[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.

The roll was called and all members found in attendance except Thatcher.

Prayer was offered by Rev. W. S. Hawkes of the Congregational Church.

The journal of the thirty-second day's session was read and approved.

Messrs. Murdock, Coray, Apperley, Neilson, Denny and Ollerton were admitted to a seat on the floor of the Convention.

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

File No. 175, signed by George L. Nye and ninety others, by Varian of Salt Lake.

File No. 176, signed by J. W. Savage and one hundred and fifty others, by Button, of Salt Lake.

File No. 178, signed by James L. Franken and fifty others, by Eichnor, of Salt Lake.

File No. 179, from the Chamber of Commerce of Salt Lake, by Roberts, of Davis.

On motion, they were ordered filed. Mr. C. P. Larsen, of Sanpete, presented a petition (file No. 177), signed by about five hundred citizens of Sanpete, requesting that the question of prohibition be submitted to a vote of the people.

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

The following minority report of the committee on water rights, irrigation and agriculture was submitted;

MR. PRESIDENT:

I beg leave to submit a minority report on the subject of irrigation as follows:

ARTICLE.

Section 1. All existing rights to the use of any of the waters of this State for any useful purpose, shall be recognized and confirmed.

Section 2. The Legislature shall provide by law for the regulation, distribution and controlling of the waters of this State and may provide by law such rules and regulations under which rights may be acquired to any of the waters of this State, for any useful purpose, and shall also provide for the

protection of all water rights acquired, or to be acquired for any useful purpose.

LAURITZ LARSEN,

On the committee of water rights.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I would make an oral report of the committee on accounts and expenses. We have left $10,870.88, and the amount disbursed, which the secretary has actually paid, is $16,600.25.

Mr. JAMES. May I ask the chairman of the committee on accounts and expenses whether he has submitted the bill for clerk hire for the committee on corporations other than municipal.

Mr. LUND. The committee on corporations had a clerk who wrote ninety-one letters, addressed them to different points of the Territory and paid the postage and the material, and the charges are $20. They asked that that be permitted or allowed.

Mr. VARIAN. I would like to ask the chairman of that committee whether he has taken care of the bill allowed by the committe on rules?

Mr. BOWDLE. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee whether that includes the expense of the printing?

Mr. LUND. Yes, sir; as far as we can get at it to-day

Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the report of the committee.

The PRESIDENT. Should not there be a written statement to the secretary here of this matter? The chairman will hand it up in writing.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I think the report of this committee ought to set out the items of expense that go to make up these different amounts.

The PRESIDENT. He has it right there in his book.

Mr. RICHARDS. I do not care to have them myself. I think the report itself should show the items. I suppose it will.

Mr. LUND. Mr. President, I will say for the information of those who would like to know, that there has not been one item omitted. It is all upon the list, even five cents. When the bill is printed the item has to be there too.

Mr. RICHARDS. I do not think the gentleman understands my suggestion. My suggestion is it should be incorporated into the report and become a part of the record of the Convention.

Mr. LUND. The committee on corporations.

The PRESIDENT. What is the amount?

Mr. LUND. Twenty dollars.

The account was allowed.

Third reading of ordinances and propositions to be inserted in the Constitution.

The PRESIDENT. This brings us to the consideration of elections and suffrage. Section I was under consideration when we adjourned.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I move to recommit the article on elections and rights of suffrage to a special committe of five members with instructions to report an article providing for equal suffrage for men and women, to be submitted separately to the qualified electors of the Territory with the Constitution, and to revise the general article on the subject for insertion in the Constitution, so that it shall harmonize with the proposition for separate submission. The objection made on yesterday, by means of a point of order, was principally made on the ground that purposes sought to be accomplished by the amendment offered were not germane to the matter under consideration, and the house sustained the chair in his ruling upon that question. It is manifest that under that ruling, to which we must now bow, of course, the majority of the house, being of the opinion that it was right_it is manifest that in no other way can {713} this question be presented to this Convention, so that those of us who are in favor of submitting this question separately can be heard and record our votes on it. We do not record our votes on that question by voting aye on this article, or by voting no against this article. When this article, as now pending before the Convention, shall have passed its third reading and been adopted under our rules, no further amendments are allowed to it, and it must go into the Constitution, unless at least two-thirds of the Convention should decide to suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing an amendment. And if a proposition of this kind should come from the committee on schedule, such report and such advocacy would be at once met with this very answer, and with this proposition, “We have already put into the Constitution something that is entirely in conflict with this proposition now suggested by the committee on schedule.” So, the Convention will perceive that it is virtually depriving a very large minority_possibly one-third of the members of this house, of a right not only of their own right, but the right of their constituents to express by their votes on the record there their convictions upon this question.

Mr. CHIDESTER. I take it, Mr. President, that this is an extraordinary motion to make at this stage of the proceedings, to submit that to a special committee when it has been in charge of a committee and has been reported upon, from the fact that that committee who had it in charge was largely in favor of the report that was presented here, there only being two members who were opposed to it, and it seems to me to be in the nature of an attempt to prolong this and put it

off. Now, I may be accused again of wanting to crowd this matter through, but now, I believe that I am justified in saying that this is an attempt to postpone it_an attempt which was defeated yesterday, and in answer to the proposition of the gentleman who just spoke, that in the event that the committee on schedule would bring in something that it would be met by members who favor this, now that this had been adopted_if that is the voice and sentiment of the majority of this Convention, then it is proper that it should be settled, and I see no reason why this matter should be submitted to any committee, either to the standing committee or to any special committee appointed for that purpose. I believe it has had due consideration, and I call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that everything that could be required, in the way of giving a chance to meet this, has been done from the beginning, and it was left open from the beginning that any objection might be brought in, and it was taken up the first day and at the end of the session it was there stated that it would still be open for discussion. Nothing was brought in, and I say it is unfair now to even make an attempt to resubmit that to the standing committee or to any special committee.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I would like to add, with leave, an amendment to that motion as to time, which did not occur to me, I want leave to insert in there, “within three days.”

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I make the same objection to the motion as amended as I did before.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. President, this seems to me like a very unusual proposition for more reasons than one. In the first place the amendment provides that this matter shall be submitted to a committee of five with instructions just what they are to do. Now, if that committee is to take this matter under advisement, with instructions to report an article providing for the separate submission of this matter to the qualified electors of this Territory, why cannot we do it right here without sending into committee at all? It does not leave any discretion {714} with this committee that is to be appointed. They are appointed for a certain purpose, and that purpose is well defined in the proposed amendment. That is one reason that I object to it. Another reason is that it seems to be inopportune to propose such an amendment at this time. This has been properly reported from its proper committee. It has been before this house in committee of the whole and been considered there, and passed, and now at this stage, to ask that it be committed to a special committee, seems to me to be entirely out of place. It is simply asking that that be done which this body refused to do yesterday, and that is, to submit this proposition to a separate vote of the people. Now, Mr. President, in connection with this matter, and as a part of my argument, I wish to read a call that appears in this morning's Tribune, signed by about two hundred persons, some of whom are members of this Constitutional Convention.

