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

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

Roll called, showing a quorum present.

Prayer was offered by Rev. A. Kinney Hall, of St. Mark's Cathedral.

The minutes of the twenty-sixth day's session were read and approved.

Petitions and memorials.

A petition was presented, signed by 1811 citizens of Logan, asking that the question of prohibition be submitted to the people.

Referred to the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Mr. Lewis presented a memorial signed by 3700 residents of Weber County, requesting that the question of prohibition be submitted to the vote of the people.

Referred to the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Mr. Miller presented a petition asking for the submitting of the question of prohibition to the legal voters, signed by residents of Sevier County.

Referred to committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Mr. Peters presented a petition, signed by Rev. E. H. Snow and others, of Corinne, asking that the question of prohibition be submitted to the people as a separate proposition.

Referred to the committee on schedule, future amendments and miscellaneous.

Unfinished business.

The PRESIDENT. I would state to the Convention that when we adjourned last night, we had under consideration the preamble and bill of rights and had reached the tenth section, which was referred to the committee on judiciary, with instructions to report this morning.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I see the chairman is not here, and I should assume to say, that we have had under consideration section 10 of the bill of rights, and a draft has been agreed upon and has just been placed in the hands of committee clerks to be written out. I have a draft here, which, if it is desired, can be presented now. I will offer it as the report of the committee on judiciary, and ask that it be filed and taken up in its regular order.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention then went into committee of the whole, with Mr. Buys in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, when we adjourned yesterday, I believe we had under consideration, the article on elections and right of suffrage.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, at first I did not intend to speak to the question which is before us for consideration, but as it has taken such a wide range, and has circumscribed a vast field for reflection, I feel that I cannot pass the opportunity of speaking and expressing a few words on this subject. I have no set speech prepared and whatever I might say, will be drawn from the resources of my soul at the moments the expressions receive utterance.

I realize fully that the condition confronting us is peculiar in itself, and opens a wide and broad field for reflection. I realize, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of this Convention, that man and woman's destiny is inseparably connected, and whatever pertains to the interest of one circumscribes and involves the interests of the other. Whatever is of a nature detrimental to one of a matter of necessity it is injurious to the other. We have heard doctrine enunciated here that in many instances is somewhat different from my views of the subject. We have been told that woman does not possess an inherent right to the suffrage, that suffrage does not lie upon that basis, that it is the privilege granted by the government. If this be a fact, where does man possess the inherent right of the exercise of that privilege?

If I mistake not, governments are framed by the consent of the governed, and whatever power or authority there exists in governments, they acquire it from those who are governed.

This being the case, then is it reasonable that governments possess the right to give the privilege of franchise without having first secured that right from the governed?

They only exercise such powers as the people see fit to confer upon the government, and, therefore, if it is a power invested in the government, that government has derived it from the people. Who are the people? It would be utterly impossible for a government to exist, with only those who claim the right of suffrage in its narrow sense. Governments without a people would be what we behold in many parts of this great country_extinct when the people become extinct.

Our forefathers must have had this under consideration_forefathers who were not mere ciphers; forefathers who were not indifferent to the interest of the children of men; forefathers who had no disregard for liberty and human rights, but forefathers who had interest in establishing a government; forefathers who had an interest in securing to themselves, to hand down to their posterity, liberty and the right to pursuit of happiness; forefathers who were unable to grant entire

conceptions of the human race; fore-fathers who were willing to bare their breasts to any steel and any lead, that we might inherit the liberties that we now possess; that brought from the mother country their freedom and their liberty, and they have thus provided that class of men in England that has been handed down in the fundamental law that governs this grand nation. We have this declaration in the Constitution of our country:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government.

If any state should assume to curtail the privilege, it would be the duty of the general government to step in under this provision, and which we have accepted and adopted, and say that there cannot be any invasion upon the rights of that sacred privilege of right.

Man has a voice in saying who shall make the laws that govern him. Man has a voice in saying who shall execute those laws. Man has a voice in saying who shall place the valuation on his property. Man has a voice in saying who shall expend the revenue that is collected by reason of the assessed valuation of his property in conformity with law. Is there any more reason, in the light of justice and equality, that man should exercise these rights than there is that that person, who, as the eminent gentleman from Davis County said, was created for the express purpose of walking side by side with man? Their feelings and their sentiments in a large degree are simply in conformity with ours; if not, I had viewed the human family from a wrong standpoint.

We are confronted here with the idea that platforms are only made for expediency sake, such logic has been advanced, and there is nothing sacred in such documents.

I cannot view it exactly in this light. I wish to briefly review the history which led up into the election of perhaps every gentleman in this Convention. When the republicans met in territorial convention in Utah County, and the question there was presented of woman suffrage, was it presented from one side of the people of this Territory? Let me say that in that convention was alike Mormon and non-Mormon. In that convention representatives from the ex-people's as well as from the ex-liberal party. I presume that there was no thought or distinction made when they were electing those delegates to that convention as to what their former political standing was, or as to whether they were Mormons or not Mormons. They had, as I supposed, buried the differences and the bitterness of the past. They had come out upon party lines; upon any grounds, they were children of the same Great Creator, their interests were identical with each other, the prosperity of one meant the prosperity of the other, and it was supposed they had agreed to lay old issues past, come forth unto the broad standard that had been laid down by the great parties of this nation, and walk hand in hand for a common purpose. And, perhaps, it will only be just for me to say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman who was the chairman of that committee upon platform was a non-Mormon, was a person that had come from the ranks of the ex-liberal party,

and upon that committee it was evenly divided, so far as I recollect, betwixt Mormon and non- Mormon, and when that measure was proposed, I remember well the expression that I gave upon that occasion. I was a member of that committee. I said, “so far as the matter of right is concerned, there is no question in my mind whatever, now; I believe that it is as much an inalienable right upon the woman as it is upon the man,” but I said, “as for the wisdom of the measure, I somewhat question it.” And let me here state, Mr. Chairman, that I have had no occasion to change my opinion, as for the matter of right there is not a doubt in my mind; as for the wisdom it is a question. You may call it wisdom or you may call it expediency. Man has a right to thrust his hand into the fire if he chooses, {498} but, in the language perhaps of one that has preceded me on this floor, it will make an “all-fired sore.” But there is no question about that right; man has his agency, to exercise it as he sees fit, subject to an accounting for that agency. If this were not an immutable law, then the Author of our existence is a respecter, of persons. and that which is immutable and eternal in its nature, man cannot change.

The complexion under which our souls are clothed, the difference of conditions under which we came into this world, demonstrate that there must be merit_reward and punishment. If not, then there must be in that all-giving Life a proper respecter of persons.

And in that platform the plank of woman suffrage was placed. It was presented to the convention and the convention received it with open arms, and with the greatest enthusiasm. Not a word was expressed against it, and not a voice in it denouncing the doctrine. It passed. It went abroad. It was telegraphed to every town and every city and every village, where telegraph communication is in this Territory, that the republican party had placed within their platform a woman suffrage plank. There was no mass meeting held in protest against such a measure. There were no speakers who went upon the stump and denounced the principle. And in conformity with the doctrines laid forth in that platform, primaries were held, delegates were elected to county conventions, and county conventions were held, and men received nomination for delegates to this Convention, upon that platform, and that platform was the plank for woman suffrage. As with the republican party, so it was with the democratic party, they enunciated the same principles concerning this particular item in their declaration of principles. We accepted the nomination under those provisions, the election was had, we entered no protest against it, and we were elected. I hold that at that point then we passed a transition of right that to exercise our own judgment as the accepting a delegated authority, it was no longer your opinion or my opinion, it was the opinion of the people universally upon that question. It came to us as a trust, that we should see that, so far as that provision was concerned, it should be carried out.

I then had accepted it with full knowledge of the situation; I had accepted it also with the belief that it was a right that woman was entitled to; it was as much an inherent right in her as it was in man. But as I said, I had questioned the wisdom. When we come here then, do we come here to set aside the judgment that has been given before? Do we come here to ignore the trust that has been reposed in us? Do we come here with a view of overlooking all that has been said and done in this matter, and fall back upon our individual judgment? I hold, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this Convention, that there was a sacred trust entrusted to us, that we had a certain delegated authority which we were supposed to magnify, and though it put statehood in jeopardy, would that justify us in deviating from the course which we have marked out? I would say let

statehood_like the able gentleman from Utah County remarked, in regard to expediency_“go to the dogs” rather than betray the trust that has been reposed in us.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. Is there any thing in the republican platform that says, “put it in the Constitution”_in the republican platform?

Mr. ELDREDGE. I believe the platform answers the gentleman's question.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. I say, is there anything in the republican platform {499} which says that it shall be engrafted in the Constitution?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes, that we favored the question of equal suffrage.

Mr. MACKINTOSH. We can do that through the people in the Legislature or in any other way. The question is, is a man betraying any trust by not voting for it here, and adopting it in the Constitution?

Mr. ELDREDGE. But, says one, statehood_don't you want statehood? Yes, I want statehood. I appreciate the sparkling gem. I appreciate the privileges and blessings that are to be enjoyed under statehood. I see it dazzling before my vision constantly. But do I want statehood at the sacrifice of honor?

This brings me back to the sentiments expressed in the minority report, and I trust gentlemen will excuse me for referring to them, because I think that if there is any question lurking under a cover, that here, and here alone, it should be brought to the front, and that if we had not had a common understanding in the past, it is high time that we understood one another now.

