indeed our best law writers lay it down that it cannot be done. Judge Cooley, in a very exhaustive opinion upon this question before the national bar association recently, gives it as his opinion that compulsory arbitration cannot be effected under the system of our government. It requires, of course, two parties to an arbitration and it requires that those parties should be within the jurisdiction of the hoard of arbitrators. It requires that there be something to be arbitrated by which each of the parties may be bound or must be bound. I believe that a system of arbitration can be devised which will conciliate capital and labor to some extent and I would favor it in one form or another. But, gentlemen, we have an article here, the whole of which is not under consideration now, but which in many respects might prove extremely dangerous. The chairman of the committee has called our attention to the fact that in two constitutions, that of Montana and that of Washington, this question has been dealt with. He is correct so far as this question is concerned, but the dealings of the particular states referred to have been so meager and it has been deemed to be so dangerous that but little has been said upon the question. Let me read to the committee just what was said in those two constitutions, to see how much further we are going in this respect than any other state. In Montana this section is found:

The legislative assembly may provide for a bureau of agriculture, labor, and {1045} industry, to be located at the capital and be under the control of the commissioner appointed by the governor, subject to the confirmation of the senate. The commissioner shall hold his office for four years and until his successor is appointed and qualified. His compensation as provided by law.

That is all that is said in Montana.

Mr. STREVELL. Will the gentleman allow me to make just a statement. I think you misunderstood me. I said that Idaho and Wyoming, but there was an article in regard to labor in Wyoming which I thought a board might be appointed under_Idaho and Wyoming.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Now, I will read from the constitution of Wyoming, which is very brief and which deals with this subject in a very meager manner.

The legislature may provide by law for the voluntary submission of differences to arbitrators for determination, and said arbitrators shall have such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law, but they shall not have power to render judgment to be obligatory upon parties unless they voluntarily submit their matters of difference and agree to abide by the judgment of said arbitrators.

That is all in Wyoming upon the subject. I do not want to be understood, gentlemen, that I am not in favor of arbitration. I am not in favor of boards of arbitration. I always have been all my lifetime, since I have been old enough to think about the question at all, but I am showing how the other conventions have dealt with this question and how careful they have been not to go into details. Now, in Idaho there is a provision in reference to it. (Reads.) Now, it will be observed also that Idaho has been careful in dealing with that question. There are some things in this article that probably ought not to be discussed now, but which, in my opinion, come squarely in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, which would impair the obligation of contracts and there are so many things in it which seem to me are crude and which ought to be left to the Legislature, that I would be willing to vote here to have the committee rise and have it resubmitted.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words. I am aware that the Legislature as many have said, has the right to legislate for all these matters, but the question is will they do it? We have said in this that they shall do it. Now, when it goes abroad, they look to Utah, they want to know whether there is a section_when the laboring man goes to Utah or when they are here, they will want to know whether this Convention has made any provision to protect them. Now, I want to say right here, I am opposed to striking out this section in whole, but I am opposed to legislating so much as this article legislates, but when this article says the Legislature shall provide_the other states say, “may provide,” but we want to say that they shall provide. When we have said that, we have said all that is necessary. They will be compelled to appoint that board. I do not wish to leave that to them. I voted for Mr. Varian's motion to strike out all after the word labor. I thought that covered the whole, but that seemed to have been voted down, and I would be in favor of saying no more about this business after you get to the word labor_to strike out the whole article, and I shall oppose the striking out of the section. I would rather have the article than not have anything said, but I believe when we get down to labor we have authorized the Legislature all that is necessary and we have compelled them; we do not say they may, but that they must do it. I think it protects capital and labor all that is necessary.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have been present while this section has been under discussion, only for a few moments, and that is sufficient to convince me that the article should be stricken out entirely. I belong to one {1046} party at least mentioned here_the capitalists and labor_and I have always been the laborer. I have never had any trouble with my friends, the capitalists, never. I made a contract with them, I have generally got my price that I agreed to work for. I have no desire to tie up the Legislature and compel them to organize or provide for a board of arbitration or a commission. No doubt he will have a salary, but if I am going into arbitration, I want to choose my man myself; if I am to drink the whisky, I want to get a man that is making whisky or beer, he will be my friend. This does not provide for that. I would be compelled to get a teetotaller, perhaps, to judge my case. Leave it to the courts to judge of these matters.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up much of the time, but I am opposed to striking out this section. I wish to say this much, that the committee on labor and arbitration have labored to bring in an article, in their judgment, that would meet the requirements of the case,

and I hope that if this committee, in their judgment, think that the article is too comprehensive, that they will cut it down. If they think that it is useless in its entirety, why abolish it, vote it out of existence, but do not send it back to the committee. I see a disposition here to eliminate a great many things, and it is stated by gentlemen that there is too much legislation. Now, I hold that there should be some legislation in this Constitution. If it is necessary that we have certain things specified, why it should be in the Constitution, leave the matter of details only with the Legislature. If it is necessary that we should have a board of arbitration in the interests of laboring men and capitalists, let us provide in the Constitution for a board of arbitration. Of course, the details can be left, but I do not see why everything should be left to the Legislature, on the ground that the Legislature will have power to provide for it. We might say that have no need of a Constitution. The Legislature can make laws. I do not so view it. The most important matters that pertain to the welfare of our country, I think, should be provided for in the Constitution, and the Legislature required to make provisions to meet those requirements, leaving the details with them. I was willing to have stricken out of that section all after the word labor. I voted for it, but inasmuch as it is left in, I do not believe that we ought to strike out the section, but I think that if there is any gentleman here, after the vote is taken and the striking out is defeated, that has a substitute that will fill the requirements, that is what we want; why, put it in and let us go on with it, and eliminate everything that is not wanted, and add what we do want. If we do not want any of it, strike it all out, but don't send it back to the committee.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out the entire section. And I have been more and more convinced that I was right in that, from the arguments that have been made here. In that section, the Legislature is merely recommended to adopt an outside policy_something that is new, as it were, in this western country, and it is in the constitution of many states not mentioned, in fact in the majority of cases. Now, in the first section here, the rights of labor shall have just protection through law to promote the industrial welfare of the State. I think that gives the Legislature a chance to investigate this matter and to ascertain which is the best mode to give labor its just rights and also to promote the industrial welfare. The chairman of the committee was asked if he had ascertained whether or not these boards of arbitration were successful. It appears that the committee on this subject has not investigated the results of the proposition that they {1047} even recommend to the Legislature. They have not been successful as a general rule and by the time the Legislature meets we may ascertain some other method that would be preferable to this, would be recommended, and we give them ample authority here to adopt the best mode for the protection of labor, and also for the industrial pursuits. We are told that it is not policy to leave everything to the Legislature. I admit it, but it is policy to leave questions that have not been determined by the country at large or even by our neighboring states. I think it is good policy to leave that to the Legislature and I favor the striking out of this section.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would not like to vote for the striking out of this section, if I did not think something else a little better should take its place, and while I appreciate the labors of the committee in preparing the article, I believe that the matter of arbitration exists already, and all the advantages that labor and capital might obtain by that they have now, when they wish to resort to it. I, myself, have often been a party to arbitration in mining affairs, and it works well, as a rule. And I believe the first section will cover that, that the Legislature would have the right and the power to appoint boards of arbitration, and with that view I have prepared a substitute that I

wish to offer which is in possession of the house, which I think would direct the Legislature in certain ways, or to certain evils possibly that exist with the idea that they might right them and I have not enlarged it. I have simply mentioned the article in that substitute and for the information of the house I will read what it proposes:

Section 2. The Legislature shall provide first for the protection of men employed in mines and other dangerous occupations. Second, the cheap and speedy collection of wages for labor performed. Third, protect employes from political and commercial control. Fourth, regulate and prohibit the importation of labor.

It also, I think in the substitute that I submitted, provides:

Regulate or prohibit blacklisting and the importation of labor.

Now, I think that those provisions or the direction to the Legislature points out particular evils that exist. First, the protection of men employed in mines. That is a very important matter, when we consider the number of accidents and the great number of men that are injured annually, and even since we have been in session the members of the Convention very generously donated in aid of a great disaster in our neighboring state, and I think just the direction to the Legislature pointing out in this Constitution the necessity for some legislation in that direction would probably be all that would be necessary. Then the cheap and speedy collection of wages for labor performed. Most of our Legislatures have passed lien laws for the collection of wages, some of them very good, some of them rather poor. The great difficulty or the inadequacy of the laws, as a rule, is the time for the collection. They generally extend it over six months or a year, so that the remedy is often not a remedy, but this simply directs the Legislature.

Then, the protection of employes from political and commercial control. That is a very serious matter also, that where a company of men or an individual employing a number of men_now, in a matter of politics, or in the selection of a candidate for office, or something of that kind, he wields a great power and he uses it_a great many use it, and do not hesitate to use it. Hence, you destroy the individual liberty of the man or you give it in the power of the man wielding the capital to use the men, that is to deprive them in a measure of their liberty.
And prevent the commercial control. That is another very important matter, and a matter that men universally complain of, and if any one has ever lived in a community where companies employing bodies of men have supplied them with all the necessaries at general store and boarding houses and things of that kind, they will see and know how it paralyzes a whole community. If you go from that community to another community following a like line of business where the individual liberty of the worker is regarded and he can do as he pleases, you will see the great difference. The more prosperity, the greater content in a community. Men are better and live better and are better citizens under that condition than they are under the condition of restraint and control. That would be the reason for that provision.

Then, the prohibiting of the importation of labor. That is one of the most serious conditions I believe that confronts this whole country. That for years we have permitted, and men that have wielded great capital and great combinations in companies have for years gone to Europe and

imported labor. They become dissatisfied with one class and they go after another until our whole country is filled up with labor, more than we want, more than we can use in any way. Now, when labor troubles occur here, or there is a want for the use of a great number of men in any localities, our great industrial capitalists, as you might say, can wield one battalion against another. If there is a little difficulty here, they go outside and they bring in a battalion or more and they put them against these men. They are thrown out of employment. They are poverty stricken and sometimes become charges on the munity [*note*], and the whole civil or social system is disturbed. Now, should not the State take hold of these things and regulate them? And I believe that some single provision that would direct the Legislature to the evil now would be a greater benefit than providing for some board of arbitration, because the boards of arbitration would not have any authority to enforce their edict, whatever that might be. And if they had, would it be the proper thing to force labor to work under guard or would it be the proper thing to force capital to employ labor if they did not want to? I do not see that the remedy proposed would do any good, and therefore, I shall vote to strike out the section, hoping to get something better.

The motion to strike out was rejected.

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


The committee re-assembled at 2 o'clock p. m., with Mr. James in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the business properly before the committee is the substitute of Mr. Bowdle.

The question being taken on the substitute, it was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is the substitute offered by Captain Ryan.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word further in support of that amendment or substitute. I presume, and I think it is the desire of all the delegates in this Convention, if they do anything on this matter at all, to do something that will be practical; and there are abuses all over this Territory, and all over the mining regions, you might say, especially on the Pacific coast, where I have been, that should not be tolerated in any community, and I endeavored to name some of those this morning, and it is for the curing of those that I submit this substitute. First, in the mining operations and in other employments, not necessary to mention, there is a great deal of danger to workmen, and I think the Legislature should pass the necessary {1049} laws for their protection, and I think when we get that far, we have gone far enough. It has been my experience and it has extended over a good many years, both as a laborer and as an employer of labor, that personal supervision is not always good. It is hard to get a man who has the ability and the knowledge and the heart, as you might say, to inspect certain lines of labor or avocations that people follow, like mining. I do not think that the personal supervision coming from the inspection of mines and other dangerous occupations has ever resulted in any practical good, and I think if we had laws covering those matters, that it would work a greater benefit than the

practice of personal inspection. I therefore have left that with the Legislature, that it was simply a guide calling the Legislature to a certain condition, and in their judgment they might enact such laws as they thought necessary. Then, you take the next clause, and that is in the prohibition of the control of employes in political and commercial relations. Those are important matters. It is very easy, under certain conditions, where men have control of a large body of men, to wield them politically. As I said this morning, they are favorable to a certain man's selection who is favorable to their interest. They are able to wield a great number of men in favor of their view. They destroy the individuality in favor of the citizen workman, and it is a blow in a measure at the political institutions under which we live. You undermine the respect and regard the common people have for laws and their government. And I think it is the duty, not only of this Convention, but of legislative bodies, to consider those matters, and as far as they can remedy them. Some practical legislation or some practical provisions that will eradicate those abuses. Then, the matter of controlling men commercially, that has got to be a great abuse. A man, for instance, has a mine, and he employs a hundred men or two hundred men' and he runs a store and he runs a boarding house. Now, a man in order to get work must board with you or he must trade with your store, or he must do both. Now, that is largely practiced all over this country, and it is a great abuse. The only proper way to employ men is to fix their wages, pay them their wages and let them do as they please. For instance, you are a miner, you have a good mine, well, we are all after good mines. Nature lavishes on a man great wealth. They are not satisfied with that, but they must control the labor, they must control it commercially as well as politically, and these measures are for the protection of men. I say if we do anything, we should do it practically_for some practical end. Why should a man be entitled or allowed to pinch a little out of every man's dollar that he pays him? Years ago, we are told, or we read in history, that the changers of money, or the bankers, were in the habit, as they received a piece of money, to pinch a piece out of it_filing a piece out of it, or punching a hole through it, but laws were made to prohibit that, yet in this day and age we allow a man to hire a man and he pays him a dollar and he is allowed to pinch a certain amount out of it for some other purpose, and it is an abuse and I think we ought to remedy it.