(Reads:)

A mass meeting of all the qualified voters of Salt Lake City and County, is hereby called to be held at the Exposition building, on Friday evening, April 5, 1895, at 8 o'clock, for the purpose of protesting against the incorporating into the Constitution, now being prepared for the proposed State of Utah, the proposition entitling women to vote and hold office in the new State, and for the purpose of taking such action as may be advisable with a view of requesting the Constitutional Convention to make provision for the submission of the question of woman's suffrage to a vote of the people, under such regulations as

shall be provided by the State Legislature.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. President, I am opposed to any further delay in this matter. It seems to me that a majority of this Convention should insist upon having their rights. I do not think now that we should continue this campaign work any further. In looking around this Convention we see that the friends_or rather those that have individual scruples against equal suffrage_are absent from this Convention a good portion of the time. We hear and see announcements of meetings in which they expect to speak. I say that this has originated upon the basis of personal scruples against this subject, because neither of the great parties of the Territory dare come out and say that we do not want it. We came here instructed how to vote. When we got here this Convention showed a great majority in favor of this proposition. The supporters of the two political parties of this Territory dare not say nay to the proposition. The entire people of this Territory that voted last November, by their expressions through their party platforms, told us to come here and to grant equal suffrage to men and women alike, and after these votes had been taken again and again, we find that this small minority are getting in with resolutions and motions for delay, for postponement, to set aside the rights of the great majority of this Convention and of the people of the Territory. I hope, gentlemen, that we will now sit down upon this proposition and get down to work and stop this second campaign on this same proposition.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. President, I have sat {715} here I think for seven days and listened to the gentlemen about this question. I have never said one word in this Convention with reference to the question, but I am in favor of this proposition and I will tell you why. I am not afraid of the people; I am not afraid of the voice of the people; I believe the voice of the people generally is right. I do not know what the people may say, I do not know whether any petitions will come up here. I know that whatever petitions may come if they be by the tens of thousands will not change my conviction or my opinion upon this question. I have been somewhat slow coming to that conclusion, but I think I have canvassed it carefully and if the vote were to come this morning, or come next week, I think my convictions are so clear upon that subject, that it would not change. If I were to fear the people_that sovereign power that the gentlemen have talked about so much, I would pack my grip and leave the country, and hunt some lone island, and live in solitude, and not live among my fellows. I am not afraid to trust the people of this Territory on that question, or on any other question that may be submitted to them, but I expect to go before this people next fall, when it comes time for the ratification of this Constitution. I want to say to them, “we have given you every opportunity to be heard on every important question. We have not throttled your voice. We have listened to your petitions and now we come to you with the result of our work.” Suppose this thing should come to a vote this morning, with this proposition, fair as I presume,

and as I believe it to be, and I fear that I might stand where a great many voters will stand next fall_if this proposition to make it absolutely and irrevocably a fact that woman is to have the right to vote, is put into the Constitution. I want to vote, and I want my vote recorded that I favor the people of this Territory settling the question as to whether woman shall vote or not. I will be perfectly willing if it could be done that woman should settle it herself and that man keep his hands off, but that will probably be impossible, but I am in favor of the next thing that comes the nearest to that, that the people shall settle it. Suppose, as I stand here this morning, my name was called to that first article in this bill of suffrage. My present conviction would be that I could not support that, but I would, with all voice and power, support the proposition, and I will do it any time during this Convention, to submit it to the vote of the people, and by the verdict of that power that is above all other power in the State. I do not care if you make this a shorter time than three days, but give us who want our vote to be recorded upon that proposition, the opportunity. Mr. Ivins says, “Why cannot you do it now?” If you will do it now I am willing to vote upon it, but I want that vote to be in that way and I want my privilege to put it just in that shape. Therefore, I favor this proposition to recommit it, and recommit it to a committee of one and ask him to report within an hour if you want to, but give us that opportunity.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I think it ill-becomes a gentleman to stand upon this floor and ask if we are afraid to leave matters to the people. I want to know who it is in this Convention that is trying to give to the people a voice in public matters? One side of this Convention are contending that all the citizens of the United States, without regard to the mere accident of sex, shall have free and unrestricted voice in public affairs, and that side is being denounced by gentlemen and accused of trying to throttle the voice of the people. We are seeking to give the people a voice_all of them.

Mr. BOWDLE. How are you seeking to give them a voice?

Mr. THURMAN. We are seeking to say that every man and every woman {716} citizen of the United States, intelligent, and of requisite age, shall have a right and a voice in public affairs.

Mr. BOWDLE. Upon this question, how are you giving them a voice?

Mr. THURMAN. Upon this question the people have had their voice, and the representatives of your party_far more of them than you have in this Convention, have said that equal suffrage shall be given to women. Four hundred of your party, in solemn convention from all over the Territory, have declared upon this, and here, sir, you have only about forty-four who are trying to say they shall not have it. That is the situation of the party to which the gentleman belongs.

Mr. KIESEL. The people have changed their minds.

Mr. THURMAN. More than four hundred of the party to which I belong have said that women shall have suffrage and here you are trying to persuade about forty of us to say they shall not have it. The representatives of the people have spoken in thunder tones, and I say we ought to settle it, and settle it now. When it comes to the voice of the people, they have spoken. They spoke in primaries; they spoke in their conventions; we have declared ourselves upon this question, and

say that it is improper_it is not right for members of this Convention to sign their names to notices for public remonstrances, and go and make speeches to these meetings and ask this Convention to wait until a meeting gotten up in that way shall have decided the question. I think it is wrong in every sense of the word, and repeat what I said yesterday. I say it is undignified in a Convention of this kind to delay for such a purpose.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Mr. President, I am just as particular and as desirous of recording my vote as the honorable gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Thurman) in his remarks, and I desire, sir, that that vote shall be recorded, not only in accordance with my own private feelings, but in accordance with the expressed will of the people whom I have the honor to represent upon the floor of this Convention. I claim, Mr. President and gentlemen, that this question that is now under consideration has received unusual consideration. Days of time have been spent and thousands of dollars have been expended in presenting this matter before the delegates of this Constitutional Convention, and after due consideration and deliberation, to which the honorable gentleman from Provo has just referred, we find organizations throughout this city and other cities of prominence, calling the people together, seeking to get their views and ideas with regard to this matter, notwithstanding the opportunities that had been given to some of the honorable gentlemen whose names appear in connection with these statements, that we find in the press this morning. We are, sir, in my opinion, giving to the people their rights. As I remarked upon this occasion before, I do not particularly view this matter that I am bound up by the Convention, or by those who sent me here, or by the agreements that were placed in the party platforms, so much as I look upon this matter as a matter of right and a matter of justice, and to come here now at this late date and state that we are trying to shut off the voice of the people, why this very proposition, sir, is what is giving to the voice of the people their rights and privileges. We are trying to establish in the coming State this important matter, that all classes shall have a right and an opportunity of being heard in the selection of those who shall govern and control them in the years that are to come, and I think, sir, that it would be, to say the least, unwise to go to work now at this date and postpone further action upon this matter. And I am just as tenacious, as I said in the commencement, that my vote should be recorded, as the gentle {717} men are who referred to this matter, and I trust that when this matter comes up it will be recorded in this way that all shall enjoy this right.

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

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUTTON. You say you are ready
to record your vote and are willing that other people should theirs?

Mr. HEYBOURNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUTTON. How are you going to allow us to record ours?

Mr. HEYBOURNE. You have got the same opportunity.

Mr. HEYBOURNE. You have had it all the way through.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. President, I have very little further to say upon this subject, but there were some things in the remarks of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Thurman), that are certainly unfair and unjust to the minority on this floor. He made the broad assertion that the minority present here were endeavoring to deprive the women of Utah of the suffrage. So far as I am concerned, I must deny that soft impeachment. I do not believe the gentleman understood the force of his remarks when he made that statement. All that the minority upon this floor has ever asked has been that this question be submitted in a separate article to the people. That is all that they now ask, and if a meeting is to be held to-night under the call read by the gentleman from Washington, with a view to having this matter postponed and not considered until the first session of the Legislature, I do not believe such a proposition will receive a single vote of this Convention. Gentlemen lose sight of the exact situation here. We are all united upon one proposition. I do not believe that there is a man within the sound of my voice, and especially those who are ardent woman suffragists, who has any doubt that the people of this Territory when they come face to face with this proposition will give the suffrage to women. All that the minority asks upon this proposition is that they shall have that opportunity.