(Reads minority report as follows:)

A widespread fear prevails, that, with the privileges restored (that is the privilege of woman suffrage) the old overwhelming forces would destroy the present equality of purpose; it always leads to confusion, if not tyranny, and awakens a terrible temptation on the part of those that ruled before to assume their sway of working upon the generous impulses and religious instincts of woman, which would result in political if not social and business ostracism of the minority.

I supposed that when we divided upon party lines, and agreed to bury the differences and bitterness in which we had come through, that those things should lay dormant, and that we would march hand in hand to a common purpose, looking to the interests of the citizens of our

Territory, with a desire constantly in view of placing that star of Utah upon the glorious banner, made more so because it was designed by woman, to take its place in common with the balance of the states of the Union. But if there is a general lurking fear of this nature, we should probe it to the very quick, and if there is anything in it we should recognize it, and if there is not, it should be set aside and let the past be the past.

I am familiar with the history of this people, with the colonizing of this inter-mountain region. From the earliest period of my remembrance, those grand old mountains stand in my vision. My education, if it may be called such, was not acquired in colleges and institutions of learning. It was acquired in this inter-mountain region by the humble fireside after a hard day's work, or in these mountains after the close of the day's rustling with the timber, there, by a fireside upon those broad prairies, after a hard day's march, with only the open canopy of heaven for my covering; the people's sufferings and privations have been my sufferings and privations; their hunger, in early days, has been my hunger, and I know the integrity of their hearts and of their purposes. I know that they have come up through trying scenes of many a nature and of diverse character, until we have reached that point where I was in hopes that the glorious sunlight which has been so long within our vision, sparkling across the horizon, was here at our door; and then to be confronted with such circumstances as we have here, makes me wonder, and it makes me hesitate, and it makes me say, if those things are general, that probation should still be continued. Gentlemen, now I can afford to wait as long as you can afford to wait, until the differences {500}
and bitterness of the past have been buried beneath our feet, and that we have confidence in each other to a reasonable and a proper extent at least. I am willing to say this much, gentlemen of this Convention, and I would be willing to pledge my life, or what is more sacred to me, my honor, that those conditions will never rise, unless it is in the interests of defense. Never. Let me ask, in making selections of delegates to represent the people, whether it be in county conventions, or in territorial conventions, or in constitutional conventions, has there, in any instance, been any inclination on the part of the Mormon people to discriminate in any way against the non-Mormon people? Has it been manifested? You can all, perhaps, answer this yourselves.

Have the Mormon people not been willing to accord, and that cheerfully, a full representation to their non-Mormon brethren. If they had not it has not come to my observation. Now, let me turn the question over. Has there been any disposition, at any time, or anywhere since the division upon party lines, in which our non-Mormon brethren have laid plots, schemes, or sought to devise measures_

Mr. RALEIGH. I wish to ask a question. I would like to ask the gentleman what non-Mormon or Mormon has to do with this question before this Convention? I thought we had come here as democrats and republicans.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I thought so myself. I will answer the gentleman of Salt Lake, and in answer to his question, I will call his attention to the report made upon this question that we are now discussing, and in that is developed a question which I think we should reach a full understanding upon. Turn it over and ask the other element if we are going to so consider it, if there has been any thing on that side, and let them answer that. Let's all answer. Then if we are satisfied that these fears here expressed are not general_and let me say right here, Mr. Chairman, the reason

that I have attached more importance to it perhaps than I would on other occasions, is because I take into consideration the standing and the ability and the character of the gentlemen that made the report. I suppose they are in a position to know and to understand at least to a reasonable extent, the sentiments of their associates in a political way. I know that I am in a position to understand and to know, and I judge them from my standpoint, and I believe that it is a fair criterion to be governed by. So that if there is nothing afloat to justify these fears and these misgivings, then let us let the past be the past and go on working for a common interest and a common purpose; if there is anything to justify it, let us bring it to the front and have an understanding that we may know in the future where we do stand. I am in favor of statehood, first and last and all the time; providing the conditions are ripe for such a step in advance, and that we can acquire it without sacrificing any principle or any honor. But under no other circumstances, am I in favor of such a measure. I say, let us keep our pledges faithfully, let us fulfill, according to our own declarations, which we have agreed to, and if it is not wisdom, the future will develop that, if it should be wise, then all the better for us; our steps are not like the Medes and Persians; though it may be a constitution and that constitution may be accepted and ratified by the people, it is not to endure for all time; it is subject to improvements and amendments. The power that was in the people to delegate us to create it still remains to delegate people to amend it. And, therefore, I am in favor of the committee's report, and shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. EVANS (Weber.) Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: in the language of the great statesman, somewhat {501} paraphrased, I will say, sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I am for equal suffrage. During the days of debate upon this question, conflicting views have arisen among our delegates, and it is well enough after the storm of discussion, to pause a moment and understand where we are. As I understand the question before this committee, it is this: first, is it expedient that at this time we should insert a clause in the Constitution of our new State giving women an equal right with men in the civil affairs of our government; and second, will it degrade women and unsex them?

I will discuss the first briefly, somewhat in a line in reply to the distinguished gentleman from Davis County. He has expressed many admirable thoughts, but, gentlemen, to my mind, although he has discussed the question of logic, we shall see whether, in the light of the facts, it be logical or illogical. Some six or seven points have been made in their turn, all of which are expressive of a fear of endangering statehood for Utah. Woman suffrage is one, the fear of taxation another, the subject of prohibition another. The fear of an element in this Territory which exists in their midst, with respect to the old condition of affairs, is another. And so it is. What is it all when it is summed up together? It is a fear that Utah's statehood may be defeated. Gentlemen in eloquent terms declare that it is courageous to stand single handed and alone, an admirable and eloquent thought indeed; but gentlemen, is it true? I maintain that the courage in the discussion of this question is upon the part of those who are here insisting upon the right of woman to take her part in the political concerns of the government. Holland, Sweden, and Australia and Austria, and three of our states, give women suffrage either in whole or in part. In the nations first named, property classification alone is required, and in some thirteen other states, I believe, partial woman suffrage is given. Aside from these cases and localities, women have never exercised the right of franchise equal with men. The prejudices of the human race are against it and have been for ages past. Since the time that it was written in holy writ, that the desires of the wife should be

to her husband and he should rule over her_from that time to this that scriptural command has been used against woman in the exercise of her rights of suffrage, in the civil affairs of government. Does that mean that which gentlemen claim for it, that man shall rule over woman in a political sense? Does it mean that man shall tyrannize over woman? Does it mean that she shall not have equal rights with man in administering the government to whose laws she is as amenable as men? I contend that no such construction can be placed upon it. Gentlemen of the committee, the cause of these prejudices, ages after ages, has been transmitted to us, and naturally we have prejudices against extending this right to woman.

Free thought better than the throne? Certainly it is; but, gentlemen, in our system of republican government the voters at the polls are the kings, and the people who occupy the throne, and the officer, is the servant of the people. If, then, it be true that in republican government and in theory, men are the kings and the officers are their servants, why not also elevate woman in the same sense to the throne to which she is entitled? I would rather give a free expression of thought upon this question, although it be unpopular, than to occupy a throne. It is the unpopular side of the question we are taking, gentlemen, and the distinguished gentleman is shrewd enough to know it. Get outside of particular localities where we are_the particular circle in which we move, and the sentiment is against the progress we are about to take in this Convention. But {502} gentlemen say it will imperil the Constitution. Imperil the Constitution, will it? How can it imperil it? The intimation is thrown out that the President of the United States will withhold his signature, or rather his proclamation. What right or power has the executive of this nation to withhold the proclamation, the result of the vote upon the Constitution? The Enabling Act, under which we are here assembled and organized, expressly provides that when the Constitution shall have been submitted to the people, and if it be ratified by their votes, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to declare the result. It is merely a perfunctory duty upon his part. It would be that of tyranny and oppression, were he to withhold the proclamation. And whatever else may be said of Grover Cleveland, he is one of those men, gentlemen, who has the courage to do that which is right, and I would therefore dispel the idea which seems to be prevailing among the people that it might endanger statehood to insert the section proposed by the committee. I join, however, my views with those who say that if it be right that woman should occupy her place in the government of the new State, I would have the courage to stand by my pledges and by my principles and would relegate myself with the balance of the people of Utah back into a territorial vassalage. Talk about fears when we are doing right! Suppose at the time that we were struggling for independence against the great powers of Europe that Washington would have said, “I fear some danger if we take this important step for liberty?” What did Patrick Henry do when he hurled his slogan at the head of George the Third, “Give me liberty or give me death?”

Why not, then, stand in his place and say to the suffering colonies pleading and demanding their rights of representation in a free government: “I fear that if we demand it that the gallows might be our lot.” Gentlemen, suppose at the time that the colonies were in Valley Forge, that their leaders, they had feared the greatest nation on earth, England, the mistress of the seas and pride of the world, with munitions of war and trained soldiers_suppose we had in those days men standing in holy fear of the great power which they were contending against, to-day, we would have been in a position of dependency; but men did not take that course at that time; they were courageous, patriotic and fearless, as men ought to be in this Convention.

These rights cannot be demanded as a right_neither inalienable or naturally; they cannot be made so without constitutional provision.

But, gentlemen, the distinguished gentleman was very fair_extremely fair; he says whether this provision be inserted in the Constitution or not, he will be found upon the stump, everywhere advocating its adoption. He is so very fair about it, that it seems to me that there can be no objection at all to that. It reminds me about a little story of a jovial fellow once, who had been out a little late; he had taken a little too much spirits for his moral or physical welfare. On the way home it became necessary to hold to the railings of the fence as he staggered along; he came to a gate which opened into a graveyard; swinging around by the gate he soon fell behind an old fashioned tombstone, and fell into a deep sleep. In the morning a funeral procession came into the graveyard, headed by the clergyman reading from the ritual, “Even as in Adam all shall die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

The fellow roused up and says, “Well, that's a fair enough proposition, sure enough.”