Now, you come to the next matter that I aim to regulate. It is black-listing, and I think that should be left to the Legislature. That has come to be a great abuse. Even here in this last year, since the troubles throughout the country and particularly on the Pacific coast, men who left the employment of the Pacific railroad went up into adjoing states, out of California into Nevada, and other places and sought other employment. It is well established that the railroads pursued them into other fields.

You come to the matter of importation {1050} of labor. Now, people, many of them, say,”What does that amount to? You cannot prohibit the importation of labor.” I think we can and I think we should. I think it is a matter of protection to the State and to society that we should have some measures prohibiting the importation of labor. I attempted to show this morning, when I spoke a few minutes on this question, that the importation of labor was a great abuse. That it had been followed in this country for a great many years in corporations employing numbers of men. They first become dissatisfied with one class of labor and they have gone after another to supplant it, to gain temporary advantages and by that means our country is filled up with labor. Now, all they have to do is to wield labor from one state to another and they are doing it. That very question

itself I think, or that very matter of the importation of labor, has been one of the greatest abuses and something that this people have suffered more from than from any other cause whatever, I believe. Why, if you go back to the foundation of the government, the very idea of controlling or owning labor first induced the importation of slaves on this continent, with all its attendant consequences. There is no question about that and that has been going on ever since. Why, there was nothing less but the idea of owning or controlling labor that imported that similar race upon the Pacific coast, a few years ago. Would not we all be glad to get rid of it? And we permit it to go on. Now, we have more labor than we want, and as I said this morning, the industrial captains are continually wielding the force of labor from one state to another. They have some trouble here and they go into another state. Lately they have been going into the southern states and taking the negroes that were first imported under this pernicious system ages ago, and wield them against the labor of other states. You might say that the sins of the father are being visited on the generations afterward. I do not see why it is not in the province of this Constitutional Convention to direct in some way the future legislation of this State looking to the prohibition of that practice. And it was in that view and for these considerations that I submitted that substitute. And I believe that it would be of more practical use in the settlement and the control of the labor question than anything else that we have before the Convention.

The substitute offered by Mr. Ryan was rejected.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I move you, sir, to strike out all after the word labor, in line 4, and to add after the word labor “the board shall perform duties and receive compensation as prescribed by law.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Evans of Weber offered the following substitute for the article:

The Legislature shall provide by law for a board of labor arbitration which shall fairly represent the interests of both capital and labor, and it shall be the duty of said board, under such regulations as may be provided by law, to endeavor by mediation and conciliation to effect a settlement of difficulties between employer and employes[*note*].

Section 2. The exchange of blacklists between corporations shall be prohibited.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of that substitute for the entire article on labor. And I want to say, in support of it, only a few words. I realize that we are taking up a great deal of time in the discussion. It will be observed that this substitute differs from those offered in the fact that it seeks to protect by arbitration both labor and capital. One is as much entitled to protection under the law as the other and should receive as fair consideration. There is no prosperity Without labor. There can be no labor without capital. These two elements ought to be in some manner by {1051} some mediation harmonized, so that less friction would occur between them than has occurred in the recent past. It is a very difficult problem for this Convention to deal with. I do not believe that we can deal with it here intelligently. The whole question, Mr. Chairman, is a new one, and when put into practical operation under a constitutional provision it may prove to be a failure. If so, the Legislature could readily remedy

the defect. If labor is oppressed, if it does not have a fair share of that which it produces, I believe so far as we can go in a legislative capacity, that we ought to remedy that defect and ought to extend the labor, which is the creation of all capital, as much protection as we consistently can.

The balance of this article, it will be seen, provides for many things which, in its very nature, might be extremely dangerous to labor as well as capital. I believe that it would create a friction between the two elements_a greater friction than we have ever had in the past, but if we will leave this question to the Legislature in the manner in which I suggest, the Legislature will wisely deal with it. If they find that it is not wisely dealt with, they can readily repeal the act, and substitute something more beneficial in its place. But if we fix in the organic law of the new State, these provisions which are engrafted into the report of the committee, and which I desire to say were honestly engrafted there, we may find many barriers in the future that would hamper labor and that would frighten capital, and create a friction between the two which ought not to exist. As I stated before, I am in favor of a board of arbitration to conciliate these matters, just as far as we can constitutionally go, and I believe that this will effect the object. Now, so far as the question of blacklisting is concerned, I am opposed to that which is reported by the committee, because I believe it is not right. That simply provides that no corporation or association shall keep a blacklist. I do not think we can say that. I think that any corporation can keep a list of its discharged men or of the reasons why they were discharged, but the thing to be reached, and the only thing thing that is found in constitutions which I have examined (and I believe I have examined all of them) is to prevent these corporations from exchanging with each other the lists of discharged men. That thing, as has been wisely stated by the gentleman from .Juab, has caused a great deal of trouble, and in many cases actual crimes.

During the recent great strike, sympathetic as it was, having its source from Pullman's at Chicago, we find that those people who were engaged in that strike, and with whom I did not sympathize, because I do not believe in sympathetic strikes_it is something that cannot be reached by legislation or arbitration_but that strike caused the discharge of a great many men. Corporations in various sections of the country exchanged their lists and whenever a man sought employment in a different section of the country, he was immediately spotted as having been in a strike upon some other road. The result was that he was discharged again. The result was at last that these men who were discharged and who were honestly mistaken in their forlorn fight sought employment in other localities and actually changed their names_went under fictitious names for the purpose of securing employment and thereby to secure bread for themselves and their families. I am opposed to this exchanging by corporations of that blacklist. It is a thing which is a proper subject of legislation. I think it would be proper in the Constitution, but to adopt the committee's report, I think it would not be right, because any company has a right to keep a list of its discharged men. It is {1052} perfectly proper that it should. I think that we cannot constitutionally prevent them from doing it. I think if this substitute is adopted, no harm would be done and large benefit would be derived.

Mr. CORAY. I would like to ask if you think the law would prevent them from keeping that blacklist?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The committee has reported section 7, that prohibits the keeping of a

blacklist at all.

Mr. IVINS. Do you suppose any law can be passed and be enforced that would prevent one company from giving a list of discharged employes to another, if it wanted to?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I do. I think whenever any individual or corporation undertakes to prevent the laboring man from securing labor in any other section of the country than that in which they themselves are directly interested that it is a conspiracy under the law as it stands to-day and ought to be punishable. A man has a perfect right to discharge his employes[*note*]_a perfect right and no gentleman upon this floor will question that right, but he hey got no right to pursue each man into other localities when he is seeking labor from others and thereby form a conspiracy with others by which that laborer may be deprived of his labor for the support of himself and his family. It would be a conspiracy, I say, under the law as it exists to-day and it ought to be punishable.

Mr. THURMAN. Suppose these companies should adopt a system by which they would ask each other for information respecting men that had been discharged from their employment within a given time. Is there any law that would be made that could prohibit that information from being given and after it is given, is there any law that would compel the company that asks for the information to employ any man if they did not want to?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). We propose here to make a law that will do it.

Mr. THURMAN. We can never do it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). We can do it, and as I stated before, it is for the purpose of meeting the kind of cases which my colleague gives. When one corporation asks another corporation for a list of its discharged employes, it asks them for that list for the express purpose of depriving those men of labor in that company, not because they have committed any crime, but simply because they had ceased to work because of a mistaken idea that their employer has not treated them right. If it were a crime to quit work, then it might be different. But when men simply quit work because of a mistaken idea, why should they be deprived of work in other localities? In other words, suppose a laboring man sees his mistake and suppose he desires to repent, suppose he desires to go to work, and never engage in another strike, should there be a system of laws by which corporations could simply grind that man down and tread upon him with the iron heel of capital and keep him there, simply because of one mistake which he has made in the past? The idea is to prevent that, to show as far as we can that we are willing to aid labor to secure work when it is legitimately seeking work, but when it undertakes to violate the law itself, the same as a corporation, then it must come under the ban of the law the same as a corporation.

Mr. MALONEY. Will you consent that your amendments take the place of sections 2 and 7?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). My amendment is offered as a substitute for the entire article.

Mr. MALONEY. Your amendment does not cover the entire ground. I would be glad to support

it if it took the place of sections 1 and 7.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. I understand now {1053} we have under consideration section 2 of this article and under that consideration the gentleman offers a substitute for the entire article. That, I apprehend, is distinctly not in order.

The point of order was sustained.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I hope this substitute offered by the gentleman from Weber will not pass for this reason: the report of the committee is made up of several sections, and I think with one exception we have constitutional authority for every section we have offered, and I think we should at least be permitted to pass upon these questions separately. There are several things that the substitute does not take into consideration that I would like to have the expression of this committee upon.

The substitute of Mr. Evans was rejected.

Section 3 was rend.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I wish to offer for section 3 right now. I would like to state why I am offering so many amendments to this section. That is, since the committee have made their report, we have consulted some of the highest authorities in this country, and amendments which I am offering here as my own have been suggested by this gentleman, but with instructions that in no case I am to use his name in introducing them. Several of them have been handed to other members of the committee. This is one of the amendments:
Amend section 3 by adding before the word “not,” in line 1, “in the absence of any specific contract.”

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment by moving to strike out all that the gentleman proposes to prefix to the words “not more than,” making it read, “Eight hours' actual work shall constitute a lawful day's work in all underground mines,” etc. I think that if a man does twelve hours' work that ought to be considered a lawful day's work, but this would prohibit that.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to section 3, after the word “mines,” in line 3, insert: “And in all smelting works for the reduction of lead ores.” For the reason that one of the most important_    

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Captain Stover, please give the chair an opportunity to be heard. The chair has made up its mind to make a ruling of this kind_I don't know that the Convention will sustain me, but whether they will or not, it is one so far as expediency is concerned, should be sustained by this Convention, and that is when an amendment is made, and an amendment is proposed to the amendment, that should be disposed of before any other matter comes before this Convention.

Mr. THURMAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. The trouble about these amendments to amendments and substitutes, etc., is they are simply confusing to this Convention and lead men's attention away from the subject matter that is before the Convention, and when a vote is taken, half the time they have to be re- read to know what we are voting upon. The question now comes properly upon the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Thurman.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment, if my second does not object. I am opposed to the whole article, section by section, and I am opposed to it in toto[*note*]. I shall move to strike it out.

The CHAIRMAN. Captain Stover's would be in order now, if it is an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Strevell.

Mr. STOVER. No, sir; it is an amendment to the section.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it is not in order.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to move as an amendment to the motion of Mr. Strevell, by which he adds a few {1054} words to section 3, that section 3 be stricken out.

Mr. THURMAN. Second the motion.

Mr. IVINS. Inasmuch as I have a second, I wish simply to say that the sentiment of the house seems to be that these sections be passed upon singly and that it would not be in order to strike out the whole article until each section has been passed upon. Therefore, I move to strike out section 3, and hope that all other sections will be stricken out and this whole matter will be left with the Legislature, where I think it properly belongs. It manifestly will be within their power and jurisdiction to provide for any differences that may arise between labor and capital, and I believe that that will do it better than we can possibly do here in the limited time at our disposal.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, can I offer a substitute for part of section 3_am I in order now?

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I hope this motion will not prevail.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I understood Mr. Ivins to amend the motion by striking out the section.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood.

Mr. SQUIRES. I submit that that is not proper amendment to the amendment already before the house.

The CHAIRMAN. It is hardly germane, the chair will admit that.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, the rule very distinctly says that an amendment may be offered by adding to or taking from or striking out.

Mr. SQUIRES. But that is not an amendment to this amendment.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I think mine should come in under that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mackintosh, what is your proposition?

Mr. MACKINTOSH. I sent it up to the clerk.

Mr. HART. Question on the motion to strike out.

Mr. PRESTON. Vote them all down.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will take a vote on Mr. Strevell's amendment. All in favor make it known by saying aye; contrary, no.

The noes have it.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear it read.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Division called for.

The CHAIRMAN. All in favor of Mr. Strevell's amendment, make it manifest by rising to their feet.

Mr. CANNON. I want to know what we are voting on.