Gentlemen from the far counties, like the gentleman from Iron County, and the gentleman from Garfield, and the gentleman from Beaver, told us that they know the exact sentiment of the voters in their counties. We have discovered, who live nearer the center of the Territory here, or the center of population, that we have not understood the sentiment of our constituents. It has begun to dawn upon the people of Salt Lake City that there is a crisis here in the affairs of this Territory. They want statehood for Utah. They want it more than they want anything else. They are afraid, gentlemen, that if you put into this Constitution section 1 of this article as it appears here, without giving the people an opportunity to consider it separately, that in the end you will not have statehood, that all the efforts of this Convention, all the time and all the money will have been utterly wasted and we shall wake up to find that the Constitution which we have worked so hard to prepare will lie buried under the votes of the people. Now, I ask you, gentlemen, to consider which is of the more importance to the people of this Territory? Which do they want most? Is it statehood? Do we want this Territory represented in the halls of Congress by a man who can vote as well as talk? Do we want two men in the United States senate to stand up and re- enforce the element which is in favor of silver? Do we want that? I grant you that we do, and we want it so utterly that we are careful not to prejudice that by putting anything in this Constitution which will defeat it. That is the position which I take and the position which is occupied by the minority upon this floor.
{718}
Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). May I ask the gentleman a question? I understand you to say that if this be submitted separately it will no doubt be carried through?

Mr. SQUIRES, Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON (Kane). Then, why will not the Constitution be carried through if it is in the

Constitution? If there is sufficient to carry the plank separately, why are they not sufficient to carry the Constitution?

Mr. SQUIRES. I will answer the gentleman if he is through. Because there is a widespread sentiment in this city to-day that says to the gentlemen composing this Convention, “Wait. Pause for a few days and give us an opportunity to be heard and, if you fail to pause, if you insult that large constituency in this county and in neighboring counties, who want to be heard upon this proposition, you will arouse an opposition against this Constitution that cannot be staid, and when the votes are cast and counted next November, you will find that the Constitution has been defeated.” That is the position I take. I do not see any harm. I do not see how the gentlemen need to fear the delay for three days upon this question. It does not need to change your votes, gentlemen of the majority. It certainly won't change my vote. The possibility is that there won't be a vote changed in this Convention when the time shall have expired, but we shall have been courteous enough to listen to the appeals from the gentlemen who are interested on the other side of this question. We shall not have insulted the ladies of Salt Lake who are to-day to meet to consider this proposition. We shall not have antagonized men who are devoted to this Territory and who have it in their hearts that the star of Utah should shine upon that banner. I tell you, gentlemen of the Convention, it is time to pause and realize that a great courses - should be courtesy?] has been shown to the minority upon this floor. I grant you that when great questions come before legislative assemblies courtesy is wise, justice is wise. Let us, gentlemen, accept this proposition from the minority. Let us give them this time. If the committee on elections and suffrage feel that they are slighted in this proposition by having a reference made to a special committee, let it go back to the committee on elections and suffrage. I care not so that they follow the instructions given to prepare an article for separate submission and so remodel the article before us to make it harmonize with such proposition. I hope that every gentleman upon this floor who favors the submission of this matter in a separate article in the Constitution will vote to recommit this question to the committee. I call the attention of the gentlemen to the fact that when this matter comes back in three days, it will be only until next Monday. To-morrow we take an adjournment on account of Arbor day. Sunday we certainly cannot do any work. We are not losing any of the time of this Convention. Our calendar of the committee of the whole is filled enough with work lying before us there to last us ten days at least, and when that report comes back we shall have an opportunity to vote upon this question, and I hope we shall have further intelligence upon this matter to enlighten the minds of the gentlemen of this Convention. I hope that this proposition will prevail.

Mr. RALEIGH. I wish to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. SQUIRES. Yes, sir.

Mr. RALEIGH. You express your opinion that time will not alter the votes of the majority or the minority in this Convention?

Mr. SQUIRES. I said that it might not.

Mr. RALEIGH. What was your object, then, in asking for further time? That is the question I

wish to ask.

Mr. SQUIRES. I believe I answered {719} that question in my remarks. We shall then avoid the insult which would naturally follow when ladies of this city are engaged only this afternoon in a meeting in which they desire to express their wish to this Convention on the subject.

Mr. RALEIGH. I would not want to insult the ladies.

Mr. SQUIRES. And another thing, the minority desire to record their votes on this proposition of separate submission, and we deem it that this is the only opportunity that will come to us in the course of the debate upon this question.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, when this question was up last evening, just before adjournment, I think that the gentleman from Salt Lake unconsciously paid me a higher compliment than he intended to. It is stated that the sentiment that is arising against woman's suffrage in our large centers of population was manufactured right here on this floor. I wish to say in answer to that, that I do not believe it. The sentiment was already there. This perhaps was the occasion of it making itself manifest, and I would rather, sir, have it made manifest now than to have it made manifest when the people come to vote upon the Constitution and be in a condition that they are compelled to vote against the Constitution, in order to express their deep detestation of woman's suffrage. This agitation has resulted at least in this: It has brought the fact to the mind of members in this Convention that all the world are not suffragists and all the people of Utah are not suffragists, and if gentlemen undertake to tell me that this question has ever been before the people of Utah upon its merits, I deny such a statement.

It never has been discussed on its merits. Now is the opportunity to have it so discussed and to have it finally settled and those who are in favor of suffrage shrink just from that issue. That is the position that this question has assumed. I deny that this question was settled in the campaign of last fall. And it never has been discussed upon its merits, and gentlemen may get up here with what emphasis they will, but they cannot contradict that hard solid fact. Now, then we ask that this question be submitted in such form that in the forum of the people the eloquent advocates of this measure may triumph if they carry it to a victorious conclusion. Why do they shrink from the undertaking? Will they answer me that? I agree with the gentleman from Cache Valley. I too am tired of campaign politics upon the floor of this Convention, and that is just the position that this question has assumed. Sparring has been going on for advantage. Gentlemen connected with the party with which I associate undertake to get an advantage of their political opponents upon this floor to have them appear in the light of having somewhat withdrawn from the support of woman's suffrage. They are holding together upon that issue and I denounce it as peanut party politics unworthy of the great party with which I am associated. [Applause.]

No man on this floor, no democrat in the party with which I am associated, more earnestly desires the success of that party than I do, but, gentlemen, you must furnish me a better issue for winning party success in the Territory than the mere quibble of trying to put your political opponents in a hole. If democracy has sunk to that I denounce all such kind of leadership as unworthy of the great democratic party. I want to say to my republican friends that they have

nothing to fear in this issue by insisting that this shall go before the people where it may be finally adjudicated. Whenever that sovereign power shall speak it is an end of the controversy. You now do as the majority upon this floor on this particular issue purpose to do, place it in the {720} Constitution and those who are opposed to woman suffrage have their mouths closed, for the simple reason that statehood is so desirable that they will even swallow woman suffrage, distasteful to them though it may be. I announce upon this floor that this is just what I would do, for I would rather have statehood with woman's suffrage than not have statehood. I had rather have a republican State than no statehood, however great I might consider that calamity to be. [Laughter.] I take it, gentlemen of the majority party on this floor, that you will lose nothing by going to the people upon this issue and insisting that this article shall be submitted as a separate article to the vote of the people. In regard to the objects named in this communication calling a general mass meeting for to-night asking that it shall be referred to the next Legislature, I know nothing of that, nor do I favor it. My understanding is that the object of that meeting was simply to submit this question separately to the people just in the same sense that it is proposed to submit prohibition to the vote of the people.