Gentlemen, if it is fair_if it is fair to work for this provision in the Constitution, whether it be inserted there or not, it resolves itself back to the same question, is it fair? Is it fair that women should exercise this right which we propose to give them? I might quote another passage of scripture, although I am not much of a divine, which might be applicable somewhat to the gentleman from Davis, and probably one of the things which he might fear. I believe that Isaiah once prophesied that, “as to my people their children shall be their oppressors, and women shall rule over them.” [Laughter.]

I wonder if it is that fear that exists in the mind of my esteemed friend that he opposes so strenuously this proposition. But, gentlemen, let me proceed a little further. Is not it true that this is a reform which we propose to here adopt? If it be a reform, then is not it also true that every reform which has ever been practised or carried on in the history of the world, was carried on by

those shining lights of courage? Courage is what is wanted here, and I doubt not but the committee will take the step when the time shall arrive.

I will leave the question of expediency now just for a moment, and I will go into the question of the right of woman to exercise the franchise as well as the man. Gentlemen, as I understand the argument, it is this: that if woman be given this right it will drag her down from the exalted pinnacle of admiration where she is placed in the estimation of man; that it will drag her into the mire of politics; that it will unsex her. If those were true, then I would oppose woman suffrage, and so would every other man. The only trouble about it, gentlemen, is, is the premise itself right? That is the question to consider. I care not now whether you consider the question of platform or not; for my own individual part, I would absolve every man from any party pledge he has made, I would not begrudgingly extend the right of franchise to the opposite sex if it is not right that she should have it, and if I believed it was not right that she should have it, I would cast my vote against it irrespective of platforms. It was once said by Senator Hill, I believe, that political platforms were like the platforms of a car, made to get in on and not to ride on. Some men regard platforms of parties in that light. My distinguished friend says, they are like the shifting clouds in the sky, shifting here and there and everywhere, for the purpose of political gain and advantage. For my own part, so far as our platform is concerned, upon which we stand, I believed it was right when it was passed; I participated in its formation, and voted for its adoption. I {504} believed then that it was right; I believe that it was right before; I believe that it is right now. But, so far as those platforms are concerned individually, I would absolve any man from them upon this important question. But there is one thing, gentlemen, that we ought to do to be consistent with ourselves, being members of a political party where the representatives of the parties come together, and, in the same convention declare for an important principle. I think that if any gentleman in that party does not believe in the platform, that he ought to make it known. I believe in honesty to his constituents and the people; he should say he cannot stand on it. Not made an issue, so my distinguished friend says. Not made an issue? Of course it was not, simply because both political parties declared in favor of it. There was no chance to join an issue on this question. My republican friends, I give you my right hand of fellowship, and for one I stand here not only for the honor of myself, but for the honor of my party and for the people of Utah. Will it drag woman into the mire of politics? Can it do it? Why, the report of the minority committee is to the effect that women in intellectual attainments are the equals of men. Indeed, their report goes on to say that they are better; but they do not want to drag them into the mire of politics. Let us put the proposition this way, gentlemen, you should oppose woman suffrage, and let us see whether it is logical or not to oppose it. If women are the equal of men in intellectual attainments, and are better in point of morality, why not logically disfranchise men and give women the right to carry on the affairs of this government?

Is it to be argued that the worst element of society is to carry on this government? That is the logical conclusion; but, gentlemen, neither is the case. There are good men, there are bad women; there are bad men and there are good women; in my opinion, it is a question of what they are by right entitled to have. If they are entitled to this right of franchise, it makes no difference whether a portion of them be good and a portion of them be bad, or whether they all be good or better than men. Will any gentleman say to me that it is degrading for me to walk side by side with my mother to the polls to cast my ballot with her? Would any gentleman insist that it would be

demoralizing that I should go with my sister or my wife; that we should consult with each other with respect to the administration of the affairs of government, and make up our minds to vote? Why, gentlemen, think of it, slavery was the real cause of the civil war; it was so stated by General Grant in his memoirs.

This country was racked from center to circumference in the preservation of the Union, and for the purpose of liberating millions of people from bondage and from slavery. A constitutional guaranty was given these people concerning the elective franchise; even the Enabling Act under which we are assembled here to-day gives that class of people the right of the elective franchise. It gives the Indian_aborigines of this country_the right when he severs his tribal relations and is taxed. Under our institution and form of government, the drunken bum in the rut can walk proudly to the polls and cast his ballot whether it be venial or honest. Men charged and convicted of crime have the right to vote, and yet, in the midst of all this, even in this enlightened age and period of time, we say that woman shall not have the right. Gentlemen, is there any consistency in this?

My position is that it will purify politics, that it will not degrade women, it will elevate them, cause them to think and reflect upon the institutions of our {505} country that we will march on to a higher civilization and a better government.

But, gentlemen, upon this question, when it comes to discussing it upon its merits, I believe that no reason has yet been given why woman should not have the suffrage. If any reason has been given it does not appeal to my mind. Some men say it would endanger the question of prohibition, if women have it, and that is one of the arguments, I believe, used in the minority report. While I am not in favor of prohibition, if women have the right to vote, and if they desire prohibition, why should not they have it? I see that amuses my friend on my left.

Mr. ROBERTS. Excuse me, it was not I who laughed.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Oh, it is a government of the people. If the people desire to put better restrictions upon that traffic, have not they the right to do it? Would it be in the interest of morality and a better form of government, and a better state of society? Gentlemen, talk about selfish purposes, and about political aspirations. I care nothing about it, but other gentlemen have selfish purposes for opposing the right of women to vote. Gentlemen, upon this question, I believe, upon my honor, that the people of Utah would dishonor themselves were they to deny this right under the circumstances. I vote for the proposition as inserted in the majority report, I would vote until the last vote expired. I would vote for our homes and our futures, I would vote for equal suffrage and in our native land.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with no common interest to what I consider one of the greatest debates which it has fallen to my lot to hear; and I do not rise to contribute my quota of argument because I deem it necessary that I should speak in order to decide this question. It is not so much from a desire to be heard, as it is to respect the wishes and respond to the requests of certain of my friends, that I now take part in this discussion. To me it is battle of destiny that is in progress, and the battles of destiny are won before they are fought. The success

of the movement for woman suffrage is a foregone conclusion; and were it not that gentlemen may wish, as I do, to respond to the requests of their friends and place themselves on record in this connection, I opine that not many more would impose on the patience of the Convention.

I have listened enraptured to the eloquent periods that have rolled forth from the lips of the gifted men who have preceded me, and have spoken upon either side of this question. I was particularly charmed with the eloquent remarks of the gentleman from Davis County, Mr. Roberts, whom I not only admire as a gifted man, but esteem as a personal friend_sincere, I believe, in the position he has assumed, and anxious only to defend the right as he sees it. I could not but admire the courage with which he faced a frowning multitude, and withstood the onslaughts of a multitudinous foe. While he was speaking my mind scanned the pages of history in quest of some hero with whom to compare him. I thought of Horatius at the Roman bridge, standing single- handed and alone, beating back the Tuscan legions advancing to attack the Eternal City; and I fain would have compared my friend to that hero of antiquity. But I could not; because Horatius was fighting for freedom, and in my opinion my eloquent but mistaken friend was fighting against it. [Applause].

I went back farther into the past. I thought of Leonidas and his three hundred Spartans, defending the pass of Thermopylae against the overwhelming hordes of Persians, sweeping down like an avalanche upon his native land. I wanted to compare him to that hero_one of the noblest in history_but again I was met by the reflection that {506} Leonidas fought and fell in a battle for liberty, and I was convinced that my friend from Davis County was taking part in no such engagement. [Applause.]

Then I remembered a little anecdote_one that is doubtless trite and common-place to you all. A bull was feeding in a pasture through which a railway track extended, along which an express train was advancing at lightning speed. The bull got upon the track and tried to prevent the train from passing. He did not seem to know what was coming, and “preferring his free thought to a throne” [laughter], planted himself squarely in the way of the invincible power that came rushing and roaring on. The bull, I say, did not seem to know what was coming, but the farmer, his owner, did [laughter], and with a gasp of astonishment, mingled with admiration he exclaimed: “Well I admire your courage, but d--n your judgment.” [Laughter and applause.]

But I did not like to compare my friend to a dumb animal; he had given convincing proof that he was not dumb; and though there was once an animal that spake [laughter], the property of one Balaam [renewed laughter], it spake by inspiration from on high, so that I could not compare it to the gentleman from Davis County. [Laughter and applause.]

Finally my mind, coming down to modern times, rested upon a scene made memorable in history, and I thought I had at last found the object of my search_a proper subject for comparison. Imagination pictured that eventful day_June 18, 1815_when the allied armies, the representatives of banded nations, stood facing upon the field of Waterloo one bold, independent, desperate man, embodying in his person the imperial despotism from which Europe struggled to be free. During the first day's discussion of this question, I thought I saw enacted before my eyes the scenes of that memorable occasion. I heard the thunder of the cannon, belching death and destruction

across the narrow valley from mountain to mountain. I saw the French march up the slope and attack the English squares. There were charges and counter-charges. I heard the Prussian trumpet blow, and the patter of their bullets as they fell in the midst of the fray. I saw the Old Guard make its last charge and “foam itself away.” Then the Wellingtons and Bluchers arose; the cry was, “Up guards and at them!” and down the slopes pell-mell rushed the overwhelming, irresistible force of victors flinging themselves upon the vanquished. I had thought of taking part in the action, but remembering what history has to say of those who pursued the flying French, slaughtering for the mere love of slaughter, I could not convince myself that it was my duty to pursue, Blucher-like, with sword in hand, an already defeated enemy. I supposed that the battle was over, that the issue involved was decided; but it seems that I was mistaken. I had not been witnessing Waterloo at all. It was the defeat at Leipsic that I beheld, and the fleeing Napoleon was but banished to Elba, and not to St. Helena. He returned, insisting that he had not been conquered, and entered upon another campaign. Then we had a Waterloo indeed, and all these scenes were re-enacted.