The secretary read Mr. Strevell's proposed amendment.

Mr. BUTTON. Is this Mr. Strevell's amendment? I thought it was Mr. Ivins' amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-eight ayes. Those opposed will rise to their feet.

Thirty three noes. The amendment is carried.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I now move that this section be stricken out.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman, I call for the question on my amendment.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, what became of the amendment offered by Captain Stover?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will please take his seat. Captain Stover has offered no amendment.

Mr. SQUIRES. Captian Stover of Tooele offered an amendment.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The chair has heard no amendment from Captain Stover. He offered a substitute awhile ago, while it was out of order, and the chair refused to entertain it. The gentleman will please take his seat.

Mr. STOVER. Excuse me. I offered no substitute. It was an amendment.

Mr. SQUIRES. Is that the decision of the chair on this question?
he CHAIRMAN. It is the decision of the chair.

Mr. SQUIRES. Then I appeal from the decision of the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The decision of the chair is appealed from. All in favor_
Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, before you put that question_    

Mr. HART. I would like to ask Captain Stover if he did not make that motion?

Mr. SQUIRES. He offered it and read it at his place.

Mr. STOVER. I read it plain, after the word “mines,” in line 3, insert, “and in all_

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will please come to order. This proposition was brought before the attention of the chair and the chair ruled it out of order and it was not read, and Mr. Squires will please take his seat.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the sergeant at arms be instructed to have Mr. Squires taken_

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, in support of the chair's decision, I want to say that there ought not to be any trouble about this matter_    

Mr. SQUIRES. Well, we do not want a delegate choked off on this floor, Mr. Evans, that's what's the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Will Mr. Squires please take his seat? He is out of order.

Mr. SQUIRES. I am not half so much out of order as is the chairman at this minute.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I move that the chair rebuke Mr. Squires for his words of castigation of the chair at this time and that he be called to the bar of this committee for that purpose.

Mr. THURMAN. I second the motion.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. The motion is out of order in committee of the whole. This committee can do nothing but rise and report the circumstance to the Convention if there is any castigation or anything of that kind.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in support of the chair's ruling that Captain Stover did offer an amendment, which, at the time it was offered, was out of order and the chair so ruled. The amendment of the captain was not offered again at the proper time. If it had been, then it would have been proper to have considered it, and for that reason I want the decision of the chair sustained. There is no use of getting excited about this matter at all, and neither is there any use of using such words as those used by the gentleman from Salt Lake.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, when the motion of Captain Stover was made there was but one amendment before the house; that was the amendment offered by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Strevell. There was no other amendment before this house_that amendment was certainly in order, strictly in order. That is the position I take and that is the reason I appeal from the decision of the chair.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, at the time Captain Stover offered his amendment, he offered it as an amendment to Mr. Strevell's amendment of the section. It introduced an entirely new subject matter into the section, and was not germane to the motion of Mr. Strevell, and the chair ruled positively that at that time and on that particular motion of Mr. Strevell's it was out of order.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I think the chair is entirely correct upon this proposition. He made a ruling upon Captain Stover's amendment. There was no appeal taken from that ruling. If he was wrong, then was the time to have taken the appeal.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I remember it now, just as the gentleman explained it. I thought at the time Mr. Squires made his appeal, that the amendment had been admitted. I remember now that the chair ruled it out, and the question is now, not whether the chair made a mistake then. That is past. The question is whether there is any amendment before the house.

The question being taken on the appeal from the decision of the chair, the decision was sustained.
Mr. MACKINTOSH. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have got a little resolution, “That four dollars shall be the per diem of underground miners, and silver shall have a fixed value of $1.25 per ounce.” [Laughter.]

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mackintosh make the opening and closing speech on that amendment.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I renew my motion to strike out the section.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I hope this motion will not prevail. I am in favor of the section as it stands now amended. I think that it will be a benefit to those working underground. I think

that a man will do as much work in eight hours as he will in ten, because he will be in a better condition to work and according to this amendment, why the employer is allowed to make a specific contract and I think that this will be a good thing.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Ivins the committee divided, and by a vote of 41 ayes to 40 noes the motion was agreed to.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 4. I wish to say that that is legislation pure and simple. We have got such legislation to-day. We always will have it. There is no question about it, and this only leaves it to the Legislature to do it. There is no way of mandamussing the Legislature and compelling it to do a thing, and if gentlemen will only bear in mind that this is the last day you are going to get any pay for your work done here, you will get down to Constitution making instead of legislating on these subjects.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say in behalf of the committee that we took this from the Idaho constitution and there were several members of the committee who thought it was worth while to insert it in the article.

The motion of Mr. Thurman was agreed to.

Section 5 was read.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 5.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the section by inserting the word “of” after the word “or,” in the second line.

The amendment of Mr. Cannon was rejected.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I want to say in support of the motion to strike out section 5 that it provides that the Legislature shall prohibit first, the employment of women or children under the age of fourteen years. Now, that is proper enough in a legislative enactment, but no abuses as I understand it have ever occurred in Utah with respect to matters of that kind. If it ever does occur in the future the Legislature will amply provide for it, and why put it in the Constitution? The next is a provision against discrimination in wages on account of sex. I do not believe that there ought to be any particular discrimination where the work is exactly the same between the sexes, but would not that prevent the paying for instance our stenographer of this Convention, if he were employed by some private individual and who is (without desiring to compliment him) a prince among reporters and whose skill in that direction challenges the admiration of every one, from receiving any more wages than a lady who is doing like work, but who is not nearly so efficient?

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Does the clause “discrimination in

wages on account of sex” prohibit payment of a different amount on account of ability?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It probably would not putting it as broadly as that, but what are we going to with this question: Is the Legislature or is the Constitution going to prohibit an individual from employing men and {1057} women in proper avocations and then say that their wages shall be exactly the same for the same kind of work? Is it not a matter of individual contract between people who employ men and women? If any abuse arises out of that, it could be arranged for by the Legislature. I know no complaint now upon this particular question.

The third is contracting of convict labor. I know of no contracts which have ever yet been made in this Territory by which convict labor has been contracted out to do any particular work. If any other gentleman does, he has heard something that I have not. So, why the necessity of putting that in? Why not leave that to the Legislature? I do not believe that convict labor ought to be contracted by the State authorities outside of the prison walls, but no abuses have yet arisen and why cumber up this Constitution?

Then, the fourth, the labor of convicts outside of prison grounds, etc. The policy of that is all right, but I have known nothing yet in this Territory which should call forth a constitutional provision of that kind. Usually the constitutions are made for the purpose of prohibiting something which experience has shown to have been an evil, and if experience has not shown that these things which are prohibited here have grown into an evil, why place it in our organic law? It is a perfectly proper matter for the Legislature to deal with, and let us leave it to the Legislature.

Mr. CRANE. May I ask the gentleman a question? By the insertion of this section into the Constitution, would not it be a guaranty hereafter as the density of population became very great in Utah that convict labor should not be farmed out, as it is in Texas and some of the southern states?

Mr. EVANS (Weber), I say, Mr. Crane, that I believe in the policy of it, but I do not believe in encumbering the Constitution with it. It is not self-executory anyway in the Constitution, It simply says the Legislature shall do these things. Now, the Legislature has the plenary power to do it. Why not let it do it? That is the only point I make and I do not desire to say anything against the policy of a legislative enactment upon these subjects.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, if it is made mandatory for the Legislature to do this, I do not see where it encumbers the Constitution at all. It is just merely two or three lines of insertion in the Constitution, and if it is a guaranty that the working man will be protected from convict labor by the State, it seems to me a good provision.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It does say that the Legislature shall prohibit, but suppose that the Legislature failed to pass any laws inhibiting those things? The constitutional provision would be ineffectual. The Legislature must do it anyway. We have no power here to say that the Legislature shall do a thing and compel it to do it. The most that can be said in favor of it, is that it might be a reminder to the Legislature, but there is not a single item in that section but what the

Legislature would wisely provide for. Any sensible, right thinking man would make such a provision if he were in the Legislature if any abuses should be found to exist by reason of a failure of such laws.

Mr. CRANE. Do I understand the gentleman from Weber County to say that when in the Constitution it says the Legislature shall prohibit, that it is left to the Legislature to do it or not as suits themselves?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I do. I say that suppose the Legislature did not do it, how are you going to compel it to to do it? It is a body sovereign in itself. I would say that the courts could not compel it to do it if it failed to act. The constitutional provision would simply be ineffectual.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask {1048} Mr. Evans a question. Every member of the Legislature takes an oath to support the Constitution of the State of Utah, does he not?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). He does.

Mr. EICHNOR. He would be very naturally inclined to follow it out, would he not?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Suppose he takes an oath to support the Constitution? That is not taking an oath that he will legislate in the Legislature of the State; but I will ask my brother Eichnor a question, as a lawyer, if the courts could compel the Legislature to legislate upon these questions?

Mr. EICHNOR. Under no circumstances.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out the first two of these sections, but the two relating to the convict labor question, I am not in favor of striking out. I understand that we have declared in this Constitution that it shall be mandatory. I think that has already been passed. And it shall be mandatory upon the Legislature to pass a law that there should be no contract of convict labor or that the labor of convicts outside of the prison grounds, except on public works. Perhaps some of you remember two or three years ago, or a little longer than that, the trouble they were having, I think in Tennessee, where they were farming out the convict labor. They had no provision like this in their constitution. The legislature saw fit to go on to the disgrace of the state and to the disgrace of the laborers in the state_

Mr. GOODWIN. May I remind the gentleman that he is treading on dangerous ground when he goes to Tennessee, with Mr. Maloney on the floor?

Mr. BOWDLE. I had Mr. Maloney in mind when I made the assertion, but I do not think Mr. Maloney would defend that position for a minute in this Convention. And it is simply to provide against that. We have never had that trouble here. In fact, I do not know whether the Legislature could have passed a law here. It could not certainly with reference to the United States prisoners on that subject, and I am in favor of something like this, probably with a little amendment to that.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Bowdle says as to the competition of convict labor is true. It has been a source of trouble for a number of years. Convict labor was in competition with honest labor. It was the same way in Arkansas and in Texas. I agree with Mr. Bowdle, that sections 1 and 2 ought to be stricken out, but that sections 3 and 4 ought to be in the Constitution. If we keep it in the Constitution then the Legislature cannot farm out convict labor. It is true, as Mr. Evans says, we have never had that trouble here, but when statehood is had the probabilities are the convicts will be worked, and if we kept sections 3 and 4 in, we will never get into trouble that Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, and a number of the southern states have had.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I agree certainly with Mr. Maloney and Mr. Bowdle in this matter. It seems to me a very good thing for insertion in the Constitution. While I do not doubt the position and the ground taken by the gentleman from Weber County, it seems to me a very singular provision of law, if it is law, and I have no doubt it is if the gentleman says so. When we enact in the Constitution that the Legislature shall not prohibit or shall not do something, that the Legislature is compelled to obey the provisions of this Constitution, but when we say the Legislature shall prohibit, that that is nugatory. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, when a member of the Legislature is elected and before he_    

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I want to suggest one thing. He says the Legislature shall prohibit.

Mr. CRANE. The Legislature shall {1059} prohibit. If I understand the gentleman from Weber right_and I presume he is quoting the law, although it seems to me a very peculiar law that makes fish of one and fowl of another, if we say in our Constitution the Legislature shall prohibit, it seems to me that that is mandatory, that is compulsory, because when a member of the Legislature is elected to that office he takes the oath of office to obey the Constitution, and it seems to me that this could be just as prohibitory, just as mandatory, as if to say it shall not. This directly says the Legislature shall prohibit the labor of convicts outside of prison grounds, or the contracting of convict labor in competition with the laborer who is not in prison, and it seems to be a very good provision and I trust it will be inserted in the Constitution.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not agree with the gentlemen on this proposition. I have never been able to satisfy myself that there was any reason on earth that working men should be taxed to support a body of men in idleness in the penitentiary and I have not been able to understand the purpose and design of the several sections of the country which have risen up in opposition to men being employed instead of being fed in idleness. So far as I am concerned in this matter, it looks to me as if the most prudent thing to do is to leave the matter entirely to the Legislature to act upon as they may deem proper, because the best position a man can be placed in is that he be kept busy at something. While it is possible that in the future, it is not likely the State will contract this labor, yet it seems to me that conditions might arise in the experience and development of the State that it should not be properly done, and therefore I am opposed to the section.

Mr. MALONEY. I wish to state that where the convicts in the penitentiary are compelled to labor they are self-supporting, that the convicts of Texas and other states earn something like fifty thousand dollars a year. That institution is entirely self-supporting.

Mr. SMITH. I understand it to be.

Mr. MALONEY. That is exactly what we want. We want those convicts to be self-supporting and that the honest men who are working by day's work shall not be compelled to support them and at the same time we do not want convict labor put into the market in competition with honest labor. That was the trouble in those states.