That far I am in sympathy with it and no further than that, and I cannot conceive how the majority party on this floor cannot fulfill every pledge it has made to the people by favoring submitting it as a separate proposition, and your opponents who undertake to make political capital out of your action, if you shall conclude to do that, will utterly fail and only reveal their own littleness as manifested in this issue. You have nothing to fear on that, but you have much to gain as they have much to lose for the reason that you take this action in order that you might give statehood all the better advantage of success; while they would be put in the position of risking statehood in order to get a petty advantage of their political opponents. My friends, your party boasts of its courage, it boasts of its patriotism. I now appeal to it and ask you to remove this pretext against statehood by saying, “This shall be submitted to the voice of the sovereign people, and their answer shall be final.” If you do not do that I want to tell you that this will forever be a bone of contention in this new State. Party success, party harmony is dear to me, but the attainment of statehood for Utah is still dearer to me. [Applause.]

Mr. IVINS. May I ask the gentleman a question? Did I understand the gentleman to say that he was not in sympathy with the proposition to submit this to the next Legislature?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, that was the call or representation that was made to me of the object of this meeting that is called for to-night. The gentleman merely wishes to read my signature to the call for that meeting. I wish to say to him that if the call is as he says, namely, the postponement of this matter for the action of the first State Legislature, I understood nothing about that. My understanding of the call for that meeting, and as it was explained to me, was that it should be to submit this proposition separately to the vote of the people. I understand Mr. Varian, whose name I believe is also attached, understood the matter in the same way.

Mr. VARIAN. If the gentleman will permit me_my name is not attached, but my name is mentioned there in connection with your own. I so understood it.

Mr. IVINS. I just wish to ask the gentleman when he signed this if he was not in favor of that

proposition?

Mr. SHARP. Mr. President, I would like to state that I was with Mr. Roberts when this paper was presented to us, and it was just as he stated. We understood that it was to submit this question to a separate vote of the people, and we both signed that proposition without reading the paper.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I desire to ask {721} Mr. Roberts a question. I may have misunderstood Mr. Roberts in his first remarks upon this question the other day, but I want to ask him now if he did not state then that he was opposed to submitting this question of woman's suffrage in a separate article?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not think I ever made any such statement.

Mr. CREER. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have endeavored to listen with great respect to what has been said by gentlemen who are opposed to taking decisive action upon this section now in consideration, and speaking to the motion_the remarks that have been made here this morning_I will say this, that over one-sixth, or perhaps one-sixth of our time has been expended in discussing this question, and much has been said by way of menace_endangering statehood if this proposition would be fairly presented before the people. I will say right here, gentlemen, that I will look with complacency_my mind has not been ruffled one particle or changed by the eloquence of the gentleman who has preceded me, not one iota, and why should it be? He says that the question has never been placed before the people and we now want this matter brought before them; I want to say this, that it is well known that in each of those platforms there was a prominent plank placed that they were in favor of female suffrage, and it is an insult to the intelligence of the people of this Territory to say that they did not understand what they were doing. Here was something adopted by four hundred men in each of those conventions_

Mr. CORAY. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. The gentleman is not speaking to the question.

Mr. CREER. I am speaking to the question in this wise: This matter has come spontaneously, gentlemen, and it is unfair_it is unfair in this: Because we see here gentlemen absenting themselves, as I believe and infer from their remarks, for the purpose of creating an agitation against this section as it now stands before us. I see two eloquent gentlemen, one from each party, who are announced to speak against the immediate action on this proposition and the placing of it in a separate platform. I want to say to you that the voice of the people has been heard upon this matter.

The standard bearer of the majority of those who oppose the action upon this matter, went through the Territory and announced himself emphatically in favor of woman's suffrage in all that that means_in all of its terms_Frank J. Cannon, your standard bearer. The result of it was that he received nearly two thousand majority of the votes of the people, and yet gentlemen say that this matter has not been discussed. It was discussed by your own champion, gentlemen, for I heard him myself, and the very fact that people took it for granted that there was no issue upon this matter, and now we want to say that this shall recur back to them and get the voice of the

people or you will endanger statehood. Gentlemen, are you afraid of these menaces that are attempted to be brought before the people? It is unfair. It is unfair to the people of the Territory in this: You are in touch perhaps with those that are in sympathy with you, but the great majority of the members of this Convention are not and they could not be in the time that will be allotted to them. We have not the opportunity of getting out amongst our constituents, as you have, and create agitation. I am not afraid of the result. I am not afraid of these menaces. I can look with complacency upon them. And with all the eloquence and oratory that has been displayed here, it does not affect me one particle. It is said sometimes that rhetoric is the art of making people believe things that are not so, and it seems to me that that has been the endeavor here in this Convention_attempting {722} to make the people believe that this matter has not been before the people. I say that is has been before the people and furthermore it is known right around us here_the states on the east of us and all have acted upon this question. It is not a new question. It is something that is understood by the great majority of the people of this Territory. Therefore it is no use, gentlemen. You can not move me, not one iota, by your attempt of oratory, of agitation. I am going to rely upon my own sober judgment in this matter, and I am ready to vote upon the question. What could you do in three days? The gentlemen ask for this motion simply to defer it for three days. Can you reach all the conditions, I say? What has been said with regard to the petition for prohibition? You talk about the voice of the people_have any of you incidently remarked or said one word about the voice of the people in that particular?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman answer me a question?

Mr. CREER. I will try to.

Mr. ROBERTS. Is the question of prohibition up yet?

Mr. CREER. It is not, only as it came here by a petition, but I say incidentally, have you had such regard for the people_

Mr. ROBERTS. Has it been reported back by the committee?

Mr. CREER. No, sir; I concede that.

Mr. IVINS. I would like to ask Mr. Roberts a question.

I would like to ask him if he is not the first man that introduced the question of prohibition in this debate in connection with woman suffrage?

Mr. HALLIDAY. What is the question?

Mr. IVINS. I wanted to ask Mr. Roberts if he was not the first person that introduced the subject of prohibition into this woman suffrage debate?

Mr. JAMES. I arise to a point of order.

Mr. IVINS. I think it is a matter of bad grace to spring_

The PRESIDENT. The gentlemen will take their seats. Mr. Richards has the floor.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I am opposed to this motion. It seems to me that this Convention has gone just as far as it can go in the direction of listening to these remarks in opposition to equal suffrage and in delaying the work of forming a Constitution for the State, without submitting itself to ridicule, and if the members of this Convention had heard the criticisms and comments of their constituents that I have heard concerning the conduct of this Convention during the last eight or nine days, they would hesitate and pause before they would insist upon keeping before this Convention a subject that is a continual agitation and will be a source of agitation just so long as it remains before us under consideration. It is time this question was disposed of, and I want to answer some of the questions that have been put here_put in that tone and manner that have prevailed during the whole of this discussion on the part of the minority. In a manner of arrogance_in a manner as though the questions put were unanswerable, that no man could answer them_what do they say? They say, “Are you afraid of the people? The reason you are unwilling to have this submitted in a separate proposition?” No, it is because I have faith in the people that I want it to go into the Constitution, for I know they will not vote against the Constitution. That is the reason I want it there and when men stand up here, and tell me that those who favor placing it in the Constitution are afraid of the people, I say no.
{723}
By that very thing we demonstrate our confidence in the people. It has been said here again and again that this issue was not before the people. I remind the gentlemen that denial and denunciation, however emphatic it may be, is not proof, and it counts for little in the face of the history of the Territory of Utah, and the two great political parties that are represented by the delegates on this floor. Their party platforms speak. The votes of the people on election day speak, And I say, as I have said before on this floor, that I came here as did every other man with the understanding on the part of the people who elected me that I would help to form a Constitution, and in that Constitution, not as a separate article, should be a provision for equal suffrage, and I say I am here prepared to do that work, and when any man stands in this presence and tells me I am shrinking from any issue, I hurl it back and I ask him to look at himself if he wants to see somebody who is shrinking from the issue. [Applause.] And then when the terrible alternative is submitted to us that if we submit this proposition in the Constitution we shall shut the mouths of the opponents of it! Oh, I realize what a terrible loss it would be to the people of Utah to have some mouths closed [applause], and yet gentlemen, with a sense of appreciation that I have of my duty as a delegate, I am even willing to meet that terrible alternative and say that even if it be so I take the terrible consequences of it. I believe in putting this proposition into the Constitution. I believe it because it is right; I believe it because it is just; I believe it because it is expedient, and when men stand here in this presence and tell me that the people of Utah will reject the Constitution that we are framing on that account, I say, gentlemen, with all deference and respect to you, even to the prophetic utterance of my friend from Salt Lake when he says that