Standing here to-day, not as a participant in the strife, but rather as some wandering Childe Harold, musing upon the battlefield, treading “this place of skulls,” the grave of ambitious hopes and desires, I feel more like moralizing than fightfng the battle over again.

There was one thing in the eloquent oration of the gentleman from Davis County that I did not much admire. He may not have meant it, and if he disclaims it, I shall accept his disclaimer. But running all through his remarks was the seeming imputation that all who opposed him and stood with the majority upon this question, in favor of woman suffrage, were actuated {507} by motives less noble and honorable than his own. He alone stood for principle, towering like a colossus in the midst of the debris surrounding him, while we who differed from him were merely indulging in maudlin sentiment, seeking for women's smiles, reaching after laurel wreaths with which, it was intimated, fair hands were waiting to bedeck our brows. I have seen no laurel wreaths distributed. I saw a bouquet of roses yesterday [laughter] standing upon the table at my left (Mr. Roberts' place). I presume it was put there for Mr. Thurman (Mr. Roberts' near neighbor), since he is one of those who have been reaching after such things [laughter], but I noticed that it was Mr. Roberts who walked away with it after adjournment. [Renewed laughter and applause].

I know not what reasons the gentleman has for thinking that his opponents are actuated by selfish and sordid motives. But I wish to say to him, and to all, that because a man “stands alone,” in the midst of “the wreck of matter and the crash of worlds,” that of itself is no sure sign that he is right, or more sincere and honest than his fellows. I grant you that in most of the great crises of history the minority have been right and the majority wrong. The grandest heroes are generally found among the few. One of our American poets has said:

Count me o'er earth's chosen heroes,_

    They were souls who stood alone,

While the men they agonized for

    Hurled the contumelious stone,

Stood serene, and down the future

    Saw the golden beam incline

To the side of perfect justice,

    Mastered by their faith divine,

By one man's plain truth to manhood

    And to God's supreme design.

And when it became necessary, after ninety years of waiting, to make good the promise virtually pledged by the patriot founders of the nation, and the edict went forth that struck from the wrists of millions of slaves the fetters which bound them, and which had not been removed, notwithstanding the great declaration of freedom, it was the fiat of the Almighty that blazed from the lips of Lincoln, and it was the voice of the majority of the people that said “Amen.”

The heroes of romance are always in the minority. The hero of the great epic, Paradise Lost, is not the Eternal Father, sitting upon His throne surrounded by numberless concourses of angels; not the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; not the archangel, Michael, invincible in battle, with two-thirds of the hosts of heaven at his back. Neither of these is the hero of Paradise Lost. It is Lucifer, the fallen, that bold, brave, independent spirit “who dared look the omnipotent tyrant in his everlasting face and tell him that his evil was not good.” He is the hero of the poem, the one toward whom the current of romantic sentiment naturally tends. But was he right? Because he stood alone, or with the minority, because he dug his own grave and went down into the depths with the heavens weeping over his fall, was he right or any more sincere than those who opposed him?

Were Lee, Jackson and Beauregard right because they fought upon the weaker side, and, in the eyes of the romancist, are the heroes of our great civil strife? No; let the current of generous {508} sympathy go out to them as it will, let the romancist choose his heroes where he may, the fact remains that they were wrong, and the Grants, Shermans and Sheridans were the instruments of Providence to put them down. It was the voice of the minority that spoke at Sumter, but it was the voice of the majority that thundered at Shiloh, Gettysburg and Appomattox.

Majorities, I repeat, are sometimes right, and I believe the majority upon this floor are right when they say, we will put woman suffrage in the Constitution; we will strike the fetters from the wrists of our wives, mothers, sisters and daughters; we will grant them the boon already granted to the black man under the pledge of the declaration that “all men are created equal” and that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;” we will take one more step in the mighty march of human liberty, which has been sweeping down the ages from the dawn of time even until now.

All the arguments against woman suffrage, however plausible, however sincere they may be, are simply pleas for non-progression. The eloquent notes that have been sounded here, while they

please the ear and charm the senses, are not harmonious with the morning stars. They are not in tune with the march of human advancement. I stand for progress and not for stagnation. I believe that politics can be and will be something more than a filthy pool in which depraved men love to wallow. It is a noble science the_science of government_and it has a glorious future. And I believe in a future for woman, commensurate with the progress thereby indicated. I do not believe that she was made merely for a wife, a mother, a cook, and a housekeeper. These callings, however honorable_and no one doubts that they are so_are not the sum of her capabilities. While I agree with all that is true and beautiful in the portrayals that have been made of woman's domestic virtues and the home sphere, and would be as loath as anyone to have her lose that delicacy and refinement, that femininity which has been so deservedly lauded, I do not agree that this would necessarily follow, that she could not engage in politics and still retain those lovable traits which we so much admire. I believe the day will come when through that very refinement, the elevating and ennobling influence which woman exerts, in conjunction with other agencies that are at work for the betterment of the world, all that is base and unclean in politics_which when properly understood and practised is as high above the chicanery of the political trickster as heaven is above hades_will be “burnt and purged away,” and the great result will justify woman's present participation in the cause of reform. It is not a sufficient answer to sneeringly inquire, how all this wonderful improvement is to be brought about? Even folly may ask questions that wisdom cannot answer. Reformers always build better than they know. It is Providence that directs their labors and guides them to their result. It is woman's destiny to have a voice in the affairs of government. She was designed for it. She has a right to it. This great social upheaval, this woman's movement that is making itself heard and felt, means something more than that certain women are ambitious to vote and hold office. I regard it as one of the great levers by which the Almighty is lifting up this fallen world, lifting it nearer to the throne of its Creator. What matters it if in the process some corrupt institutions perish, some antiquated errors are set aside, some narrow notions destroyed that are held by those who assume to know already what is the acme of woman's civilization and refinement? Let the fittest survive, What have we to fear? Let truth and falsehood grapple. {509} We will crown the brows of the victor and say: “You were worthy to survive.”

Much has been said of the subversion of the domestic empire if woman takes part in politics. She cannot tamper with its filth and not befoul herself_she will not lift it up, but it will drag her down, we are told. My eloquent friend, in one of his most beautiful similes, spoke of two rivers, the Mississippi and the Missouri, one clear and sparkling mingling its pure waters with the turbid tide of the other, and in answer to the hypothetical argument that the muddy stream was never so muddy afterwards, he replied: “No, but neither was the clear and sparkling stream ever clear again.” And there he left it. He did not tell you that those streams, those blended rivers were on their way to the ocean, where all that was muddy and unclean would sink to the bottom where it belongs, while all that was sparkling and clear would mingle with the limpid tide of the “self- purifying, unpolluted sea”_“the image of eternity, the throne of the invisible.” [Applause.] Who pretends_not I_that man of himself, or that woman of herself, is conducting this great march of progress? There are some men who recognize an overruling Providence, a divine plan and purpose, as broad and as pure as the ocean, and into which all the rivers of human thought and action run. Whatever they may be before, they ultimately blend with and subserve that divine purpose, swelling the success of the perfect plan into which they flow. Having passed through

that, rest assured they will be made pure.

When Stephenson built his first railroad, inaugurating the great improvement that has since revolutionized the world, he was compelled to cross a miry marsh, an almost bottomless pit, into which tons upon tons of solid matter were thrown before the roadbed at that point could be constructed and the track laid thereon. But that roadbed to-day is as solid as the eternal hills, and along that track, covering that once miry marsh, now speed triumphantly the trains that bear the commerce of a nation. So shall it be with the work of political reform. Politics is down in the mire, where great reforms are ofttimes obliged to begin their work, but the future shall see arise upon the sunken foundation walls of beauty and towers of splendor that shall glitter with the glory of the skies. It is only by descending below all things that we can hope to rise above all things.

I take the ground_notwithstanding all that has been said upon this floor and elsewhere_that the elective franchise, or the underlying principle thereof, is a right, an inherent, God-given right. It existed before governments were formed, before constitutions were heard of. It does not depend upon ink and parchment. The doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, was true before the immortal Jefferson blazoned it with pen of flame. It was true ere the morning stars sang together, ere the sons of God_ay, and the daughters of God_shouted for joy over the birth of the infant world. “Men are more than constitutions.” “Before man made us citizens, great Nature made us men” and women, with rights inherent, God-given, which governments cannot confer, especially a government which possesses no power but what it derives from the people. The right to consent to be governed is such a right, and it is the right embodied in the elective franchise.

It has been claimed that the declaration in Genesis concerning woman, that her desire should be unto her husband, and he should rule over her, is no part of the curse pronounced upon her, but simply the divine arrangement respecting the mutual relations of the sexes. Grant it; what then? Man rules over {510} woman, but it is her desire that he should do so. Hence she consents to the arrangement, and exercises her inherent right in so doing. Is it unreasonable to suppose that she was consulted before that arrangement was made?

She votes “yes” or “no” upon the proposition as to who shall rule her in the household, when she accepts or rejects an offer of marriage.