Mr. CRANE. I would to ask if the gentleman is in favor in case necessity should arise or in case it should be done, that they should start a shoe factory in the penitentiary here where they probably have seventy-five or a hundred or a hundred and fifty convicts? I would like to ask the gentleman if he believes it right that those convicts, making shoes in the penitentiary, should have a right to compete with the men who are paying taxes to support this penitentiary in the making of boots and shoes in the city here?

Mr. SMITH. Why should not they be compelled to work and support themselves under the conditions of the law? I see no reason why these men should not be required to do it and not be put in there as idlers.

Mr. EICHNOR. I will answer the question, because they are criminals, because they are outlaws. Their labor should not come in competition with honest men, because they are criminals. In a certain sense, they are outlawed from society, that is the reason, and that is the reason when the great state of New York embodied that principle in its constitution of 1894, and that is the reason that every state that has been forming a constitution within the last several years sticks that principle in some article or other. Now, my friend, Mr. Evans, from Weber County, says we have no such thing in this Territory. I grant it. We never had slavery here, yet we have a provision {1060} in the bill of rights prohibiting slavery. We never heard that the people of Utah were going to secede from the rest of the Union. Section 3 of the bill of rights says that Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and a number of other provisions of that kind. It is good common sense.

Mr. THURMAN. That is on account of the war of 1858.

Mr. EICHNOR. It is good common sense. It is good law, and it reaches the very heart's core of society. It is the line of demarkation between the criminal class and the law-abiding class.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move, as a substitute for section 5, the following:

The Legislature shall not authorize the contracting of convict labor or the labor of convicts outside of prison grounds, except on public works.

I have heard a question raised about one kind being not covered, and that is where it was outside of the prison ground. I take it that there is only two points to be considered in the question of convict labor. The first one is whether the contract shall be let_hiring out the labor of prisoners, and the second is whether they shall be worked outside of the prison ground. I take it that the first provision would prevent their being worked on anything but public works outside of the grounds,

which were under the control of the State itself, because if those public works outside of the prison grounds were not State buildings, they would have to contract the prison labor, in order to have them work out there on this public work. It would have to be contracted public work, and they would have to turn over the prisoners to the contractors at some agreed price, which would be covered by the first part of the substitute, which is that they shall not contract convict labor. If that be true, the whole thing is covered in a short section and I think that there should be some provision of that sort. I do not believe that it is right for any state to leave to its legislature the power to put in competition with the honest men of families the man who is a criminal and is working for his water and bread for the state and put the wares manufactured by such men as that into competition with the wares of men who have to support themselves and their families.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, as I have been referred to several times, I want to put myself right. I think my friends do not understand my position. I am simply trying to relegate this matter to the Legislature. I will go as far as any of the gentlemen on the question of convict labor, and there is one thing in this article that I desire stricken out in the fourth subdivision, because of the very fact that it would permit convict labor to work upon public buildings outside of the prison walls. I say, too, that that is degrading to honorable labor, and I would preserve that work for honest labor and not have men who have committed crimes to do it. But I do not want to make it constitutional here. I think it is wholly unnecessary. No abuses have ever arisen and if they do, I say the Legislature will correct it.

The substitute offered by Mr. Van Home was rejected.

The question being taken on the motion to strike out section 5, the committee divided by a vote of 33 ayes to 46 noes, the motion was rejected.

Section 6 was read.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 6.

The motion was agreed to.

Section 7 was read.

Mr. Evans of Weber offered the following substitute:

The exchange of blacklists between corporations shall be prohibited.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike out that section together with the substitute.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, {1061} would an amendment be in order at this time to the section?


Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will say if there is any amendment that will help to make this at all a proper thing, I will withdraw my motion for the purpose of an amendment being offered. As it now stands, or as the substitute is presented, I do not think it ought to be adopted.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that the amendment I have to offer would meet the approval of the gentleman from Utah. It is practically on the same line as the one of the gentleman from Weber, but I would offer to amend by striking out the words in line 1, “blacklisting or similar practices,” and add “the exchange of blacklists,” so that it would make it read in this manner:

The exchange of blacklists by railroad companies or other corporations or associations is forever prohibited.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is the same thing.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of something which would prevent corporations, after employes are discharged, from sending lists of them to other corporations, thereby pursuing these men and hunting them down. I would like to know where the justice is of any such proceedings in any corporation. I do not object to any corporation, if they cannot get along with their employes[*note*], simply discharging them, but I do protest that a corporation has no right to pursue a man after he has left the employ of the company, and follow him into other states and territories and prevent him from getting employment, and thus starve his wife and children.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this if some gentleman can explain how it can be enforced. If the Rio Grande Western, for instance, has a blacklist, no one can prevent their keeping it, and they send it to the Central Pacific, outside of the jurisdiction of this State, how are they going to be punished? I think the thing is an outrage. I think it will be a dead letter in the Constitution, and that all the legislation that can be had upon it, will be equally ineffectual.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, in the arbitration bill prepared by Attorney General Olney, which was before Congress last year, he provides in this matter of blacklist, and it seemed to him to have been a matter of enough importance so that he has embodied in that bill an article which makes black-listing a misdemeanor, and so on. I won't take the time to read it, but it seems to me it was of enough importance to receive consideration at his hands and possibly in that view, if no other, it should be inserted here.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I first offered a proposition to be inserted in the Constitution, and I think I can tell my friends from Salt Lake how the thing can be prohibited. It is simply a matter of legislation, nothing else. We cannot prohibit as I understand it, a corporation from keeping a list of its discharged men, but we can prohibit those corporations from exchanging those lists with other corporations, and thereby forming a conspiracy by which these men may be perpetually kept out of work. That is the very thing that this provision is intended to reach.

Mr. GOODWIN. How will this strengthen the law that you proceed under against conspiracy?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). This reaches the exact evil which has grown up. It is designed to reach that particular evil and to stop that insidious practice of preventing men getting work when they have once made a mistake by a strike. That is the purpose. Now, I come from Ogden, right in a railroad center. Of course we pride ourselves upon the fact that we have the great {1062} railroad center of this intermountain country, and we have seen some of the evils resulting from this very thing. We have seen there hundreds and hundreds of men, while I think they were in the first instance mistaken_thrown out of employment, men of families, good citizens in every other way, except the unfortunate thing of being connected with that strike, themselves and wives and families are nearly starving for bread. They leave their homes and leave their families at home and seek employment in other localities and as soon as they get in other localities, they are confronted there with a blacklist that the companies here have exchanged with other railroad companies and as soon as they are discovered they are discharged from their employment or not employed at all. The result has been that our citizens, many of them. have actually had to go under fictitious names in order to secure work. It is this very thing which we desire to prohibit in this Constitution. This is one of the cases where the evil has arisen_one of the cases where people ought to legislate. It does no corporation_ any good to keep these blacklists for their own purposes.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. How would you punish a corporation that violates this provision?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Punish them just as you would an individual.

Mr. SQUIRES. In what way?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). By fine. You could not imprison a corporation, but you could fine the corporation or you might punish the individuals who are agents of the corporation. It is very easy to reach that matter; there is no trouble about that at all. It is just simply the question whether it is right or not that corporations should be permitted to do this thing. I believe that they ought not to do it. It is simply pursuing a man out of malice and ill-will, and nothing else. There are several of us gentlemen who live at Ogden, and who are now upon the floor of this Convention, who took a very bold and strong stand against the injustice of the sympathetic strike which occurred last fall. We believed then that it was not right that that should occur in that manner, but, gentlemen, that did not mean that we argued that men who are engaged in it and who have ceased their combinations against the running and operations of railroads or the mails, should be pursued and punished and that the sins which they once committed should be visited upon their heads from generation to generation. And that is just what this insidious arrangement has amounted to. To pursue these men from one locality to another with malice for the purpose of preventing them from securing bread for themselves and families, I say it is not right. It ought not to be permitted, and for one I shall vote to have this go into the Constitution.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman. I presume I have just as much sympathy with men and women in distress, and just as much interest in their having bread to eat, as any gentleman on this floor.

But it seems to me like appeals of that kind are foreign to the business of this Convention. We are here to make a Constitution and to make a Constitution that will be practical and can be carried out.

Now, I say it is not in the power of this Convention to make a provision by which any corporation cannot go and examine the list of discharged employes of another corporation and the causes of their discharge, and refuse to employ any one of them. It is a question that we cannot reach. We may possibly prohibit by law one corporation sending a paper with a list of names to another, and pursuing them in that way, but what does that amount to? What does the substitute cure or reach? That is the question. If you want to accomplish anything and you can accomplish anything, you must say in so many words that the Legislature {1063} shall not authorize the employment of a man by one corporation who has been discharged by another corporation, and when you do that you get down to an absolute absurdity. If the substitute does not mean that, then it is ineffectual; if it means that, it is wrong; it is an infringement on the right and liberty of the citizen or the corporation, as the case may be, to pursue his happiness in his own way_pursue its business in that way that is sacred to every other individual. That is why I object to it. I think if there is any section of this article that ought to go out it is the section under consideration, and I think that if there is any matter in the world that the Legislature can deal with it is the section under consideration. We say the exchange of blacklists is hereby prohibited. Of course if that means that when one company has discharged a lot of men it cannot notify other companies and give them their names and receive a list back similar from them_if it means that, and that only, it is ineffectual. Perhaps that may be made a misdemeanor, but what you want to do, if you can do it_and that is what I say you cannot do_is to provide that one company shall not be permitted to hire men or to reject men that have been discharged by another company.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It does not mean that all.

Mr. THURMAN. Then, what does it mean?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It simply prohibits an exchange of these lists for the purpose of preventing them from getting employment.

Mr. THURMAN. You cannot reach it by your substitute. It does not come within a thousand miles of it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There is exactly such a provision in North Dakota.

Mr. THURMAN. I cannot help that. I cannot help what North Dakota has done. I can point you to fifty provisions in constitutions of the states that have been declared absolute nullities. The fact that the constitution of another state may have a provision in it is not conclusive that it is practicable or that we ought to follow it Now, on principle, I am just as much opposed as my friend from Weber County or any other man to the matter he has pointed out to this Convention, but I say the real thing that he wants to reach by his substitute, his substitute does not reach, and it cannot be reached by any provision that we can put into this Constitution. We must concede the fact that there is a limit to even the power of this Constitutional Convention. We cannot

infringe upon the inalienable rights of men, and we consider the right to acquire property in a legitimate way, to employ labor, to discharge laborers for cause, to be a legitimate operation of these inalienable rights, and any law that undertakes to say that I cannot go to my neighbor in business and find out from him the character of men that he has had in his employment, with their names, and if they have been discharged the reason for their discharge, with a view to informing me whether I want to employ those men or not_any law that is made by any legislature would be void and any constitutional provision that would be made by this Convention would not be worth the paper upon which it is written. I do not know what it is the attorney general has written about, nor how far reaching it is, but even he and his opinion will not make that law which cannot be the law. I do not think that we ought to have this in the Constitution for the reason, as I said, when I made the motion, it is utterly impracticable to carry out. It is wrong in principle. We are getting wild here, gentlemen, in this article on labor, and thinking that we are pleasing the laboring men. The laboring men have a wonderful vote in this country and we {1064} want it. Now, I think we ought to get down to constitution making. Protect labor and capital equally by the laws of the land and see that one does not infringe upon the rights of the other. This article ought to all go out. That is the truth about it; at the risk of incurring the unfriendly feelings, if they cannot understand that my motives are right_I say the whole thing is wrong in principle and ought not to be in the Constitution in the shape that it is proposed.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I notice in our bill of rights, section 7, it is provided that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, or be outlawed or exiled without due process of law, and in section 11, that all courts shall be open and every person for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay. It seems to me that the position of Mr. Thurman upon this question is absolutely unanswerable, and that in every effort we make in the direction of seeking to legislate in this matter, we simply are tying our hands and putting ourselves in a position that we accomplish no good for the men that we would seek to benefit, but upon the contrary, we place trammels around the possibility of the Legislature in the future doing anything by which they could be protected. And with him, I agree upon the proposition that this ought to go out and will cast my vote against it.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, before that question is put, I want to give the committee my views on it. I think that that section should be retained, and I cannot see where it is going to create so much distress in the Constitution by leaving it there. It is very true that our jurisdiction is limited only by the bounds of this State. The very question that that is aiming at in this Territory and along the bordering states has been carried to a great excess through this strike last summer. I know of my own knowledge where the detectives of the Union Pacific road followed men and they tried to get them to let up. One man wrote to me and asked me to give him a letter that he was in my employ. I had a letter from another party explaining his age, his build, his description in full, and wanted to know if I had employed him. I very seldom lie, but I gave the man a clearance. When you discharge a man, because he does not fill your wish and he is not suitable to you, and you follow him somewhere else and deprive him of an honest day's work, you are depriving his wife and children of the hungry bite of bitter charity. They say, how are you going to prosecute them? If a man was to follow me and beat me out of my honest day's work, I would kill him, and I think the execution would not be any too great for a man that follows another from

here to the city of Chicago to beat him out of an honest day's work. And I trust to the members of this Convention to retain that section and it will be a credit for them.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that section 7 of the bill of rights would be just exactly the opposite from what he says. It seems to me under the operations of this black-listing scheme carried on by the railroad companies it would be just that very thing. It would deprive those men of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. I think the scheme of blacklisting as it is carried on, or as I understand it, would deprive them of that very life and liberty.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I trust this section will remain. I believe that this was brought before the people of this Territory in 1894 and I am extremely pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see our friends in Weber County endorsing this section, because that was one of the planks of the republican platform presented to the people last November, {1065} and it was upheld by the republican party. For the information of those who perhaps may have forgotten it, I desire to read the articles or part of the platform which the majority of the people of this Territory upheld and which I am free to say are now upheld and endorsed by several of our friends on the other side: “We oppose as cruel and unjust the blacklisting of the employes who are discharged from or leave the service of the employer.” I believe that there is a section in this article on labor that should be endorsed by this Convention. Many of the gentlemen are working men and if not working men have been in years gone by. I believe that that is the very meat in the cocoanut of this article. I believe it is a measure of justice and right to the laboring men in the various industries in this State, and will be more so in the future. I trust that this article will remain and be endorsed by the majority of this committee.