this Constitution will be defeated, you do not know the people of Utah as well as you think you do, and if any man stands in this presence and tells me that that will be a stumbling block in the way of the executive of this nation, or any officer in this nation, in causing the admission of the State, I tell that gentleman, whoever he may be, that he is misinformed and I know whereof I speak. I say it is not only unjust, as was said by my colleague from Weber County in speaking of the chief executive of this nation, to say that he would be guilty of an act of tyranny that no man in a free government_no officer was ever guilty of_I say that that is not only unjust, but it is untrue, and I know it is untrue and so I tell you, gentlemen, that these fears held up before you are like the night visions of a dream and they will vanish like the mists before the sunshine in the light of experience. And now, before I sit down, I want to read you one more testimonial in favor of equal suffrage, a telegram that was received yesterday by his Excellency, Governor West, from Governor Richards of Wyoming:

(Reads.)

Your letter miscarried. Just received. Woman's suffrage has been in successful operation in Wyoming for twenty-five years. Its tendency is to elevate politics, and secure better public service without any bad social effects.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Varian claims the right, which will be granted under the rule, to close the debate.
{724}
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I have been somewhat surprised at the tone of the gentleman from Davis County in advising the republicans of their duty. I was pleased, however, at the way in which he appealed to the republicans, for whereas he appealed to the democrats in the way of a threat and told them what dire calamity would fall upon the party; when he did appeal to the republicans, it was to their patriotism and to their honor. At the same time, I do not recognize the right that that gentleman or any other gentleman has upon this question to say how, as republicans, we shall vote. In that which the gentleman has presented from time to time he has assumed the position of being absolutely pure himself; of having the highest motives, and every other man was bound by some paltry party pledge. Every other man has been bound by something which appeals only to his political ambition, and he alone of all who have appeared here has stood out filled with honor and integrity. Why, in looking at the position that he assumes, I almost could exclaim with Job_

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. I do not think there is any use of one man abusing another in this debate. He is not speaking to the motion in any shape or manner. He is talking to another gentleman upon this floor.

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman can make his speech after I am through.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has not any right to castigate any member on the floor.

Mr. CANNON. How is that?

The PRESIDENT. One member should not cast personal reflections on the floor on another member.

Mr. CANNON. What is the ruling of the chair?

The PRESIDENT. The ruling of the chair is that these personal reflections that have been going on are not proper.

Mr. CANNON. That being true, and nothing personal having been said in the past by any one, I shall discontinue my remarks upon that particular subject.

Mr. FRANCIS. Mr. President, I was going to ask a question. Should not this delegate be allowed the same latitude as Mr. Roberts and others have upon this position? Those men were not asked to sit down or stopped when they were talking this way.

Mr. ROBERTS. Let him go on.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen of the Convention, I look upon this matter as somewhat serious. Mr. Roberts has made no personal mention of anybody here. It is true, his remark was a general one upon the whole Convention, but Mr. Cannon takes Mr. Roberts or mentions him almost specially in this matter, and points him out and speaks to that end, and I think it is an improper thing for us to do. These matters have gone too far in that direction already. [Applause.]

Mr. CANNON. I say, this having been the first time that personal allusion has been made by any member in this debate, I withdraw my remarks. [Laughter.] One thing, however, Mr. President, has been said, and that is, that the people of Utah have never had this question before them on its merits, that it has never been discussed, Now, for the first time we have wise men who appear and who consider this subject. Is that a fact? I deny the assertion, and I say that he who asserts it casts a reflection upon the men who, in the past, granted to women in the Territory of Utah the right of suffrage. I claim that in the body of men who gave first the right of suffrage to the women of Utah were men who were the peers of any man upon this floor, were men whose wisdom, whose knowledge, if not their oratory, whose works, as evidenced by that which {725} they performed for this Territory and this commonwealth, will compare with any who are here, or probably any who shall come after, and when the assertion is made, that those men thoughtlessly, without due consideration, gave to women the right of suffrage, I deny the assertion and declare that it is absolutely untrue. I claim that, as has been asserted before, the sentiment which has been aroused in this community at present, is one which arose principally from the statements made upon this floor; that it was here that the sentiments originated, and that while, perhaps, in the breasts of many outside, that feeling lay dormant, and that it has only been awakened as has been

stated, at the same time, I claim that the proceedings that have taken place here have aroused it, and that there are still causes as well as those which appear upon the surface. The gentleman from Salt Lake County who spoke this morning in favor of deferring this matter, takes a different position from that which he assumed the other day. When this record is made of that which is said, my speeches placed side by side will read alike, and will not contradict each other. The gentleman declared the other day that he had heard from his constituents, that upon the stump in the twenty-seven precincts of this county, he had stood before the people and had advocated equal suffrage, that the sentiment was satisfactory to his constituents, and yet to-day he gravely rises in his place and says he has not heard from his constituents and desires to wait to hear from them.

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

Mr. CANNON. Certainly.

Mr. JAMES. Did the gentleman from Salt Lake make the statement that he raised those questions in the twenty-seven precincts in this county? I understood you to say so.

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman stated that in the precincts where he stumped in this county, and that was nearly all of them, he took the position that he favored absolutely the granting of woman's suffrage.

Mr. JAMES. Did he make the statement on this floor?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; and a reference to his speech will show it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I will submit_the gentleman is right here. He is not making any denials of it.

Mr. SQUIRES. I trust the gentleman will not be interrupted. I will reply to him woen he gets through if I have permission.

Mr. CANNON. I claim it is not at this time only that which appears upon the surface, and while I favored yesterday, and favor to-day, deferring this and going into the committee of the whole, because by so doing we would not displace it in its position on the calendar, at the same time, I would not favor this motion to recommit. There is an element in this community, as there is in every community, which takes a stand and seeks to entrench itself, that which has been referred to before as the liquor element; and I have it from a member upon this floor who stated to me that he knew a man who deals in liquors who had said that he would be willing to write his check for five hundred dollars if woman's suffrage could be defeated in this Convention.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am opposed to the appointment of this special committee, in the first place, for the reason that if it is recommitted at all now, it should go to the committee on elections and suffrage, the gentlemen who have had this question under consideration since their appointment. They were some nineteen days, Mr. President_or until the nineteenth day, at least,

of this session before they made their report upon this question. Now, the gentleman comes in here with a proposition to undo this work and to {726} refer that matter back to them with instructions to come in and report on something entirely different from what they have reported. The gentlemen upon this floor claim that it is only fair to them to do this work, for the reason that they have an opportunity to vote in favor of submitting the article in a separate proposition. I ask the gentlemen if they will not go on record now when they vote for committing this proposition directly upon the proposition of a separate submission of this article? I am glad they will have an opportunity to place themselves on record in this way. I take it that every person that votes for this will vote in favor of separate submission, and as that is the absolute instruction to the committee, and whether it goes to the committee on suffrage or to a special committee, they would have to make the same finding and same report in line with the instruction of this body.