The gentleman from Sanpete (Mr. Lund) would find that a woman could say no, and mean it, if he were to take the advice of the gentleman from Utah County (Mr. Boyer) and propose, with all his anti-suffrage notions, to one of that gentleman's daughters. [Laughter.]

Woman exercises this right in the family. Why should she not exercise it in the state? Is not the family the type of the state? Man is truly the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the church, but not without her consent. Even the church has the right to consent as to who shall preside over it.

I am not sure but the gentleman from Davis County believes as much as I do in the right of

women to vote under certain circumstances. On the 6th of April, 1830, a little band of disciples assembled at a farm house in Fayette, Seneca County, New York, and organized the church to which many of the gentlemen surrounding me, and I myself, belong. It is a popular idea that only six were present when that church was organized. This is a mistake. The laws of the state of New York required that at least six persons should compose a religious society, and six men were known and named in this organization; but they were not the only ones who took part in the proceedings. Forty or fifty persons were present, including a number of women, and before the first thing was done, before the founder of the church took his place at its head, he asked that little congregation if they were willing to accept him as their spiritual leader, and if they were willing to be organized as a religious body. The record says: “Unanimous consent being given, the purpose of the meeting was effected.” Women voted there as well as men.

Many years later, on the banks of the Mississippi, the founder of this church called together the women of his people and said that the time had come_for he had turned the key_when woman should take her place beside her brother man and participate more fully in the affairs of the church government. The object of the meeting was to organize the women of the church. They were to have their presidents, secretaries, and separate though subordinate organizations, over which women were to preside, as President Smith and his counselors presided over the entire body. From that time until the present, these institutions have existed, and the doctrine of common consent has prevailed among this people. Twice a year they meet in their conferences and vote upon the various propositions laid before them, vote with the uplifted hand, and the women vote as well as the men. I bear in mind a certain occasion when I held up my hand with peculiar pleasure to signify my assent to the selection for a high ecclesiastical office of my esteemed friend from Davis County, and I noticed, as I looked over the vast sea of faces composing that congregation, that probably two-thirds of them were women_holding up their hands to elect a man who, upon the floor of this Convention, says that women ought not to be permitted to vote. He declares them incapable of independent action, and thinks they ought to be satisfied with being represented at the polls and in public life by their husbands who vote and hold office.

Our friend is not only an accomplished orator, he is a talented author as well. He has written books, the object of which was to show_what I have also heard him thunder from the pulpit with as much earnestness and eloquence as {511} he has here displayed_that it is the right and privilege of every soul, man or woman, to answer for itself before the bar of God. I never heard him proclaim, till now, that woman, be she wife or maid, was not in a position to act independently, either in church or in state. Why, the very genius of his religion teaches to the contrary. Women are free, as they ought to be, and no man by plunging into hell, can drag down with him the faithful and pure wife who stands at his side. She is a free moral agent, and can either ascend to heights of glory or descend into abysses of despair, let him take what course he may.

A word here in explanation, lest some one should say that I am advocating a union of church and state, the blending of religious and political functions. I am not. I advocate no such idea, though I believe that politics owes much to religion. What of the Mosaic law, for instance, the foundation of modern jurisprudence? All down the ages the church has taught the state good and correct

principles, and it has adopted them. Whence came our idea of republican government? Was it not suggested, in part at least, by the Calvinistic principle of church government_the right of the congregation to elect its own ministers, instead of having them appointed by the pope of Rome or by kings and emperors? That idea sprang from Calvinism, permeated Switzerland, France, Holland, Great Britain, and was brought by the pilgrim fathers to the shores of the New World. There is little doubt that it helped to give form and color to the institutions of the American Republic.

My argument is that we can afford to follow a good example, and accept truth from whatever source it comes. If the church can afford to be liberal, and not only recognize but permit the exercise of woman's inherent right to a voice in the election of those who rule her, why cannot the state afford to be equally liberal? Why deny to her in the state what she enjoys in the family_which, I repeat, is the type of the state_and what the church, the elder sister of the state, is willing she should enjoy?

I am speaking, not to democrats, not to republicans; I am not speaking as a partisan for party ends. I am speaking as an American to Americans; not to that class who, it is said, fled from the tyranny of the old world that they might worship God according to the dictates of their consciences and compel everybody else to do likewise; but to descendants of those who fought and bled for freedom and bequeathed it as a sacred legacy to mankind; being willing that others should enjoy the same rights that they secured for themselves. I hope I am speaking to lovers of liberty, to champions of progress, who comprehend and appreciate the divine mission and destiny of their country_America.

    _A land of liberty,

A home of peace and human brotherhood,

Where men should equal stand, a sovereign host,

Nor owe to haughty birth their high degree;

Where merit's star o'er mammon's might ascend,

Where brain and brawn should blood and birth outweigh,

Where law should liberty and life defend,

And tyranny be traitor to the realm;

Where right, not might, should mon-arch rise and reign

O'er all that breathed or blossomed 'neath the sun;

Where, linked in chain of loving unity_

The only chain that freedom's land could bind_

A sisterhood of empires, hand in hand

Timing their steps to truth's triumphal tread,

Might march to music of Millennial strains;

Glad harbinger of still more glorious state_

The welding of the nations' world-wide chain,

With freedom's ensign waving over all.

blessings.

Is true freedom but to break

Fetters for our own dear sake,

And with leathern hearts forget

That we owe mankind a debt?

No; true freedom is to share

All the chains our brothers wear,

And with heart and hand to be

Earnest to make others free.

America, the champion and exemplar of freedom! How can she go forth to evangelize the nations, to liberate the world, with gyves upon her wrists, with half of her own children in chains?

And now a word, which I do not mean to be offensive, in relation to a remark made by my friend, which I was somewhat shocked to hear. It shows to what desperate straits he was reduced, that he must use an argument which he himself was compelled to discredit and cast into the waste- basket. He only gave it time to be noted down in the hearts and minds of those whom he wished to convert, and then he discarded it, for he felt ashamed of it; and I must add that his shame did him more credit than his argument. He said, in reference to what he termed an “invasion” of ladies, who came into the Convention in response to the hearty and wholesouled invitation of its members, extending to them that courtesy; that if they could have heard the gibes and jeers that he had heard concerning them, they would have hung their heads in shame. Some one had said to him, quoting:

They are neither man nor woman,

They are neither brute nor human,

They are ghouls.

Who are these ladies that have presented their petitions here, who have listened with the greatest respect to the remarks made by the honorable gentleman and by others who have spoken? They are intelligent, high-minded women, Mormon and Gentile, among the purest, noblest and best of the land. [Applause.] They are here to listen to this debate because it affects them to the heart's core. They are interested in the discussion of a question fraught with so much for woman and her cause.

I believe in woman suffrage. I have always believed in it. I look upon it as another step, another impulse of humanity toward perfection. Its success is assured. Victory, anticipating the inevitable, has always perched upon its banners. Its course cannot be staid. As well try to check the mountain torrent, or the mighty waters of the Mississippi, thundering onward to the sea. Its triumph is decreed. Its destiny is fixed. It is the march of human liberty, the pageant of eternal progress; and those who will not join it must stand aside and see the great procession sweep on without them. [Applause.] And if this Convention fails to act favorably {513} upon this proposition, some future Convention will so act, and gazing upon our record with reproach, will crown her brows with the glory we have denied. [Applause.]

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

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that we take a recess until 2:30.

Mr. BOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to insist on this matter; the object I have is this, to rise and report and then take an adjournment until Monday. I desire to move for an adjournment until Monday at 10 o'clock. I will not insist. I will withdraw the motion.

The committee then took a recess until 2:30 o'clock p. m.

Afternoon session.

Mr. SQUIRES. I had not expected, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, to take up any of your time in discussing the subject now before the Convention. I believe with the distinguished gentleman from Davis County, that the matter was fixed before any debate was had upon this floor, and in the interest of economy of time, I should have been glad if we could have gone to a vote without this display of oratory which has charmed every member of the Convention. But I have noticed that in the debate thus far, there are very few who come from the anti-Mormon side of the community of Utah, that have been heard upon this subject, and it is for that reason that I want a little of the time of the Convention, representing that side of the house. There is another reason why I deem it useless to make any remarks here; the reason given by the gentleman from Davis in his speech of the first day, that it was useless to reason with men who were already convinced and who had already reached a conclusion. From the pertinacity with which the minority of this Convention have pushed the debate upon this subject, it is evident to my mind that they are as absolutely convinced and have their minds as well made up as have the majority of the Convention, and therefore, I believe that arguments addressed to those gentlemen will be as useless as they deem their arguments are on the majority of the Convention.