Mr. RALEIGH. I shall ask the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Thurman) if it would not cure this section by making it a misdemeanor?

Mr. THURMAN. I do not think that would make any difference if you made it a felony, from my standpoint. I may be wrong. I think, it ought to go out By adding a penalty to it would not make any difference.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in regard to this platform proposition, so far as I am concerned, individually, in regard to this matter, it seems to me that the blacklisting proposition as contained in the platform is not reached in this proposition, because it will be ineffective in every way, shape, or form. You may put it there, you may seek to work it and it is impossible to work it. A party so far as it is concerned can exercise its influence against the men who might possibly blacklist laborers, but when it comes to an application of the law it is literally impossible for that thing to work in any way or shape or form that would bring about a change. It is true men fall into disgrace, do wrong things; they cannot wipe them out only by the acts of their lives afterwards, and so far as our trying to make them honest because they have been blacklisted, by an enactment in the Constitution, it is simply wild. It will never accomplish the purpose.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I tried several times to get up and am not quite so young as some of the members. I have arranged my business at home to stop here all summer. I am in no hurry. I

was in a hurry on the start, but I have got all over my hurry now. I want to know how we are going to make a law to make men honest. I do not know of any wan I would hold up both hands and support it if you could, and if there is a man goes to work for me and tells me that he has left a place or a half a dozen of them and I want to employ men, I can, with regard to whether they are competent men, right straight, and write to the men he has just left a short time before and find out their character. I would like to know what there is to prevent those men telling me what they know. I can tell you that all the talk this afternoon is all time thrown away and you will find it out It does not amount to a hill of beans.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the section will not be stricken out as reported by the committee. I would like Mr. Evans' section, provided it went as far as this, because this says blacklisting or similar practices. If the words, “similar practices,” were added to Mr. Evans' substitute, I would vote for that, but I do not want to see it stricken out. We already have laws in our statute books that provide penalties for slander and for libel, and the penalties are more or less severe, according to the aggravation of the crime. Now, I think that this will go so far. I think that corporation that will give the name of a man that they disagree {1066} with to another, for the purpose of prohibiting him from receiving work, is committing just as great a crime as the man that commits a libel or slander upon another. He is trying to keep him out of work. He is trying to keep him from earning an honest dollar for the support of his family. I think we ought to put it in the Constitution and keep it there. That will prevent parties exchanging these blacklists. They have to do it by writing one to the other. That is just as much a letter as it would be for me to write a letter and slander some member of this Convention, and I think we ought to retain it.

The motion of Mr. Thurman was rejected.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to Mr. Evans' substitute, that the words, “or similar practices,” be inserted after the word blacklisting.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will accept that. I want to say, Mr. Strevell's amendment is in the right line, but I think it is wrong to say that black-listing shall be unlawful or prohibited. I think a corporation has got the right to keep a list of its own discharged employes[*note*], but my amendment seeks to prevent an exchange of those lists; that is the only difference.

Mr. STREVELL. You leave out the word “railroad corporations,” and one or two other things.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes; I use the word corporation.

The amendment offered by Mr. Strevell was read.

Mr. THURMAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, “similar practices.” That is a somewhat amusing thing to go into a state constitution. We prohibit a thing which in itself has no definite meaning, and not only that, but we go further and prohibit similar practices. I think we are reducing this whole thing to an absurdity.

Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, I move to insert the word, “or persons,” after the word


Mr. STREVELL. I will accept that amendment.

The amendment offered by Mr. Strevell was agreed to.

Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Chairman, I have always been used to hearing some penalty attached to the violation of a criminal law. Now, I would like to get something in there that when they are discovered doing something that you say they shall not do, that there is a penalty. I move that it shall be declared a misdemeanor. No second.

Section 8 was read.

Mr. BOWDLE. I move to strike out section 8.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, I object to striking out section 8 for this reason, if no other, that it is taken word for word from the new constitution of the state of New York.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. ENGBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move a reconsideration of section 8. The action is ever too rapid. I rose to offer an amendment and was not recognized. I offer the following amendment to section 8, after the word “limitation,” “the Legislature shall provide for the protection, in places of manufacturing, mining, and other industries, of the lives and persons of employes[*note*].”

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it relates to the section at all. The amendment was rejected.

Section 9 was read.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 9.

Mr. IVINS. Before that motion is put I want to ask Mr. Crane if it is in the republican platform.

Mr. KERR. I will state that my reason for moving to strike out section 9 is that we have already provided that the statistics shall be taken once in five years, and it seems to me that all the information required on this subject can be obtained at the time the {1067} census is taken, so that it is unnecessary to provide for a separate board.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, before we vote on that, I would like to explain the idea of the committee in inserting that section. Three states have similar provisions, Idaho, Montana and Maryland. The idea was this, that the work could be done by one of the State officers, at very slight expense, and the collection of statistics in regard to immigration and the different industries in the State, would be of very great benefit to a great many persons in the State, and a great deal of information that would be collected there would be absolutely necessary for the

governor in making his report to the Legislature, in order to provide for things which, in his judgment, would be proper.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I trust that that provision will not be stricken out. I think that this is a very important matter, and one that is of great good to the entire State. As I understand it, this commissioner who shall be appointed or elected by the people, will collect all the statistics_all the information regarding the capital invested, the number of men employed in the different industries in the Stare, the earnings of the laboring men in different districts, and the different employments. It not only does that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that that section also was endorsed by the majority of the people last November, and for the information of the gentleman from Washington County, who asked me a question just now, I will say that this is part of the platform that was endorsed by 21,000 people in this Territory on the 6th of last November.

Mr. IVINS. Then. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. CRANE. For the information of the gentleman I want to read this plank in this platform, and I trust the gentleman will endorse it, as I believe will the gentleman from Weber County. (Reads.) And I trust, Mr. Chairman, that this section will not be stricken out, but remain as the voice of the people as expressed in 1894.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). To which section does the gentleman refer, the section in the platform or the one in the article we are now considering. [Laughter.]

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that this section is entirely unneccessary [*note*]. We have provided that a census shall be taken in 1905, and every ten years thereafter, and the Legislature shall pass such laws as may be necessary to carry out this provision in the Constitution. Now, all the information that may be desired upon this or any other subject can be obtained at the time the census is taken in accordance with this provision in the Constitution. It does seem to me that the section is unnecessary.

Mr. SQUIRES. I want to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the first census under that provision would not be until 1905. That is ten long years, hence information on these subjects may be needed in a great deal less time than that. For that reason, I think this provision should remain in the Constitution.

Mr. KERR. Are there not statistics being taken now?

Mr. SQUIRES. Not along this line at all.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire for information, if we, by striking out this section, prevent or prohibit the Legislature from gathering these statistics if they should feel it was necessary?

The CHAIRMAN. I should think not.

Mr. HAMMOND. If ,we do not, I should say let it go.

The motion to strike out was agreed to.

Mr. STREVELL. Mr. Chairman, wish to introduce a new section:

The Legislature shall, by appropriate {1068} legislation, provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this article.

I call attention to the fact that in the article on blacklisting and one or two others, it seems to be lacking in that respect.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask the chairman of this committee a question, and that is in regard to the number of officers that he thinks will be necessary to carry out this article_how many officers the State would have to employ in connection with it? It is a question of economy.

Mr. STREVELL. I will answer the question to the best of my knowledge. The committee as a whole, I think, did not go into that matter, but there were several remarks made upon the question. The idea is that if we establish this bureau for the collection of statistics and so on, that that gentleman might, in case the Legislature saw fit, be one of the committee or board of labor arbitration, and that in case there was anything to arbitrate, he would endeavor in the first place to place himself in connection with the people, and then, if it was necessary to call the board together, he would have the employes choose one man and the employers another; that would make a board, and there would not be a regular salaried board, and in that way, having a board called together only for the time they were needed, it would be very inexpensive, and I do not think now of any other place where we have provided that he shall be a salaried officer.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I would like to ask Mr. Strevell a question. Did you think that if this section that you now propose were to be carried it would strengthen the Constitution at all?

Mr. STREVELL. Well, I introduced the section because it has been called to my attention that it would be better to do that. For instance, the matter of blacklisting, as I say, we simply prohibit it. We do not say that the Legislature shall enact legislation to carry that into effect. I introduced the section because several gentlemen told me that they thought it was entirely proper to do so, and that it should be done in order to carry out the provision.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I take it for granted that we have expressed and indicated in this Constitution, or will do before we get through, the will of this Convention, and that is supposed to be the will of the people, and that the Legislature will proceed to carry it into effect by making laws upon these subjects, and as I take it for granted, this could not strengthen that position one particle and it would have a tendency to cumber our Constitution and make it more voluminous. I am opposed to it and hope it will not prevail.

Mr. STREVELL. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Is there anything to carry that into effect unless the Legislature does?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). No; but I say the answer to that is, this does not strengthen it. This does not compel the Legislature to do it, and upon that same theory if that be true, then we ought to put it at the end of every article.

Mr. STREVELL. I do not know whether I have covered the ground or not. I have tried to.

The question being taken on the section offered by Mr. Strevell, the committee divided and by a vote of 39 ayes to 31 noes, the section was adopted.

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce a new section:

The first Monday in September shall be a legal holiday and known as labor day.

The section was rejected.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move that when we do arise, we report this article as amended and request that it be placed upon the calendar for third reading.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the whole article be stricken out.

The motion of Mr. Smith was rejected.

The motion of Mr. Cannon was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article on revenue and taxation.

Section 1 was read.

Section 2 was read.

Mr. CANNON. For the information of the committee I would state that this article is taken from Washington principally, with the exception of the definition of the word property as defined here is taken from the constitution of Montana.

Mr, VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I see the provision concerning the taxation of stocks in lines 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, is to the effect that where the property of the company or corporation has been taxed, the stocks are to be exempted. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee what objection there is to taxing stocks in foreign corporations? Suppose, for instance, the stock is held in this State of a company holding property in New York. If it is properly here, why should the person holding the stock here which may be equal to money_bankable any day, be exempted because the New York corporation pays a tax to the state of New York? Has that question been considered?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; the question has been considered, I would answer, and in the minds of the committee, based partly upon an objection by Mr. Varian himself to a somewhat similar

principle, we constructed the words, “is within the State.” The committee considered it in this light, that if a corporation paid its taxes_for instance, if a man had a herd of cattle in Arizona and resided himself in Utah, and if the cattle were taxed in Arizona, we did not think it right that he should be taxed on his stock in that corporation, if he resided in Utah. We thought that the tax haying been paid once was enough. It is a species of double taxation. We made no distinction, therefore, between whether the property was taxed here or taxed in adjacent states and territories.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is in error, if he attributes an objection of that kind to me. I had in mind all the time just the very point I am making now; I do not believe that you ought to yield the right of taxation in that way, nor do I believe that because certain species of property may occasionally be taxed twice, that that is any reason why this jurisdiction should refuse to exercise the right of taxation over again. I think that if a man owns stock for instance in a corporation like the New York Central Railway Company or Pensyl-vania Central, or any other dividend paying stock, that he ought to be compelled to pay taxes on it here. It is property. I will make the motion to insert after the word “taxed” “within this State,” in line 13. Now, if that amendment shall prevail the property of stocks_corporations owing property in this State, where the property of the corporation is taxed, will be exempted, but stocks in foreign corporations in other states in the Union or brought where the property shall be taxed by the other sovereignty will not be exempt here, and I say on principle they ought not to be exempted.