Mr. BOWDLE. May I ask the gentleman a question? How would that put us on record as opposing_simply voting for a resubmission?

Mr. HART. Why, that is the very issue, Mr. President, that we vote upon, is to instruct them to come in with a separate article. If that is not a sufficient way to put you on record when you vote either for or against this main proposition on the ayes and noes, you can go on record there. You can defeat that proposition if you wish to there and then have the proposition come up in a different way. Why, Mr. President, they talk about the advantage and disadvantage of this situation in putting themselves on record. I ask you what would be the result if this committee are appointed and instructed to bring in a proposition for separate submission? Why the result would be simply this: After we voted it down we would then have no report before us. We would have nothing to act upon, and we would have to go to work and go over this whole ground from beginning to end. I am, therefore, Mr. President, opposed to the separate submission.

The assertion has been made at numerous times upon the floor of this house that there has been no discussion of this question. If there was no discussion of the question last fall, it was the entire fault of those who are opposed to woman suffrage. It was not because of those who favored it. One of my colleagues from the county that I come from, referred yesterday to the fact that he had not heard the matter discussed in our county. I want to tell him that this issue was talked from every platform in every precinct in our county. I never made a speech during my canvass as a delegate for this Convention, but that it was made a prominent feature of the evening, and not one dissenting voice was heard to my knowledge upon this question. The gentleman from Davis asks why should men shrink from the issue? I ask him who it has been that has been shrinking from this proposition all along? I hold, sir, that it is in poor taste coming from the other side of the house to talk about shrinking. If it had not been for a cowardly shrinking upon this question, there would have been more discussion upon this proposition last fall, and the only reason that it was not discussed was because there was a shrinking. I do not refer to the gentleman from Davis County as being one of the shrinkers, or shirkers, but I say even in his case, that this proposition might have been sprung, that this Coxey movement might have been agitated and brought on a little earlier in the day, and not have waited until the eleventh hour. The gentleman has arraigned the motives of myself and of every other democrat upon this floor. In the first place he has arraigned the motives of the democratic convention, as well as the republican convention. He says that the democratic convention put that plank in its platform {727} for mere claptrap and

expediency purposes. I want to say that I was a member of that convention, I know a great many other gentlemen who were members of that convention, and I know their motives. I know the motives of the gentlemen, many of them, who were on the committee that framed this proposition.

There was Captain Ransford Smith (honor be to his name and to his memory), who was in favor of this proposition, because he believed in it and as he expressed it, because he had always believed in the proposition. Mr. Thurman and other gentlemen were members of that committee, and while I am not prepared to speak as to the private motives of the members of that convention, I do know the motives of some of them, and I know that they voted for it as a proposition in that platform because they believed in it. The gentleman goes further. We have given him so much rope in this Convention and have submitted so long to his arrogance that he comes in this morning and denounces his democratic associates here as peanut politicians, as I understand it, and he says we are holding back here for the purpose of putting republicans in the hole. I deny it, sir, and I say for one that I have no such purpose and I have not seen anything in my democratic associates to make me believe that they entertain any such idea. I ask, Mr. President and gentlemen of this Convention, “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?” as to come here and challenge the motives and purposes of members on this floor and of the democratic party of this Territory? Why, gentlemen have actually had to come upon this floor as I have and deny that they had improper motives. I say, Mr. President, that it is a shame that any member of this house should be called upon to stand here and deny that unworthy motives have actuated him in the stand that he has taken.

Mr. LOW (Cache). Mr. President, I desire to say a few words in regard to my opposition to the propoosition presented by the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian), for consideration this morning. First, I deem it irregular, as explained by my colleague from Cache County, who has just taken his seat. Second, it passed the committee of the whole with just such a form of rider in different language from that which was presented by the honorable gentleman from Salt Lake and was defeated by a large majority in that committee. If that committee had seen fit to offer its opinion upon this proposition, it would have referred or recommitted or recommended it to the Convention, with a suggestion that it be recommitted to the committee in which it originated. That committee having been ignored in the form of this motion presented this morning, it is irregular.

If there could have been any objection to the proposition it might have been put in a regular form, gone through the regular routine of business to the committee who rendered the majority report on the 19th day of our session, just two weeks ago. I call your attention to the fact that they could have had this question referred back, as was the question from the committee on education, for simplification and modification, but there was not that consideration given to it. The zealous defenders of that report attempted to have a special day set for the consideration of their report out of the regular order. The gentlemen who were considered to be fair on the floor of this Convention, should have been willing in their zeal to pass upon the question that it should come up in its regular order. Gentlemen, the committee submitted to this with very good grace. It did not come before the Convention for consideration for seven days. In that time there was ample time, I say, for the consideration by the opponents of this question to {728} raise the issue which

is now sought to be raised upon this floor. We had a substitute or an amendment to this question when it was in committee of the whole, which denied all suffrage to the female sex.

A majority of this Convention promptly repudiated any such an amendment, as did they also the attempt on last Monday to introduce here a substitute providing that this question should go for separate consideration to the people for their acceptance or rejection. I too have heard with a great deai of wonder the expression that has been made upon this floor that gentlemen who were elected by the votes of the people of this Territory as delegates to this Convention have not heard the question discussed during the campaign. I want to state to the gentlemen who have made these assertions that the very question which they have denied having heard was the question which I cut out of the newspaper at the time_the two clauses referring to this question of equal suffrage to women, and placed them in my hat, and I want further to call the attention of gentlemen upon this floor, who have come from other counties from that from which I came, and in whose counties I was permitted to speak from the rostrum in favor of woman's suffrage, and the differences of opinion between the two national parties, if it was not a question for immediate and ample discussion before their constituency? If I am wrong, if they can state that I evaded the question in their own counties, I desire that they shall rise upon this floor and make it known. On the other hand, I state here, without fear of contradiction, that it was made the issue. Because gentlemen like the honored and eloquent gentleman from Davis County had preceded me in different sections of country, representing the same party that I represented upon the stump, and covered questions of importance and difference between the two parties nationally. It was only left to me, at the suggestion of the chairman and members of the county committee, from which I went, that I should follow with something different and they themselves_not of my own choice, but they themselves assigned the difference of position assumed by the two parties on the woman suffrage question, and it was made an issue with not less than two meetings a day for a whole week. That is my position upon that matter. I can also reiterate what my colleague from Cache County has stated, that when I had the opportunity of presenting it before my constituents in the county from which I came, I there told them my position on this matter. That was the opportunity to deny me the privilege of representing them in this Convention, if they so chose.

Oh, how have the mighty fallen, Mr. President? The able champion of one proposition here was compelled to resort to a subterfuge in a suggestion that has been made the_first argument that we have presented by his eloquence on this floor was against suffrage for woman at all. Now, we have the same question championed by the same individual that it should come before the people as a separate clause. I object to it more particularly because the gentleman has assumed to change his position in the least, and furthermore, I wish to further the expression given vent to by the gentleman from Davis County, that had the position of the two parties, as far as the majority is concerned upon this floor, been reversed, I express my personal opinion, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, that this question would not have hung fire so long as it has. He appealed to the gentleman of the majority_appealed to their patriotism, when he said “You will not lose anything,” hoping that from that majority this question would be pushed through, because there was a force and power in the majority against the minority. I am against the question {729} being submitted as proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake.