I had supposed, Mr. Chairman, that after the eloquent speech of the gentleman from Davis, (Mr. Roberts,) on yesterday in which he magnified and glorified the women of Utah, pointing out to

them what their proper sphere of usefulness in society should be; that the representatives of that womanhood who were present in this Convention would join hands and say, “Gentlemen, we relieve you of your obligation, we withdraw the petition which we have sent to this Convention, we are all convinced that the suffrage should not be extended to woman, and we would not embarrass the great question which is now before the Territory, the question of statehood, by cumbering up the Constitution with an article of this sort.” But, to my surprise, sir, the ladies universally and unanimously disclaim that they have been converted by the eloquent speech of the gentleman from Davis. I therefore hold myself just as much bound as though the magnificent argument had never been uttered. I do not agree, Mr. Chairman, with some of the gentlemen who have spoken on this floor in regard to the duty which we owe, the obligations we are under to party platforms. For my part a party platform is not to me what the distinguished gentleman from New York City said, “something to get in on but not to ride on.” I believe, sir, that the platforms at least of the republican party mean what they say. There is no useless timber in the platforms which that party constructs. I was a member of the convention at Provo, although I was not on committee on resolutions, and had no hand {514} or voice in framing that declaration of principles. I gave my hearty adhesion, and during all the campaign that followed, wherever I went through this county, speaking in behalf of the republican party, I took that platform for my text, and for my guide, and I did promise the women of this county that if the republican party should be in a majority in this Convention the women of Utah would be honored by that Constitution, and suffrage would be granted to them as we had promised. I am not in a position sir, to take the back track, I cannot reverse myself, I stand on record for, and however much I desire or might desire to waver or to weaken upon this proposition, after it has been reinforced as it has been in this Convention, by petition after petition coming from county after county, petitions from those who are to be benefitted by this proposition I cannot withdraw. I believe that these women know what they want, and if they are as our minority committee tell us in this report upon this proposition_if they are better than men, if their instincts are truer, if they are intellectually superior, as gentlemen on this floor have been willing to say, then, sir, I am willing to believe that the intelligence which they possess has taught them that the very best thing that the womanhood of Utah can have is the ballot, and I am ready to accord it to them.

I remember, sir, that after the convention was held at Provo, and after this plank had been written in the republican platform, that the gentlemen who represent the other political party in this Territory pointed out to us how utterly meaningless it was. Gentlemen have told me these two days, upon the floor of this Convention, that I ought to know that the party did not mean anything when they wrote that plank in their platform. I do know this, sir, that the democratic party were so much afraid of that platform that when they met in Salt Lake City a few days afterward and wrote out their own declaration of principles that should be a guide for their speakers during the campaign, they attempted to improve upon that plank.

I was present in that convention as an interested spectator, and I remember the scene that was enacted there. I remember that the ladies who belonged as members of that convention were so eager in support of this proposition, that they, themselves, went upon the stage and thanked the convention, pointing out the difference in the meaningless plank in the Provo platform, and this broad and just proposition which had just been adopted by that convention; and all through that campaign, sir, from the beginning to the end, in every part of this Territory, the effort was put

forth by the democratic speakers to show the people that the one meant everything and the other meant nothing. Well, my republican friends in this Convention, are you ready to tell the people of this Territory that our democratic friends were right? Are you ready to tell them that you did mean nothing when you put this plank in your platform? If you are, then vote that way. Myself, I believed in it from the time it was put in the platform until the election was over. Let me ask you, gentlemen, supposing at Provo you had not indorsed equal suffrage for women; and suppose that this same scene had been enacted in Salt Lake City, do you believe that the republicans would have been a majority of this Convention? I do not believe that there is a man within the sound of my voice that believes it. Why not? Because the people of this Territory wanted woman suffrage, and if the members of my own political party who are to-day criticising and finding fault with those who stand upon this floor in defense of this proposition, who change their mind upon the subject_there have been twenty-six legislative {515} days here in which they could have presented petitions to that effect, but up to the present time, so far as I know, not a single petition or remonstrance has reached this Convention. Therefore, gentlemen, I feel just as much bound to that platform to-day as I did when it was adopted.

Gentlemen have said that we are starting off in this Territory upon new lines, we are just beginning to teach the people politics. Well, shall we teach them as the first lesson, that it is wise and prudent to be dishonest in politics? The distinguished gentleman from Davis County told us the other day he was not bound by the platform upon which he stood. As I understand, he was nominated while he was absent from the Territory, and that at no meetings held within in his own district was a single word uttered upon this subject.

Mr. ROBERTS. That I attended.

Mr. SQUIRES. That is as I understood it, and that he continued to be the standard bearer of the democratic party, from the southern line of the Territory to Idaho, and that in no meeting was this question discussed in any manner. If I am wrong, the gentleman will correct me.

Mr. ROBERTS. Your are right in that.

Mr. SQUIRES. What wonder, then my friends, what wonder that the democratic party is sitting to-day in sackcloth and ashes, and that Frank J. Cannon is the delegate in Congress from Utah. Such a violation of the known will of the people was sufficient to account for the majority which our candidate received. I tell you, gentlemen, it pays to be honest in politics as it does in business. For one, I am not content that the democratic side of the house shall receive all the credit which may come to the men of Utah for conferring this inestimable blessing upon woman. I am not content that all the influences that are brought to bear upon this subject in this Convention shall come from the distinguished speakers of the other side, and I remind you, gentlemen, that the majority of this Convention is composed of republicans; I remind you that without the votes of those gentlemen from the republican side of the house, this proposition cannot pass. I call attention to it now because there is a coming campaign in which the credit of this proposed action will be discussed. I am willing to give to the opposition all the credit that they deserve, and I was only sorry while petitions were coming in here daily, from the women of this Territory, they chose as means of introducing them, in almost every instance, gentlemen

from the minority. It looked as though they had some expectations of the good faith of the men of the other side of the house, and I assure the ladies who are present, and who are representing the woman suffragists of this Territory, that they have almost to a unity prevailed on the republican membership of this Convention, as you will discover when you come to a vote.

The fear is expressed, Mr. Chairman, that it is a dangerous thing to give to these women, who are so intelligent and so far superior to men, this right of suffrage, because it may take us back to the old contentions. I say to you, gentlemen, do not stir up these smouldering embers; let the dead past bury its dead. Let us put behind us all that is in the past. Let us as we start in for statehood remember that we are citizens of great State of Utah, with its best interest at heart, and stop all this talk about a denomination of any body in this Territory. I have not been so long a resident as some of the gentlemen here; I came to the Territory just as you were reaching the crisis of this great question that had divided the people. I never could work up a great deal of enthusiasm for the liberal party. I had not been here long enough for that, but I tell you that I believe solemnly that when the division came between the republican and democratic {516} parties and men who had formerly belonged to the people's party, and who had formerly belonged to the liberal party, finally divided upon those national lines, I believed in the interest and the integrity of that movement, and I believe it still. If there had ever been fetters of any sort placed upon the minds, upon the hearts or upon the consciences of men in this Territory, I believed that that manifesto and the proceedings which followed it after they released those men from bondage, and when a man who had been a slave had once been made free, there is no power on earth that can put the fetters upon him, and if those men are free, if they are politically free, if they are politically honest, as I believe them to be, will they stand quietly by and see the dominant church or any other authority interfere with ultimate freedom_the absolute freedom of the female members of their household? I believe not.

I noticed the other day that in the Wisconsin legislature, the question of equal suffrage for women was being discussed.

On the 27th of this month, in the senate, after a two hours debate, a bill was laid upon the table by a vote of 18 to 14. I just call your attention to that for two reasons: first, to show you the growth of the sentiment in those old states upon this very question; and secondly, to remind this Convention that very likely the legislature of Wisconsin is waiting to see what Utah will do. This matter has been laid upon the table. I have no doubt, sir, that when it shall have been wired across the country that the Utah State Constitution has adopted an article giving the suffrage to women, that immediately that matter will be brought from the table in Wisconsin and passed. I believe it is our duty to set that example to our fellows at Madison.

There is another reason, Mr. Chairman, why I want to vote upon this measure. There has been some reference made to a caucus that was held the other night by our side of the house. I was president at that caucus, and as has been said there was nothing in it that was binding upon any gentleman present. Every man was absolutely free to vote as he pleased when he left the caucus; no vote was taken upon any matter pertaining to this subject, but there were several gentlemen from some of the southern counties who made the alarming statement to us that unless this was put into the Constitution, they would be absolutely afraid to go home. [Laughter.] Now,

gentlemen, I don't want to send anybody adrift, an outcast upon the face of the earth, for doing his duty, and if there were no other reason why I should vote for this proposition, it would be that my friends from Garfield County and from these other counties might safely return home at the close of this Convention.

My distinguished friend from Summit, this morning, making a speech against this proposition, assured us that he represented, as I understood it, 1200 families in Summit County, where there were no woman suffragists. Well, if he represents that kind of a county, I don't wonder that he spoke the way he did, and I do not wonder that he is going to vote the way that he indicates that he will vote. I do not come from such a county. I do not come from such a district. The district which I represent is the county outside of Salt Lake, right here at home, and I am afraid from the experiences that I had during the campaign, that if I had said a word in the campaign against the equal right of women to vote, some other gentleman would be occupying my seat in this Convention. I must, therefore, be consistent.

But, the proposition is made that it would be wise and perhaps fairer than what we are doing, if we submit this matter again to the Legislature. Give them an opportunity to pass upon it. While, at first thought, gentlemen, one {517} might think that that would be wise, I point the gentleman to the condition of affairs that would then confront us. Two great parties in the field, each seeking for preferment, each seeking for the votes of the people; would there be any changed condition from what we had last fall? Would the republican party go into a convention and admit a clause giving women the suffrage? Would the democratic party do it? We should just simply be back in the conditions that we found ourselves during the last campaign. We fight to fight over again? No gentleman, unless it be my friend from Davis County, would have the temerity I believe to stump this Territory against this proposition. Indignant womanhood of the Territory would rise and protest, and for my part, if that was going to be an issue in the campaign, I, and if the party that I represent did not put it in the platform, I should have to stay at home.