A large proportion of the wealth of the country is in personalty. If I have my neighbor's note for five thousand dollars, and it is bankable, you will tax it for what it is worth, If it is worth five thousand dollars and I am an honest man and if the assessor is an honest man and does his duty, you compel me to pay a tax upon it, and yet my neighbor may have the five thousand dollars that I have loaned him, either in specie or in property to which he has interchanged it and is compelled to pay a tax on it. Property multiplies itself {1070} and sometimes the real underlying property, such as money or goods and chattels, may find its representatives in different hands many times. Now, what is the difference between a note and stock that is worth a hundred cents on the dollar and you can go to any bank in the community and get the money on it? I do not think that this State need concern itself with the tax laws of other sovereignties, but if New York, in the instance I cite, is willing and cares to tax the property of the corpo-tion [*note*], that is the business of the state of New York. We are not taxing the corporate property here. We are taxing the value of this estate represented by the stock in the hands of the person within our borders, be he citizen or not, and we ought to tax it. And I will tell you, gentlemen, that you cannot afford to let any legitimate subject of taxation escape under this new State government. You will need it all. You cannot afford to make any of these discriminations or distinctions.

Mr. RALEIGH. Let me ask you a question. Suppose I lend you a thousand dollars and you put that into a farm. That farm is taxed to its full cash valuation. If you tax me for that mortgage, would not that be double taxation of necessity?

Mr. VARIAN. No, I think not. I think there is a great confusion about that.

Mr. RALEIGH. Perhaps I might not have made myself understood. I mean if you tax me one thousand dollars on that mortgage and tax the man that owns the farm the full valuation of the

farm, and not exempt any portion of this one thousand dollars?

Mr. VARIAN. I understand the gentleman, I think. That is not this precise question, however, but in answer to that I say, no. I say the money and the farm represent property in the hands of the person owning it. I say the note or mortgage represents property just as much in the hands of the person owning that. You can readily see how the property may be taxed in one sense in three different forms. It is not the same property in reality, yet it is created; it has grown out of the same property. You can take a thousand dollars, pass it over to your neighbor and take his note for it, and both you and the neighbor may be taxed during the same taxing season. He on the thousand dollars that he has, or if he puts it into horses, or into cattle, or into sheep, or into any kind of property, real or personal, he is subject to taxation, if he has it during the period described by law for making the assessment. On the other hand, I have what is the equivalent of the thousand dollars. If I had retained the thousand dollars I would have been required to pay a tax on it. I have the representative of value which is under the protection of the law. Your courts are open, your officers are at my services to protect that species of property, which has come into existence by this species of barter and sale. But that is not precisely this question. The question is here whether a man whose fortune may be invested in stocks of foreign companies_they may be any kind of stocks, where the business is carried on in other countries or under other jurisdictions.

It does not alter the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the property that he has and for which he has exchanged his money_he has taken his money out of this Territory, sent it into the other states to invest it, and received back a representative of value, which takes the place of the money that ought to be here, and is not here for taxing purposes. It is just the same to him as if it were money and it ought to be taxed. It is a representative of value; it is just as much property as real estate is, and you all admit that if you take a note of your neighbor here in Utah and it is a solvent note, you are required under the law and always have been, {1071} to pay a tax upon it, but a few years ago a discrimination was made in favor of notes secured by a mortgage and against notes that were unsecured. The unsecured notes to-day have to pay a tax, the secured notes do not have to pay a tax, and it has brought about a greal deal of confusion, in my judgment. It is unjust and discriminating. The man who takes his neighbor's note without security, goes on the street and takes the note of any business man for a time or a call loan for any amount of money, is compelled under the law if he acts honestly with himself and with the people to pay a tax on it. If he secures it by a mortgage, whether it be on a fifty dollar lot or a five hundred thousand dollar lot, he is exempted from taxation. I do not desire to go into this discussion. I simply want to state my views and reasons for offering this amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I trust this motion will not prevail, to insert the words that have been offered, for the following reasons_in the first place the question of taxation of notes will come up later under another section. I will not discuss it here, but I desire to call attention particularly to the effect that this proposed amendment would have. As the section is now, it provides that this shall not be construed so as to authorize the taxation of the stocks of any company or corporation when the property has been taxed, etc. As amended, it would read, “represented by such stocks is within the State and has been taxed.” I call your attention to the fact that if a man invests his money in a herd of cattle, over in Nevada, or in any adjacent state,

he would be taxed there for his property, and no tax would be levied upon him in Utah. If a man, for instance, had a herd of cattle of one thousand head in Nevada, he would have to pay his tax there, but you could not in Utah, because he resides in Nevada, tax him for his cattle, which are in Nevada. What is the difference between that man and a lot of poorer men who get together and form a co-operative herd of any kind, either cattle or sheep, or anything of this character? If the man who is poor unites with several of his neighbors and they put their money together and buy the same number of cattle in Nevada, and incorporate, if it is a thousand head of cattle, there, under this amendment, they would be taxed in Nevada, and their stock would be taxed in Utah, because there is no tax paid on the property in Utah. Why should it discriminate in this manner? I claim that there should not be a discrimination.

Mr. VARIAN. Did you ever know of instances where a herd of cattle were started in the spring and driven through several states and where they were taxed in every state?


Mr. VARIAN. Because I can tell you it happens nearly every year.

Mr. CANNON. Well, is that just?

Mr. VARIAN. In one sense, it is just, yes. He gets the benefit of the state laws where he is for the time. At all events, I would answer that by saying that you cannot make a tax law that is absolutely and perfectly in the abstract just in its operation.

Mr. CANNON. We may not be able to make it perfectly just, but we want to make it just as just as possible.

Mr. THURMAN. Will the gentlemen yield for one question? Suppose the man has his stock in Nevada or his cattle and owns them in an incorporated company, he has the certificate of stock in his pocket. Is that property?

Mr. CANNON. The certificate of stock represents that which is property.

Mr. THURMAN. Suppose that he puts that certificate up as collateral and he gets more stock here in Utah_I mean more cattle, would those cattle be taxed?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, they would be taxed here.
Mr. THURMAN. And yet it is the same thing; it is simply changing the property, is it not, from one shape into another?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir. In the second case, he has borrowed money and with that money he has procured cattle. I will call your attention to the fact that merely calling it by the name of stock does not change it. The man who has the bill of sale of cattle in his pocket might borrow money on that bill of sale, and if he did so, you would not tax his cattle in Nevada that he originally had

and tax the same cattle in Utah, and then again tax the cattle which he bought; it would be absurd to do such a thing. I do not think any one here will claim that it will be possible so to do. I claim that we should encourage the citizens of Utah to be enterprising. I claim that they should, if they see fit, go out into a dozen states and territories, and if they should combine in co-operative herds or in any other way, they should only be taxed as individuals. The fact that they are a corporation should not militate against them. We will take the New England states, and men who nave lived there have gone into all parts of the world, and it is what has made New England what she is, because her men have been enterprising and gone out. Now, shall we say to the men in Utah_“You cannot go outside of our borders and transact business without being taxed, not only where you do your business, but here at home. You shall pay a double tax, you shall pay a tax where you have your cattle or your enterprise of any kind and we will require you to pay it again at home.” I claim that that would be an unwise discrimination to do anything in that way.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman. just one word now as to this question of corporations. I think the purpose for which corporations were originally designed has become very much abused. I do not think that anything particularly encouraging ought to be held out in constitutional legislation in that direction. As it is now, even in this Territory, private individuals no longer are willing to carry on the ordinary business of the community as individuals. If a man wants to open a store, he proceeds to gather in one or two individuals in order to get the requisite number to form a corporation, and he carries on his business in a corporate name. He evades all the just responsibilities of business life. If he fails, there is no personal liability attached to him. That has been going on here on the Pacific coast until it has reached almost a state of perfection in Utah. And I am not willing for one that any further encouragement should be lent to them.
The design of corporations in the first instance was to enable individuals to carry on gigantic undertakings, or at least undertakings too great for individual enterprises; it has been prostituted to base purposes. Now, if they want to form corporations to carry on a cattle ranch or a sheep herd, and want to take the property out in another state and make the investments there and live here under our law, I say that their stock representing their interests in the corporation in so far as it is of a money value and marketable ought to be subjected to our taxing laws, and I say it is just in principle and it is right under any system of taxation. In most of the states_I have in mind Ohio, they have public officers appointed whose duty it is to investigate the records of other states and territories with a view to ascertaining the investments made by the citizens of Ohio in those states and territories so that they may be brought within the operation of the taxing law. A man in Ohio goes out to Colorado or Utah and puts his money in a mortgage on real estate; if he does not give it to the taxing officer there and it shall be discovered_there is no limitation of time, I believe_by the {1073} officer appointed for that purpose, by the state, he is retaxed for years with penalties.

It is a recognized right of sovereignty. You cannot look at it in this little way_looking at it from the standpoint of two citizens making a barter and sale. It is a great principle of taxation, the right of sovereignty is involved, and you must look down on it in that way, If it is property, it ought to be taxed and no discrimination ought to be made for or against the citizens of this State.

Mr. CANNON. Do you admit that there is in this case a distinction between individuals and corporations having property outside under your proposed amendment?

Mr. VARIAN. No; I do not think that question properly arises. I would simply tax individuals upon stock in corporations, whose property and place of business are out of the State.

Mr. CANNON. In the case I cite would it not be true that you could not tax me for cattle in Nevada?

Mr. VARIAN. I do not remember just exactly what you refer to.

Mr. CANNON. If I own cattle in Nevada could you tax me with those cattle here as an individual?


Mr. CANNON. If I incorporate a company and own the same cattle in Nevada and hold the stock here, you would under this provision tax me here?

Mr. VARIAN. I would tax you on the stock if it was worth anything, because by the fact of the launching of the enterprise you have produced new wealth in the world. By the creation of the stock you add to the wealth of the world. The major portion of it is in that kind of shape.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I believe the people of Utah have had a great many corporations for the purpose of owning and handling cattle and stock. I believe that the vast majority of those corporations have been formed with honest intentions and that they have never defrauded people more than persons. I believe that there should not be a distinction made between a private citizen who is wealthy and owns cattle and sheep and who can live exempt from taxation with his cattle and stock in adjacent states and territories, and a number of men_a community who combine together and form a stock company and own cattle and sheep in the same way; and the same principle will apply to all other articles.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. I would like to ask Mr. Varian, .suppose that you purchase a mine across the borders for a hundred thousand dollars and incorporate it here and pay your taxes over there, would you have to pay them here again on the stock?

Mr. VARIAN. It would reach that case, if the stock was a valuable stock. It would depend upon its value. I will answer the gentleman by saying that if his stock was lost_like there used to be many mining stocks put upon the market, turned from hand to hand, and worth money, they are just as much property in my view under the taxing law as if it were a promissory note.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Would you think it a fair and just plan?

Mr. VARIAN. I do, most assuredly.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. After paying them over there and then paying them here?

Mr. VARIAN. Because I take the view that it makes new property. When a man's note comes on

the market, while it is there it is additional property of the commonwealth and remains such until its extinguishment. Like a bank note, it has a value until it is extinguished and called in.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Wouldn't you check a great deal of enterprise in that way, by taxing them so as to tax them here again?

Mr. VARIAN. I do not consider you are taxing them here again.
Mr. MACKINTOSH. Well, it is a double taxation.

Mr. VARIAN. I do not consider it so. The improvements in Nevada on a mine are all that are taxed, and the gross product. If the mine is a dividend payer the stock is valuable, if it is not, the stock is worthless.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. It might be valuable in my estimation.

Mr. VARIAN. I am speaking of value in the marketable sense.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Supposing he sells it for twenty dollars a share?

Mr. VARIAN. Well, tax it on twenty dollars a share.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Varian, the committee divided, and by a vote of 29 ayes to 33 noes, the amendment was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that section 3 be amended by striking out the words “either religious worship or,” in the 14th line. I think that by retaining that it will discriminate against certain citizens of the State. We are making this Constitution for all future time, and there may come a time when probably half of the citizens won't believe in any church.

Mr. THURMAN. There won't be any religious worship then.

Mr. ANDERSON. If the property belonging to a church is exempt why they will have to assess it to pay the taxes.

The amendment was rejected.