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

The question being taken on the motion for a recess, the Convention divided and by a vote of 48 ayes to 51 noes, the motion was rejected.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I realize this great fact, that I am surrounded with critics, and I only crave earnestly the voice and the language of some of my colleagues here upon this floor. But it is, I believe you will agree with me, as I stated when I was on the floor perhaps a week ago, that this was a very important question. I so regard it to-day. That I do not think the time is thrown away in looking at it and investigating this matter, and that the committee on finance_perhaps there may not be another man upon the floor that will be in harmony with me, but that his suspicions may be relieved, I am willing to spend my time gratis upon this question from first to last, so that if we have thrown away time, I am willing to throw away mine. I do not know whether there is any one else that will do so or not. I am opposed to the motion that has been presented here this morning, for this reason: I am pledged to my constituents. I am one representing in connection with my colleague one county, and I know what their minds were then, and I have not heard anything to change it from them yet, and I am opposed to it, because they are opposed to it and got my pledge that I would not accept a separate bill to be placed before the people and voted upon, but that they wanted it in the Constitution. I was willing to give my pledge that it should be placed in the Constitution. I also pledged myself that I should labor in the interest of equal suffrage with all, both sexes, irrespective of sex or any other thing that might be brought forward, and as we investigate this matter we find that it becomes a very important matter.

It has been stated here that this feeling that now exists throughout the county is something that has sprung spontaneously in the minds of the people. There is always a starter for anything that amounts to any importance, and it is started upon this floor, gentlemen. It started right upon this floor_this opposition, and the friends of those opposed have talked for and against, and it has gone broadcast throughout the country, and of course people are taking sides now. There are many people that are led away with fine speeches. I realize this fact, but that does not make a truth. A truth may be told in very mild and very easy and very unimpressive terms, and there are many people perhaps it would not affect, but nevertheless it is a truth, and I do not care in what eloquent terms a matter may be set before a people nevertheless it may be an error, although it may impress those that have been here. Now, I was at both conventions. I was at Provo and the building was as full at it possibly could be, both in the gallery and on the floor, and what was the feeling there manifest? They endorsed it with a rush, with a zest that is uncommon in most meetings, but it was nevertheless here in the theater, here in Salt Lake, perhaps a week afterwards. I was at that as well, and everybody was there that could get there. The house was jammed from garret to the parquette, as full as it could be got, and the people there partook of the spirit that was manifested, and what was the main feature? One of the main features in both conventions was the woman's suffrage, and then for men to come here and tell that they had heard but little or nothing about it; it was put into their papers throughout the length and {730} breadth of the land, and that instead of opposition, and every man that has spoken in the southern part of the Territory, his attention was especially called to that feature of the situation, and it is

upon that ground that I was nominated and was elected to come here and serve the people, and there is no feature, gentlemen_there is no feature that womankind admires more than a brave man, and there is no feature that I admire more than I do a brave man. I am not afraid of opposition. I am not afraid of contest. If anybody can fetch anything that is reasonable to overcome me, why am willing to submit as I have said_give an error for a truth,

We have heard from the different states where they have had woman's suffrage and it is all in favor of woman's suffrage. There is a terrible hue and cry because it happens to be brought forth here in Utah. It is not new in Utah. We understand how the matter stood years ago, and we understand very well how it will exist now. We cannot help any_either men or women from acting foolishly when they get the ballot in their possession. We cannot help that, but I say it is equal and I say it is debarring one portion of our community of going forth and taking part in the interests of the common country. Are not the women equally interested in the family circle and in everything that goes to build up a state_are not they as much interested as are the men, the fathers, the sons, the brothers? Are they not? I say they are, and they should have a voice, and when we talk about intelligence, we are willing to admit that they are equal_    

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Murdock, you are getting away from the question. The question is to commit this thing.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Well, I am not in favor of it [laughter]. When it was sought to give the colored man his franchise, was there a proposition sprung that they should have the privilege of saying whether they wanted their franchise? No. It was given to them without asking them. There was a declaration made that they should have their franchise, and I say we could certainly pay as much respect and repose as much confidence in the woman part of our community as was bestowed upon them, and for this reason, and I say emphatically that the excitement that has circulated among the people has sprung from this floor. Here is where the seeds were planted, and here is where that started from.

And, as I saw in the paper that is printed in one of the adjoining counties, an individual rose up in a meeting and said that if that went into the platform_woman suffrage_what would he do? He would go to Washington and he would use his utmost influence to defeat the statehood bill. That is the feeling I presume amongst many men. I am for statehood and I am for equal rights, and I want both parties, both male and female, to have equal rights in this matter, and if they have got intelligence, let us use it, it is ours, we should have it. Are we afraid of numbers of voters? Perhaps it might augment our numbers to double the number. That is to-day, and what would that amount to? Perhaps eighty thousand voters. Are we not associated with states that have their millions of voters and they are controlled proportionately_reasonably, and I say I am opposed to the bill to postpone or to put it into the hands of any other committee. It would be paying great disrespect to the majority report that was brought here, and consequently I am thoroughly opposed to such a move. I am not afraid of the arguments that are brought forth. I do not care how eloquent they are, but I am in favor of justice; I am in favor of right, and I am in favor of bringing my wife, my mother, my daughter, up to my side and giving her a fair show, and if she is ready and willing to act reasonably and consistent and not ask more than {731} what would be consistent in her condition, why I will risk her. I will risk her with men.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President, I am opposed to this proposition. I have listened and kept my seat nearly during all these days of this discussion, sometimes with pain and sometimes with pleasure. More often with pain. I think that it is well that we cease playing to the gallery and the gods and come down here and play to actual men and women, that have this matter before us to dispose of. Now, I submit this, that the light comes from the south in this hemisphere. I have been where I had to look north for the sun, but in this latitude we look south for the light. Now, if they will hearken to the voice of San Juan [laughter] they will come to the light; there will be no trouble at all, but this dark shadow that has arisen in the north seems to have paralyzed a great many of the people and some members on the floor of this Convention. I remember in my boyhood that the gunners on Long Island had to go out in their little batteries and stick out a whole lot of stool ducks to decoy the ducks flying from the east, and down they would light on those stool pigeons or ducks, and every last one of them was killed. So I look upon this largely. It is a stool pigeon set up to decoy the ducks, whether they are democrats or whether they are republican ducks, they calculate to kill them. Now, I submit we close this thing up and go into business and do something to justify our positions here upon this floor.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I am opposed to the article presented here submitting this as a separate proposition to the Constitution for the women to vote on separately, and I will give a few of my reasons. As my friend Mr. Creer, said, this question of woman's suffrage has been before the people for the last seven months. I know it has been before the people of Emery County, and was constantly kept before them by the uncertainty of the political complexion of this Convention, even up to the organization of the Convention. And if the people of Salt Lake or any other important center have lost sight of it, it is their own fault and not the {732} fault of the people of the Territory. It is said now that this question has not been discussed; I know better. It has not only been discussed by the people, but was discussed in the papers. The Herald claimed the proposition in the democratic platform was emphatic and meant just what it said, and that the few words put in the republican platform did not mean anything. The Tribune came to the rescue

and said that they meant just what they said and were just as emphatic as the democrats dared make it, and that the women of Utah should have the right of suffrage. We are asked in an excited manner to pause for a few days to be heard and that it would be an insult to the ladies not to wait on them. I claim, Mr. President, it is no insult to go ahead and do our business and our duties, but on the contrary it is an insult from those who are agitating this question to ask this Convention to stop and wait, I think. It is child's play to come in now and say, “I forgot all about it, and we demand that you wait on us.” It is said by the opposition that it will endanger statehood. I do not believe it. I believe the people of Utah are sincere in their demand, and if all could be heard from, we would have an overwhelming majority in favor of it, and the song that has been sung for the last twenty-five years about here, is out of place at the present time. Those who are against woman's suffrage are insulted if they are asked to change their minds on this question, but they demand in excited terms that those in favor of it do change theirs. I am opposed to submitting this question as a separate article, and shall vote against it.