I see nothing to be gained, therefore, by relegating this thing back again to the people. I believe that we come here clothed with the full power. I believe that we come here with almost the unanimous wish of the people of this Territory to put this very article into the Constitution, and for that very reason, Mr. Chairman, it will receive my vote.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is not my purpose, sir, at this stage of the discussion to again enter into a discussion of the main proposition, but simply to ask a privilege of the house. I think, sir, that it was conceded that in consequence of my relationship to this discussion that I ought to have the privilege of closing the debate, and, therefore, I wish to ask that when all the members who desire to speak upon the proposition have spoken, that the remaining time that was given to me, or so much of it as I may think necessary to use, shall be devoted in drawing to a close this debate. There is a circumstance, sir, that will perhaps justify the request that I am going to make, or do make now to this committee. The courtesy that has been accorded me on this floor, and the patience with which I have been listened to through two rather long speeches_unless modesty would require that the look upon that is sufficient_but there is a great probability, sir, that this next speech of mine will be the last that I shall make upon the floor of this Convention.

To this dispatch I have this after-noon sent the following reply, “You must do what you think proper, I shall not change my course.” As soon as it can be made known to me through the agencies of the democratic party in Davis County, that my constituents make this request, and they will point out the method by which I can make my resignation, I shall very cheerfully do so and bow to their wishes. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that I shall ask this committee the privilege of speaking in the close of this debate.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Mr. Roberts of Davis County has already exhausted his time; it is only by the unanimous consent of this committee that he can speak. I now move that it be the sense of the committee that the gentleman from Davis County, Mr. Roberts, shall close this debate, and that he be limited to one-half hour in the close.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. I desire to make an amendment to the gentleman's motion, that Mr. Roberts be accorded one hour in closing the debate.
{518}
Mr. KIESEL. I move that he may have all the time he wants. [Laughter.]

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I accept the amendment of Mr. Heybourne, that it be limited to one hour.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, my friend Mr. Kiesel, from Weber County, moves that Mr. Roberts be accorded all the time lie wants. I want to make a motion that all the time Mr. Roberts occupies, over one hour, of this Convention, be paid for out of the pocket of Mr. Kiesel.

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. Chairman, I will most cheerfully pay for all that time.

Mr. CREER. As a question of personal privilege, I wish to say this: While I accord the gentleman all the courtesy that he can ask for, at the same time, I believe that at least one party ought to have the opportunity upon the affirmative side of this question, that is my colleague from Utah County. But there is another thing that I wish to refer to and that is this: That quite a number of the members of this committee desire to return this afternoon, some of them have already gone home, and it seems to me that the time of those speakers, with due respect to the eloquent gentleman, should be so measured out that we may reach a vote this afternoon. Now is the opportune time; therefore, I would, as an amendment to that, move after the half hour that is taken by the gentleman from Davis County, that Mr. Thurman, my colleague, also have the privilege of occupying a few moments.

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain this Convention more than one moment_only long enough to say that I agree with the minority report in principle, that I agree

also with that report as to expediency or lack of expediency of presenting this question in the Constitution where it will probably require, in case a change should be necessary, a vote much larger than would be required to insert it into that document. For that reason, whatever the political fates may be that will overtake those who vote according to their real convictions on the question that is before this committee, I expect to vote for the minority report; with that statement I will give all of my time to Mr. Roberts.

Mr. JAMES. I want the amendment read and then I want the privilege of making a remark.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, permit me to say a word, not on the question, but rather in the way of personal privilege.

Mr. JAMES. That is what I arose to, but if you do not intend to take up the time so but what I can make a little explanation, I will give way.

Mr. THURMAN. I will only take about two minutes; and in this particular, Mr. Chairman, I speak in behalf of the democratic party on this floor_the first time that I have thought there was any necessity for bringing in party politics. I do not know why my friend from Davis County has thought it necessary to state here before this Convention that the democrats on this floor will be glad to know that he is called upon to resign. He has never heard that from any democrat, in my opinion. We regret that his convictions have been such that he has been unable to go with the body of democrats upon this question, but I will say to him we will be more loath than he can imagine to part with him. He is and has been a pillar of strength in the democratic party, and if he leaves the party, he will go because he wants to go, not because the democrats want to get rid of him.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the amendment that Mr. Thurman be allowed to follow Mr. Roberts.

Mr. THURMAN. I do not wish to follow the gentleman from Davis County, he is entitled to close this discussion; I have no request on my own behalf, and do not desire that my friend shall make it.

Amendment withdrawn.
{519}
The CHAIRMAN. The question is then on the motion of Mr. Kimball.

Mr. SQUIRES. Why do the gentlemen of this Convention, in view of the fact that Mr. Roberts has sent in his resignation and will not have an opportunity to speak to us, do him the discourtesy of cutting him off in an hour? We know he does not fairly get to work in an hour. We want his best effort. I am in favor of giving him all the time he wants, and let's listen to him.

The CHAIRMAN. The question then is on the motion of Mr. Kiesel from Ogden, that he have all the time he wants.

Mr. ROBERTS. Would you let me correct you? I have not resigned but I promise to do so the moment my constituents shall indicate clearly that this is their wishes.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). Well, if your constituents ever indicate that, they are bigger fools than I think they are. [Laughter.] Therefore, I am in favor of giving Mr. Roberts all the time he wants. I am willing to sit here from now until next Saturday morning, a week from to-day, to listen to Mr. Roberts on this proposition, because I think he is right, and so far as I am personally concerned, I stand behind Mr. Roberts, and I will support him all the way through.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver), Do we understand when he takes the floor that cuts off all further debate?

The CHAIRMAN. That is as the chair understands.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to offer an amendment, that we do not rise until Mr. Roberts gets through.

Seconded.

Mr. GOODWIN. If it is in order I move a vote of confidence in Davis County.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Salt Lake. We are now close on the middle of the afternoon, there may be several gentlemen here who may want to speak on this question before Mr. Roberts reaches it, and I am opposed to shutting him off by any motion to arise, and think he should have all the time he wants. And, for that reason, I am opposed to the motion of Mr. Cannon of Salt Lake, because his motion is out of order, for this reason that we must take a vote on the amendment just now pending, before this committee finally arises. There is an amendment pending here, that we have to vote on, and, under Mr. Cannon's motion, we will rise without any vote on that amendment.

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman is laboring under a misapprehension. My motion is not to arise at the close of Mr. Roberts' remarks, but my amendment is that we do not arise until he gets through. I feel it is the general feeling among the delegates that we should dispose of this matter as speedily as possible, and give the gentleman all the time he wants. I am willing that Mr. Kimball should sit here until next Saturday if need be.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). I am further opposed to the gentleman's motion for this reason, that with the incentive to talk that the majority on this floor have, Mr. Roberts will not reach his speech until about next Wednesday evening, and I do not care about sitting here all that time.

Mr. WHITNEY. I do not think it is a very cogent reason that Mr. Roberts should have the closing

of the debate simply because the gentleman from Weber County believes he is right. Neither do I think the motion should pass in this form, that the debate should close as soon as Mr. Roberts gets the floor. I second the original motion {520} that Mr. Roberts have the privilege of closing the debate, but I shall expect him not to take the floor until we know by some manifestation that there is no one else wishes to speak.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.

Mr. KIMBALL (Weber). That is my view of it. I say that Mr. Roberts should not rise in his place until every other man has had his say.

Mr. WHITNEY, I agree to that.

The amendment of Mr. Cannon was rejected.

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

Mr. BARNES. Matters have assumed a shape in this Convention which I think calls forth some remarks from me as a delegate from Davis County. It may be somewhat presumptuous on my part to take up the time of this Convention after listening to the able oratory with which we have been favored during the last day or two, but, Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a few words in defense of the residents of Davis County_my constituents and the constituents of Mr. Roberts. We are informed this afternoon, that through the chairman of the democratic committee of Davis County, Mr. Roberts is asked to resign unless he takes a different stand from that which he has taken upon the subject of giving the right of suffrage to women. I will say that I exceedingly regret that this step has been taken.

Why, I doubt if there is a man on the floor that respects Mr. Roberts more than I do; he is my personal friend; I accord to him all the honors which have been shown him by this Convention. He is worthy of them, and I think possibly the step may be ill-advised, but, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, why do the democrats of Davis County take the stand? It is because they feel that Mr. Roberts has taken a stand diametrically opposed to their views and to their request made upon their delegates. I have here a copy of a letter which was sent to Mr. Roberts a few days ago, and which embodies, I think, the views of the convention which met in Farmington, at which Mr. Roberts, Mr. Call and myself were elected as delegates to this Convention, and if the gentlemen will bear with me I will read it:

Kaysville, Utah, March 26th, 1895.

B. H. ROBERTS, ESQ.:

DEAR SIR:_Our attention has been called to the position you are taking in the Convention, regarding woman suffrage, and we are informed, in fact the Herald says as much, that you are looked upon as a leader of the opposition on the floor of the Convention. This position is not in line with the sentiments of your constituents, and further, in the county convention that nominated you, a resolution was presented and adopted, favoring equal suffrage, and requesting our delegates to work for it. Our campaign, locally and territorially, was conducted with this as an important plank in the platform.

In view of these facts, and the further fact that Davis County is so overwhelmingly in favor of an equal suffrage provision in the Constitution, we feel it our duty to ask you to not oppose this suffrage plank. If your convictions will not permit you to vote in favor of it, you might at least, remain inactive in the matter, and thus save our party the humiliation of having their pledges broken.

We hope you will give this matter favorable consideration.

Respectfully,

JOHN G. M. BARNES, Chairman Democratic County Com.

HENRY H. BLOOD, Secretary.

I wish, in this connection, to state my own position. I {521} was, but I most certainly, in the convention held at Farmington, endorsed the idea of granting equal suffrage to women and men. Why did I do this? Because I believed it right. I believed that women should have an equal privilege with men here, and that is why I endorsed it.