Section 4 was read.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of the section down to the word all, in line 13. Now, I want to direct attention to the fact that whatever opinion may exist as to the justice of taxation provided for in the clause that I move to strike out, that is to tax mining claims arbitrarily in a fixed sum, that it is in violation of all principles of taxing laws, By this section

you arbitrarily fix a sum or value by which for all time you are going to tax a certain species of property. The underlying principle of all taxing laws, as clearly declared in the section just passed, is that the property shall be taxed at its just valuation. This means that you must provide means and methods for ascertaining what the just valuation is, but you are going to say here by a provision in your organic law that every mining claim, no matter where situated, in what section of the country, is to be declared to be worth five dollars an acre, because the government price was five dollars an acre. Now, you will observe that that eliminates entirely from the problem the question as to its valuation. I contend further that it is impossible to reach a just valuation of mining claims in that way. The only fair, the only equitable adjustment of that question is found in the subsequent clause of the section. You tax the net proceeds. When you get proceeds out of a mining claim, then, for the first time, you know what you have got. After you take your expenses and the cost of production, get that product into bars or bullion, or at least into personal property on the top of the ground, and it becomes added to the wealth of the country, you know then what you have got and you can tax upon some actual basis. I do not know why this committee want to impose additional arbitrary tax, which, as I have indicated, is in violation of the principle of taxing laws, upon mining claims, and I trust that the motion will receive consideration.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion of Mr. Varian to strike out the words indicated in section 4, and I desire to remind him of some statements which he has made with respect to other matters, on the question of taxing stock of foreign corporations. He stated there that the question of taxation was a question of sovereignty, that is, we must tax, he says, all property in sight for the support of the new State. He was asked respecting some stocks of certain {1075} value, whether they should he taxed, although the property representing those stocks was outside of the State. He says, yes, now, tax them at their full value. Well, now, that is not what we have proposed to do in this section. So far as mining is concerned, I am probably more favorable to that than any other industry in this commonwealth, because it is the very life of the Territory, always has been, and always will be, so long as it exists. Because mining and agriculture go hand in hand, and we cannot develop one very well without the other. But just entering upon the new State, as we are, we find that it will be absolutely and indispensably necessary to create revenues to carry on the legitimate expenses of the government. Mining, in the past, has been greatly favored so far as the question of taxation is concerned. The only thing which has ever been taxed yet in Utah is the improvement upon mines; not even the net products have been taxed. None of the surface ground has been taxed, and with the great benefit which mining has given us, yet at the same time we all know that some men have amassed great wealth from the products of mines and yet have paid nothing whatever toward the support of the Territory. I do not say that in disparagement of any gentleman who has been in the business of mining, but now we have come to that point where it is necessary to raise some revenue. It is going to be burdensome enough upon the poor farmer, the shopkeeper, and the man who is engaged in the various avocations of life in this Territory, to have to pay taxes to support the government.

The gentleman from Salt Lake asserts that it is not right in principle that surface grounds of mines should be taxed, because the net product represents the only thing of value taken from it. Why, suppose, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that we were to apply that principle in this Territory to the farmer? What are his net profits? Does he have any at all?

Doesn't he simply eke out an existence from day to day upon his farm, raising his cows, and calves, chickens, pigs, taking his eggs to market, and as suggested by the bishop on my right that even the babies that are produced sometimes have to go to market. I happen to be fortunate or unfortunate enough to own some mining property in connection with others, and so far as I am individually concerned I make no objection to levying a tax to the amount of the government price upon the surface_upon the actual acreage that is included within the mining claim. This section which is proposed to be stricken out will strike out “the government price on mining claims,” which I believe is five dollars an acre.

Mr. SQUIRES. Two dollars and fifty cents on placer and $20 on coal land.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Now, if that land be worth the government price when it is patented, why not permit the State to tax that surface ground at the government price? It is undoubtedly worth that or the person that applies for patent would not pay it and Lake his patent. It is a very light tax, indeed, but still in this aggregate, the whole surface ground which is occupied and patented in the Territory will amount to a considerable sum in the aggregate. Another question is coal land. They are taxed at $20 an acre. That is the governmental price. If they are worth that, and they undoubtedly are, or corporations would not secure the patenting of the ground, then why not tax them at twenty dollars, if they are worth it, upon the theory which my friend from Salt Lake bases his argument? And then, the other question is, which is proposed to be stricken out, that if the surface ground be used for any other purpose then it shall be taxed at the value of the purposes for which it is used. Is there anything unjust about that?
Mr. VARIAN. What could it be used for, I will ask you?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Why, there may be such a thing as cultivating it. It could be used for stock yards. It may be that surface ground would be used and in almost every mining camp in Utah, it is used for little homes.

Mr. VARIAN. Will the gentleman permit me a question? What is to prevent them from taxing the little home or the possessory right for the use to which it is put?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It is taxed. If I own a mining claim and I let out the surface of the claim to the men in the mine, and they build little houses on it, their little houses and their improvement are taxed. I am their landlord, exacting from them monthly rents, because they are using the surface of my mining claim, and I am not taxed at all. It is only the tenant.

Mr. SHARP. May I ask a question? Would not this section 5 for taxing school lands at twenty dollars an acre apply after the coal was exhausted?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It would.

Mr. SHARP. Forever.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). No, I doubt that. I think that when the coal is extracted from the land, it is

not coal any longer. I do not think it would come within the spirit and meaning of the section. But if your coal were exhausted and you were to use that land for other purposes, such as building upon it and renting the houses, then it ought to be taxed for its actual value. I do not believe that any court would hold that where coal has been taken out of the land_stripped of all the coal_that a court would hold that that was coal land under the meaning of the Constitution, but it would be only such coal land as has not been exhausted Montana has a provision exactly similar. Indeed I know of but few mining men who have complained at this section, as it is reported by this committee. I believe that our friend, Mr. Mackintosh, who represents more mining ground than any other gentleman, probably, upon the floor of the Convention, stated in his committee that he was satisfied with the provision, that the committee was dealing fairly with the mining interests of this Territory. There is nothing in the section which will discourage the industry. If there were, I should vote against it. In the first place, the only thing that a man would have to pay would be for the surface ground alone at the government price. Think of it, only five dollars an acre until his mine commences to produce, and when it does, then he is to pay the tax on the annual net profits.

Mr. VARIAN. In addition_he pays both taxes?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). He pays both.

Mr. VARIAN. Yes, double taxation.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Now, the reason why that is done_Mr. Varian, I think understands that is because it is impossible for the assessor to determine the value of a mining claim. It might be speculative, it might contain large deposits of mineral or it might contain none at all; but the presumption is that it is worth the government price, because the person that has taken it up and entered it pays that price for it. And it is only a nominal price anyway.

Mr. MORRIS. What about claims that have been abandoned for years_purchased from the government and the mining fail, still it is in their name, but it is of no use whatever_in the mountains, not available for agriculture, but the company have bought that land and paid for it and spent perhaps fifty thousand dollars on it and it proved a failure, and that is the end of it, would that be taxed to them?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You mean the land itself_the surface ground?

Mr. MORRIS. The mine.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The ground would be taxed at five dollars an acre. It would be a mining claim just as your {1077} arm would be taxed if you were to abandon it.

Mr. MORRIS. Suppose they have left t entirely?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). If they have eft it entirely, I suppose it would be sold under the hammer of the collector. It simply would be worthless to him or anybody else. But I will remind the

gentleman from Salt Lake of the fact that it is only that ground which is patented that is taxed_it is not that which is held as a possessory right. I am in favor of retaining the section just as it is.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope they will dispose of this matter. One thing more I desire to say. I want to call attention to the fact that by putting this in the law here, you are liable to burden the State with a great deal of trouble. There are hundreds of claims lying through the Territory and hundreds of them will be sold every year because the owners do not deem them valuable enough to pay the taxes. Any gentleman familiar with the present system of selling property for taxes can figure up if that system is perpetuated, what the cost is going to be to the State or county to sell these claims year after year and the fees and expenses of making the sale. That is a question of expediency. The other question is the utter injustice of this tax. It is double taxation in the most pronounced sense. What is the value of a mining claim? It is not the surface ground. It is not the rock and the dirt and the grass and the trees and the shrubs that grow there. It is its capacity for producing the precious or other metals and it can only be determined when they shall have been extracted. The price of mining claims has been fixed by the government with due regard to the expense of keeping up the land system and keeping open for the exploration and exploitation by the citizen the mineral domain of the country. It has no relevancy whatever to the value of the ground. You are doing violation to every principle of taxation, by including this in this section, and if, as was suggested, your claim becomes a producer and you arrive at the value of the property and lay the taxing hand upon it, then you have accomplished all that you justly have a right to do. But you would still go further and tax the barren, bare surface ground which has no value whatever. It has not a value simply because you choose arbitrarily to say it is worth five dollars an acre. That is not it. It has no value by its situation, its location, its reference to other property. It has no value other than that as may be developed by its exploration and the money and wealth taken from it. For all these reasons it seems to me it is unwise and unjust and unnecessary. It is admitted that it will accomplish little. The revenue that it produces will be almost imperceptible. It will be eaten up entirely by the expenses of the collector in making the sales of property upon which the citizen will not pay. It will have an effect upon hundreds of poor prospectors, scattered throughout the country, who are clinging to their ewe lamb of a mining claim waiting, hoping against hope that something will turn up to the property near them or something in some way that will enable them to accomplish the ambitions of their lives. Hundreds of them to-day have not enough money to pay for the recording of a mining claim and I do not care how small the tax is, it is a burden upon men who ought to be fostered and encouraged and relieved as much as you can relieve them from such a burden.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Is not that true of many farmers of this Territory?
Mr. VARIAN. I think there is no connection at all. That is an argument that is brought up on all occasions. It {1078} will take too long to go into that discussion.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to ask Mr. Evans_take it away from the railroad where men are holding coal claims, expecting that in the future the railroad will come, and at present they receive nothing from those mines, yet they are holding them, would not this work a hardship on them?

Mr. EVANS (Weber), They simply have to pay a tax at the rate of five dollars an acre.

Mr. ALLEN. Twenty dollars an acre.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). After those lands have been patented, yes. They pay nothing before they are patented.

Mr. ALLEN. I understand that, of ter they are patented they are still holding them, would not it work a hardship upon them. The railroad has not got there yet?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Can the gentleman tell me of any poor men who are developing a coal mine? It is a well known fact that corporations simply monopolize those things, and they are the people who pay this tax.

Mr. ALLEN. But the justness of it_whether it is a poor man or rich man?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, while we are on the coal land proposition, suppose a man made an entry of 160 acres, the land is so situated that the coal dips into perhaps very likely every legal subdivision. In order to cut the vein of coal proper, he has to take the 160 acres, but at the same time there is quite a body of that that don't carry coal. Under this provision he would have to pay on the entire mine, what he paid the government, would he not?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think he would.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I favor the amendment of Mr. Varian, and I have talked with my mining friends about it. This amendment of Mr. Varian refers to the proposition for the taxation of all improvements, of all machinery and of all net proceeds; I think that covers all; by going in and putting that taxation on the mining claims, it kills the industry in its infancy for the prospector. The gentleman asks where is there a poor man that is opening a coal bank. I can point one out to him here in the house, but I can point out a thousand that are improving mining claims of precious metals that from one end of the year to the other have never handled a dollar. They come into the city every day where I am and ask for a little prospecting stake, bacon and beans; he compares them to the people on a ranche, raising chickens and eggs, etc. The prospector never sees any of those luxuries. He would have to feed his chickens on mountain scenery and sun burnt weather. Are you going to put a tax on that man and sell out what he has put his life to accomplish_a claim that he has patented? If you do, gentlemen, you will strike down one of the grandest industries ever started in our new State, and I leave it to your generosity to relieve the poor prospector. Go into the cities and ask capital to go there and invest before the shaft is sunk, it will laugh at you.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, in the first place, the committee having this matter in charge desired to do all they could to encourage mining. They did not have a hostile feeling toward mining. They believed in doing all they could to develop the enterprise and industry and at the same time they believed that mining should bear its just proportion of taxation and of the burdens of the State. I believe that the article as reported is more favorable to mining and miners than that

which exists in all surrounding states. I will read the article in Colorado. (Reads.)
This you will see exempts them for ten years, except on the net product. and after that time it is subject to the will of the Legislature and may be changed from time to time. I have not found one mining man_and I have submitted {1079} this to quite a number of very prominent miners_who was favorable to this section as against the one reported by Utah.

Mr. KEARNS. Might I ask you a question? Have you met any of those prospectors out here that are not prominent miners and had their opinion on it?

Mr. CANNON. I will state that I met Mr. Kearns and Mr. Mackintosh of the committee on mining, and quite a number of other gentlemen; but the point about the prospector to my mind has not any effect for this reason, this does not provide for taxing mines when a man is prospecting. It only provides for taxing them after the ground has been patented, and certainly if it is worth patenting, because the price paid the government is probably only about one-fifth of that that is largely expended in developing mines before they are patented_if it is worth spending that on it, it is certainly worth paying the State a little to retain it. I would call your attention to Nevada, the state from which the gentleman comes who introduced this motion to strike out. (Reads.) That is, the gross proceeds are provided for in this state. I will call attention to that later.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention of the gentleman to the fact that the net proceeds have been taxed and those alone under the laws of Nevada.

Mr. CANNON. The constitution is as I stated, is it not?