It is true, as Mr. Roberts has stated, that a gentleman informed him, that objections were raised there to binding delegates. I am the individual who raised those objections. I am the person who told Mr. Roberts this; and why was it? The convention in Farmington was held prior to the convention of democrats being held in Salt Lake City, and, as I there stated, the resolution that was proposed was in very strong language, binding their delegates to the accomplishment of a certain object. I said, gentlemen it may be impossible for them thus to do, and, therefore, I object. It was reconsidered and this motion was passed which I endorsed then and endorse to-day. I went before the people in a few instances in Davis County and I there pledged my word that if elected to a seat in this Convention, I would here vote and use my humble influence in favor of granting the women of Utah an equal suffrage with men. I, too, believe that I am the one referred to as having stated to Mr. Roberts that party pledges were binding upon me, and I reiterate it here gentlemen, that party pledges are binding. What do I care for your politics if there is neither truth nor honor in them? Sweep them to the four winds and give us truth and honor. Do I say this excitedly? I say it firmly, because I mean it, gentlemen. Who taught me to be honorable here upon earth? My mother, a woman. She taught me, gentlemen, the principle of honor, the principle of integrity; she taught me to be true to my word. And could I go back and face my constituents in Davis County, without lifting my voice, seeing that matters have assumed the proportion that they have in favor of granting them suffrage? No. Were I to be unfaithful and untrue to my pledge to them, for ever after would I hang my head in shame when meeting the citizens of Davis County. This is how much I regard my word.

What are party pledges, gentlemen, but aggregation of individual pledges? Then, if party pledges must be ignored, individual pledges must follow, and where are we? A worthless set of beings

here upon the earth. That is the view I take of this matter. I stand before you to-day pledged to the support of woman suffrage, and while I have power to lift my feeble hand, and to raise my feeble voice, and wag my unwilling tongue (unwilling because of its inability, that is all) to express the sentiments of my heart, I hope ever to raise my voice in defense of human liberty. Would it be in defense of human liberty were I to say to one-half of the population of Utah, you, notwithstanding you are the equal, and, as gentlemen have expressed it here, you are the superiors of man, you, because we have the right in our hands, shall not exercise your privilege? No, gentlemen, we cannot afford it in view of the pledges that our parties have given to the people of Utah; we are in honor bound to grant the ladies of Utah the right of suffrage.

I claim it as a right_as was explained this morning_beautifully explained. And again if our politics, as I said before, have descended to that point that there is neither truth nor honor in them they are fitly illustrated by the muddy stream of the Missouri river. Then, I say, gentlemen, inasmuch as woman is the purer element, inasmuch as she is superior to man, the greater need is there of engrafting into the muddy stream the pure element. If the muddy stream cannot be entirely cleansed it may at least be benefitted; it may at least be palatable and peaceable, and so that we can support it.
{522}
The objection has been raised upon this floor that if we grant unto the ladies of Utah equal suffrage it will bring division, strife and confusion into our homes. Gentlemen, I do not think for a moment that this needs to concern you. Think you that our daughters, our wives, or our mothers, will take any greater interest than they have done in the last year or two? I do not believe for one moment that they can. I am blessed with two or three daughters who are pretty well grown; they have taken a lively interest in politics; they are divided in their opinions. Does it cause jars, strifes and contentions in the family? Why, no; we are willing to accord to each other our views. I claim that the views of my daughter are entitled to as great respect as my own. I am willing to accord to her and to one of my sons an equal privilege with myself. They listen to my views; I listen to theirs, and in this way what will we arrive at? At that which is best to do. Gentlemen, in view of these facts, let us unitedly stand by our party pledges. Let us give unto the women of Utah their rights. Will we regret it? No. The ideas that have been brought up here why it is inexpedient, to me are far fetched. To me they are simply facts of imagination. Do I believe if this plan goes into the Constitution, that for one moment the old conditions will be resorted to? No, gentlemen, I have a better faith in the Mormon people than that. I have lived in this Territory for nearly forty-two years, I know somewhat of the disposition, the honor and integrity of the Mormon people. When we yielded to the conditions which were inevitable, we did it in good faith.

I stand here, gentlemen, as the representative of that class, and I say that what we did, we did in good faith, and if ever those conditions are returned, it will not be because of the action of the Mormon people, but because of the action of those few who doubt their sincerity.

I feel, gentlemen, that I have taken up enough of your time. Undoubtedly my colleague, Mr. Call, he being a representative also of Davis County, will want to say a few words. Now, I will say to my honorable friend, do not resign your position. Stay by it. If it is your convictions, erroneous though I believe them to be, I honor your courage, I honor you, sir, for staying by your

convictions, but, sir, I cannot agree with you in disclaiming any allegiance to the wishes of your constituents. [Applause.]

Mr. L. LARSEN. I did not think that I should occupy any time upon the floor of this Convention, because I have had my mind, as I told you_I could have voted upon this question long ago, and I might say here as well as any other time, that to me it is a foregone conclusion. My friends can take it as they please. I have believed in the woman suffrage right for many years. I have lived in this Territory for many years, and while the women did have the right of suffrage in Utah Territory, I was in for it that they should have continued. I only regretted that the Congress of the United States took away from them that right in 1887. So far as the ladies are concerned, I think I can assure them that they need have no fears. They have plenty of stand-bys on the floor of this Convention. That is my honest conviction. All the eloquence that can be brought to bear upon this now against it will have no effect. That is, on me; I have decided on this question and upon its merits too, for many years. I see no reason why that half of our community should not have the right to vote, should not have a right to go to the ballot box with their brethren and cast their votes. I see no reason why this in any manner should lower them in the estimation of mankind, or degrade them in the least.
{523}
It has been read to us from the news-papers that women acted in an unmannerly way at a certain gathering at Chicago or New York, or some other place where women have the suffrage or the right to vote. Why, that was not because of this. I think that the ladies can be just as pure because they go to vote with their political brethren at the election day. Why should they not have a right in the say of who shall preside over them? They are taxpayers, many of them, but they are those who oppose it. They argue that they have their husbands and brothers to defend their rights and to vote for them, etc. Well, that is not a reason to me why they should be deprived of the privilege, and I am certainly willing to accord it to them. If it would be any good I would vote with both hands. But the reason I have arisen here is more particularly to refute some statements that were made here yesterday. I tried to get the floor yesterday, but I was not recognized and so I had to take my seat. So far as the ladies from the county from which I hail together with others of my fellow colleagues of this Convention, we represent in the neighborhood of thirteen thousand people, and I can speak so far as the ladies are concerned, in Spring City, that I know they want the right of suffrage, notwithstanding the remark made by my young and esteemed friend, and I might add newly converted into the other side, because of eloquent language that has been used, etc. I do not know_he knows his own reasons and I should say nothing about it. As I see he is not here in his chair, I will refrain from saying very much; if he had been here I should have had more to say. I believe that I would have been willing, as it were, to take the side of the ladies in his own town and even refuted the statement from whence I hail, Ephraim City, but I will not say anything about those, but I will speak in behalf of the ladies of Spring City. I will speak in behalf of the ladies of Mt. Pleasant And when I now speak I know what I am saying and speaking, because I have heard their views expressed on many occasions, I know that they ask for the right of suffrage, and to state here that the ladies from Sanpete do not want it, why, I could not go home and face my constituency, if I had not raised my voice upon this floor against such a statement as that.

I almost felt when the remark was made, why, “the people of Salt Lake will think that we are an

age behind the times in Sanpete.” People did think years ago that nothing could come from Sanpete. I began to think yesterday that we yet were under those old conditions, that we had not advanced any further in the scale of progress, and that we yet stand on the old ground. and say our women, our ladies, our wives, our daughters, and our sisters are so ignorant yet that they don't rise up and ask for their rights among their fellowmen [*note*]. I tell you it is not so, that the statement was made, and I was asked the question before the young gentleman spoke_I do not wish to cast a word of reflection upon our friend, for I esteem him and love him, but he asked me the question, I only wish he had been here to hear my remark.

Mr. SQUIRES. Send the sergeant-at-arms after him.

Mr. LARSEN. He asked me the question, “Have you got a woman suffrage club in Spring City?” I had to say no. Well, why is the reason that our ladies have been perhaps a little dilatory in this regard? Why is the reason? I will tell you the reason. They put in a plank in the platform at the Provo convention “we favor the granting of equal suffrage to women.” These words were the assurance of their political brethren, why we do not need to organize, we do not need to ask them. We have asked, they have granted, and they have said what they will do, we have confidence in them {524} that they are men of their word; that they will stand by their platform. [Applause.]
That is the reason why the women of Sanpete have not yet organized a political club. They knew that they were men in which there was stamina, in whom there was backbone to stand by their convictions and who could not be turned by anything that might occur. They knew that we were willing to grant to them. I wish it was understood. I am willing to grant to my wife the privilege to go with me to the polls, although she is a democrat. [Laughter.] But we will never quarrel in politics and I fear not the consequences. I have said to her, “I do not want to convince you, or at least I do not want to persuade you; you are perfectly at liberty to keep your views on politics, and if you get the suffrage or the right to vote, I shall be most pleased to go with you, side by side, and you cast your democratic ticket and me the republican. You shall have that privilege and I shall feel honored if you stay with this, and these are your convictions.” But, gentlemen, when the election came around and she, as many others, have seen the trickery that was brought to bear, and that some of our men_some of whom are here to-day, were counted out, she was afraid_yes, far more so than I was, that I was counted out also. [Laughter.] I told her that rather than see those men who were counted out not get a seat in the Convention, I would rather be counted out with them, that was my feelings. I sought no political influence or office, I have no political star in the horizon or in the sky. [Laughter.]