Mr. VARIAN. They may have authorized it, but the net proceeds are what are taxed.

Mr. CANNON. The net proceeds are taxed quarterly, which is not so favorable as the way we propose to tax them. They may three-fourths of the year work it at a disadvantage and in the fourth quarter they may make a profit, and the way we provide is an annual tax, that is, they take the whole year and work it the entire year and if there is a profit it is taxed, but in Nevada, it is taxed on each quarter. Montana is the one from which we copied ours, consequently it is practically the same. When we come to Wyoming we find the following provision. (Reads.) .Nov, if they paid twenty dollars an acre for coal land to the government, it stands to reason that it should be assessed at least twenty dollars per acre. Gentlemen, you will see from this that they tax in Wyoming on the gross product, while we tax on the net product. In Nevada, assuming what the gentleman says is true, they tax it quarterly instead of annually. So that there is a discrimination there in favor of Utah. I have in my hand a statement of the ore product of Utah, estimated by Wells, Fargo and Company. The gross product for 1,890 was $11,344,532. I will read the millions: 1891, twelve millions; 1892, eleven millions; 1893, seven millions: 1894, six millions; a total during the five years of $48,992,226. If we were to tax this ,gentlemen, it would amount to about three times that which we propose to tax. It is the way of taxing in Wyoming, and if we would follow their rule we would get a tax amounting to the amount that I have named. I think that under all the circumstances the provision in the Constitution as proposed is eminently just.

I would state that the objection was made by a prominent coal miner here that he thought $20 an acre would be too much and also on the net revenue. I asked him this question, whether he would like to have the law made as it is in Wyoming, which is especially a coal producing state, and I do not think that he was willing to receive it in that form. If Mr. Sharp, who represents large coal interests, would be willing to receive it in that form, so far as I am concerned, I would vote to modify the section so far as coal land is concerned, and make it a tax on the gross product.

Mr. SHARP. Does not the Constitution {1080} of Wyoming provide that the acreage shall be taxed or in lieu thereof, that the gross product? You do not tax both. I think if you turn to that part of it you will find that it says that in lieu of a tax on the land there should be a tax paid on the gross product, and the fact is that the gross product is not taxed in Wyoming. It is only the land.

Mr. CANNON. I only know what the constitution is. I know not what the law is. If they can modify their law there we can do so here.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Sharp, do you know what the tax is in Wyoming?

Mr. SHARP. No, I do not.

Mr. SQUIRES. I only want to call the attention of the committee to one point. An ordinary mining claim as located under recent laws is 1,500 feet by 600 feet; that would contain in the neighborhood of twenty-two and a half acres, Five dollars an acre of valuation would be $112.50, and the tax on that at twelve mills would be $1.35. Now, the gentleman from Salt Lake, when he was speaking to the question, pointed out to you how mining claims through the country would be sold for taxes because they could not afford to pay the taxes. Well, if there is a mining claim in this country that cannot afford to pay $1.35 a year, I think it ought to be sold for taxes or for something else.

Mr. VARIAN. How much will it cost the State to collect that $1 .35?

Mr. SQUIRES. That I could not say.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). The State will have to tax improvements anyway, won't it?


Mr. EVANS ( Weber). And they tax the net profits. They might just as well tax the surface.

Mr. SQUIRES. I call attention to another thing. There are a large number of patented claims in this Territory only 200 feet by 1,500, which would be only about one-third, and of course would only pay about a half a dollar per year.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Isn't it also true, Mr. Squires, that school lands would only be taxed at about twenty-four cents an acre?

Mr. SQUIRES. That is all.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, if a mining claim is property, particularly after it has become the property of the miner, I cannot see any just reason why it should not be taxed. If it is not valuable enough for him to hold it, he will abandon it. But while he holds it, he owns it, and I cannot see how gentlemen can stand upon the floor of this Convention and insist that the farmer,
who probably is a poor man and has a lot of waste land that he has not any way to irrigate and which is bound to lie idle, and he is waiting, hoping year after year that something will turn up, that he may get the benefit of that and derive some profit from it, he is compelled to pay taxes on it. There is not any question about that, is there, gentlemen? And if that be true, in the case of the farmer, why should there be any discrimination in the case of the miner? Now, the gentleman from Salt Lake, awhile ago, in an able speeech [*note*], which convinced me (I voted with him although his proposed amendment failed) said nothing should escape taxation; that we should look to, it the sovereign power of the State, we should find all the property in the State that should be taxed, except such as is generally, by the policy of the State, made exempt from taxation, such as the property of the State, the property of municipal corporations, of all kinds, and property used exclusively for religious worship. Now, is it any hardship on the part of the miner to contribute his little mite to the taxes? I recognize mining as the chief industry of our Territory. I say it ought to be encouraged. It has been the policy to encourage it, but the time has come that every species of property within the State ought to bear its portion of the State burdens, and if that is not true_ {1081} if that is not done, the result will be that the property of some other man or some other class of the community will have to pay the expense of the State, the government incurred in protecting the property of that class which is not made taxable. There are strikes in the mining camps; there are riots by the very nature of the business in which the men are engaged; these things are likely to occur at any time, and the power of the State is demanded by the executive, to go forth at great expense and protect every man in the camp in his proper rights. Why should not they bear the little pitiful portion of the burden that has been suggested here by Mr. Squires, inasmuch as they do not have to pay it until it becomes absolutely their own property, and as long as they hold it as their own property, they ought to pay it just like any other man has to pay, otherwise we are making a discrimination here in favor of one class of the people as against another. I am in favor of the section as it stands.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. Chairman, I shall oppose the gentleman's amendment on my right. My aim and object, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this Convention, is to have the burden of taxation divided properly and equally among every class and upon all property that is liable for taxation. I think that it is proper and just and what we should labor to accomplish, as a body of delegates. I have had to meet some of the difficulties that have been referred to with regard to the exemption of a certain class of property that is now being spoken of within the last few years. And I find, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that there is an extended feeling and opinion in regard to this matter, that partiality has been exercised to a very considerable extent. I have in my mind at the present time, sir, a company who own coal lands that reach into the thousands of acres, and I believe, sir, that last year was the first year that they were ever required to pay a tax. This same company when they had secured their patents_their government titles, were good enough to place notices around upon the surface of these claims, prohibiting even the grazing of cattle upon them. Now, in answer to the gentleman who has referred to the price of these lands and their value, I

would say, as I understand it, that the assessed value of these coal lands after they are a certain distance from the railroad centers is but ten dollars an acre, and I think, sir, that these valuations should be retained and that the revenue officers of the coming State should see that they are taxed reasonably and properly in comparison with other properties that may be eligible. I have been asked frequently why it was that the farmer that would come out here and take up 160 acres of ground, secure a fence around it, perhaps not a drop of water within the vicinity, but expecting that in the future through the system of reservoirs or something of this kind he might be able to cultivate an acre or two of this ground_why it was that this property was taxable, when hundreds of thousands of acres of coal land and other similar claims were exempt, and I think that the gentleman who has been taking up this 160 acres of ground or 40 acres, as the case may be, with a view to make himself a little home, and a comfortable place to live in_a farm, should have just reasons of complaint. I have in mind, sir, now a company that purchased some coal lands in the county that I have the honor to represent, and I believe the figures are from about twenty to twenty-five dollars an acre. They had not secured the titles very long and I considered they got a very handsome interest for the funds they invested. Go and try and purchase some of them and they are almost beyond the reach of ordinary persons in wealth. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the taxation of all classes {1082} of property that are liable to taxation, in order that the burdens of government may be equally and fairly felt in the State.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to one other thing, which I presume is unnecessary, however; the prospector, the man who is looking for mineral, makes a location and as long as he holds that ground un-patented he is compelled to do a hundred dollars' worth of work every year, except that for the last two years Congress has relieved him of that obligation; but under the law of Congress they are expected to work every year and do a hundred dollars' worth of work. Now, the rich man comes in and gets possession of the property and he immediately patents it and as soon as it is patented he is exempt from doing any assessment work on that ground; he locks it up; if there is anything in it the prospector cannot find it, because it does not belong to him; he cannot go into it to search; and these lands are bought up in blocks like that by rich corporations, represented by gentlemen of wealth, in order to prevent the prospector from finding anything within them. They are held for speculative purposes, and it is no burden I believe to the poor man to assess this tax upon the value of the patented property as indicated. The question was asked what it would cost the State to collect $1.35 for one of those claims. I have been thinking that over since. It occurs to me that even if we assess the surface improvements it will be necessary for the assessor to visit the ground. And when he is there it won't take him long to ascertain the size of the claim and be able to fix the rate of taxation.

Mr. VARIAN. How about ground on which there are no improvements_on the tops of the mountains?

Mr. SQUIRES. They can be found right here in the land office without going anywhere else. An examination of the records here right in the land office will furnish all that information, and I do not believe that it is going to cost so much as the gentleman thinks to collect this tax.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, I favor the motion of the gentleman from Salt Lake, not wholly upon the ground that has been set forth here, but upon this ground, as I believe it is fully covered

in the former section. (Reads). Now, it appears to me that that covers the entire ground just as fully as though we went on and continued to enumerate what we have attempted to do here. We have gone on to state that mines and mining claims, both placer and rock in place, containing and bearing gold, copper, coal, lead, and other valuable mineral deposits, after purchase thereof from the United States, shall be taxed at the price paid. Now, why should not we go on and say that all horses and mules that are capable of performing work, that cows that will give milk, and so on, and enumerate all this class of property, shall be taxed at the price paid?

Mr. SQUIRES. Shall I answer the gentleman the question? I judge from the deliberations of the committee that it is because the mines and mining interests of the Territory have heretofore been exempt from taxation, while the horses and the cattle have not.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Because what has been done_this provides simply what it does provide for, and it says, all classes of property.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Eldredge, I think perhaps my friend, Mr. Squires, may have misapprehended the purpose of the committee; the purpose is to prevent the assessor from fixing a value on the Ontario mine, or the Daly mine, or the Silver King, or the Bullion Beck; without such a provision as that, all the assessor would have to do would be to go to the mining claim and say that the mine was worth so much money and assess it just as he would a horse or any other property. Of {1083} course that would be wholly speculative, and the purpose of the committee was to fix some value on the surface improvements and then tax the net profits as well as the improvements.

Mr. ELDREDGE. You might just as well say then, because he paid five hundred dollars for a horse a year ago or five years ago that to-day he should be assessed for five hundred dollars.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Would you have the assessor go and value these mines at their actual value and assess them in that way?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Then you would have to change section 3.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If you would, you could cripple the mining industry so that it would not be worth engaging in.

Mr. ELDREDGE. No exceptions are made, except one thing, it says provided a reduction of debts from credits may be authorized.

Mr. SQUIRES. This section creates an exception.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Then it would be in conflict with the former one. So that after reviewing the whole measures of the article over, I shall support the proposition to strike out down to the word as indicated, “all.”

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a good deal of attention to all of the

arguments and discussion bearing upon this question and I have not discovered anything that affects a case at San Juan.

Mr. SQUIRES. Got some mines down there?

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir; two years ago this past winter, as you all remember, we had a gold craze, a book down there and miners came in from all sections and took up and located claims for eighty miles up and down the river from where I live. They did not stop at our farms and our orchards and our houses and lands, but located every foot of ground on the borders of the river. Did not take in the sand rock bluffs above the town there, but otherwise than that, they located every inch and foot_my house where I lived, my little orchard; my lucern patch, corn patch, is all under placer claims, and I am assessed or supposed to be assessed; I am part owner in those claims, too; and I am assessed on my lucern patch and on everything that is on top of the ground. Now, this looks to me like double taxation.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Varian, the committee divided and by a vote of 18 ayes (noes not counted) the motion was rejected.

The committee then rose and reported as follows:

The committee of the whole has had under consideration the article on labor and arbitration, has completed the same, and reported it for third reading. They also have proceeded with the article on taxation and revenue to and including section 4.

The committee on accounts and expenses reported as follows:

Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention:

We, your committee on accounts and expenses, beg leave to report the following:

There has been expended up to and including this date as per accounts on file, the sum of twenty-five thousand, eight hundred and eleven and seventy-two hundredths dollars ($25,811.72), leaving a balance of four thousand, one hundred and eighty-eight and twenty-eight hundredths dollars ( $4,188.28 ). The foregoing includes the salaries of members and officers and all expenses up to date.

We recommend that the members be paid up to and including Tuesday, the forty-fourth day, and that the balance be held for the payment of the officers of the Convention in full, the printing of the minutes, the printing of 1,000 copies of the Constitution of the State of Utah, and any other contingent expenses. The remainder should be divided pro rata among the members of the Convention.



Report was adopted.
The Convention, then, at 5:55 o'clock p. m., adjourned.

[Legislature Home Page][Previous Day][Next Day][Back to Menu of Days]