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

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move as an amendment to that, that we do not take a recess until_

The PRESIDENT. The motion before the house is to take a recess until 2 o'clock.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). An amendment is in order,

Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT. I do not see how it is possible to amend a motion to take a recess.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I am only amending it as to time.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, I thought it was already decided that we should not take a recess.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Pierce, the roll was called and showed the following result:

AYES_44.
Adams
Bowdle
Button
Christiansen
Crane
Cushing
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Gibbs

NOES_52.
Allen
Anderson
Barnes
Boyer
Buys
Call
Cannon
Chidester
Clark
Coray

ABSENT_10.

The President declared the motion to take a recess lost.

Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I move to lay this motion on the table.

Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. That requires a suspension of our rules.

Mr. ANDERSON. Gentlemen, I had the floor before that motion was made.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman had the floor.

Mr. VARIAN. The point of order takes precedence of a discussion.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's point of order is, I think, well taken.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I am certainly opposed to this proposition submitting this clause back to a special committee. The committee that had this under consideration considered this question well. The same proposition was suggested and we considered it well, and that committee was composed of fifteen members, and twelve out of the fifteen reported in favor of the article as it is presented to us, and now this proposition is to refer it to a special committee, instructing them to
draft an article for the very purpose of submitting this to the people. Well, I am opposed to submitting this to the people, because I think that it will intensify and prolong this bitter acrimonious feeling that has been engendered throughout this discussion. I claim that it has been before the people, that they have had ample time to consider it. As it has been stated, it was contained in both platforms of the parties. We are all of us elected on that very platform. Upon that very principle we were elected, with the very expectation of putting that into the Constitution, and just so long as it was thought to be a foregone conclusion that it would be incorporated in the Constitution, there was no opposition.
I claim that we were sent here for the very purpose of inserting that in the Constitution, and if we do so we will have done our duty, and all of this feeling, all of this bitterness that has been engendered, will cease. Those that are opposing it will accept the situation, but if we submit this to the people, why, it will only intensify it. It will keep getting worse and worse and probably the very fears that are expressed, they might be the means of accomplishing; if these fears are well founded we do not deserve statehood. We do not want it. I say, put this into the Constitution and

if the fears are well founded, vote it down. We do want statehood, but I claim that we were sent here specially upon that platform. It has been before the people. They have considered it, and I, for one, every place where I spoke, specially pledged myself, and besides this, I think it is right by conviction and I can consistently take no other course. The opposition appeal to the very worst attributes of our suspicion and distrust. I do not think that they believe the fears that they have expressed themselves. It is being most bitterly fought by those who are opposed to prohibition, probably because they think that the vote of the {734} women will endanger them, but they dare not express that fear, but they try and work upon the suspicion and distrust of the people. I am opposed to this proposition and in favor of the original article and will vote against any amendment and all substitutes that may come up.

(The President here called Mr. James to the chair.)

Mr. KIESEL. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, Mr. Creer has alluded to absentees. I was at home several days. I was ill, I did not, as he intimated and insinuated_am I right, did you allude to me on account of absence? I was away several days.

Mr. CREER. No, sir; not specially, I was speaking of members from Salt Lake.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order.

Mr. KIESEL. That was in your mind, wasn't it?

Mr. CANNON. My point of order is that it is desired of the Convention not to have any personalities.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. Mr. Kiesel, do you rise to a question of personal privilege_some explanation?

Mr. KIESEL. All right.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. You must be in order.

Mr. KIESEL. The gentleman has alluded to absentees. I am one of those absentees, and I want of course to set myself right before this Convention.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. You have the privilege of proceeding, Mr. Kiesel, under that.

Mr. KIESEL. I was at home on account of illness. I did not agitate. I did not attend any convention at home. Another gentleman already speaking probably had received already garlands and flowers, but the sentiment has undergone a change in all this discussion that we have had here in this Convention; why gentlemen claim and parties claim for themselves that all these matters have been discussed, I have yet failed to see. There is not one of them that has admitted and said that women are in favor of it. I hold that the women of Utah are not in favor of it. I admit that there is a society existing in Utah_a very estimable body of ladies_the Female Relief

Society, an adjunct of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and those are the ladies that have worked up sentiment, while on the other side there is a large body of ladies that do not want, and are not in favor of woman's suffrage.

Mr. FRANCIS. Mr. President_

Mr. KIESEL. It is no use mincing matters. This is the sentiment that prevails in Utah, and I simply give expression to it.

Mr. FRANCIS. I wish to say that this gentleman is proceeding to a great latitude under question of privilege.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Oh, let him do it, let him do it, Mr. Francis.

Mr. KIESEL. The sober second thought is asserting itself in Utah, and gentlemen dare not_on the other side they dare not submit it to the vote of the people. I challenge them_they dare not do it. They know they would get beaten. The sentiment in Utah I have asserted is undergoing a change. It was never discussed from the stump in Ogden, and gentlemen here in Salt Lake admit the same thing, so far as Salt Lake City is concerned. In the centers of population that was simply not taken any notice of. Now, we desire to have it submitted as a separate article, and I am certainly in favor of having it thus submitted. As one of the committee on elections and suffrage, why, I am not taking any exceptions because this matter is not referred back to our committee again. I think our committee now, after all the discussion that has been had here, should not act in this matter. I am in favor of leaving it to the president to appoint a committee of five. Consequently, I am endorsing Mr. Varian's proposition, and will so vote.
{735}
Mr. JOLLEY. May I ask the gentleman a question? I understood you to say that Relief Societies of a certain denomination in Utah were the ones that agitated this woman's suffrage, and ask the question if you have attended any of those meetings, or have you any statistics in your pockets to show to this Convention that that is the case?

Mr. KIESEL. No; I have not, but then that is admitted generally, and I do not suppose the ladies themselves will deny that, because most of the ladies that appeared on this floor here, I believe, belonged to that very estimable body of ladies, who have been doing a great deal of good in a charitable way and I am afraid who are now getting into deep water of going into politics.

Mr. JOLLEY. That is your own suspicion.
    
Mr. KIESEL. That is all, of course. The President here resumed the chair.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I now move the previous question, except that Mr. Varian may have the opportunity to close this debate.

Mr. THOMPSON. I second the motion.

Mr. CANNON. I do not know; I made quite a number; I did not keep track of them. I could tell by going back and looking over our bills, perhaps.

Mr. SQUIRES. Is that your answer.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. May I be permitted to ask the gentleman a question? I would like to ask Mr. Squires whether or not you did not say that had you not advocated woman suffrage you believed that other men would have been elected instead of those who were?

Mr. SQUIRES. I did that, sir.

Mr. CANNON. That is all.

Mr. SQUIRES. And I still believe that that thing might have happened in this county, but that is not the question at issue, Mr. President. The question that Mr. Cannon was raising was whether or not I knew the sentiment of this county and the district which I represented. I believed, sir, when I came here, that I did. I believed it as other gentlemen upon this floor now believe that they represent, as one gentleman said here, every man, woman, and child in his county. I believed that. I take occasion to say, sir, that since the first day that the debate opened upon this subject upon the floor of this house, I had not met until last evening a single man of all the men that I have met who favored the putting of this question of woman suffrage into the Constitution, except as a separate article.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order. The gentleman is not speaking to a personal privilege now, and the motion for the previous question is in order. He only got the floor for that purpose.

The PRESIDENT. I think the point of order is well taken.

Mr. SQUIRES. Very well, Mr. President, if the gentleman from Salt Lake desires to shut me off at this point I will cease. It is something that I can reciprocate later on, and the gentleman from Salt Lake will remember it.
{736}
The PRESIDENT. Shall the main question be now put?

Mr. SQUIRES. Previous question.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Ayes and nays.

Mr. RICHARDS. I arise to a point of order, and while on my feet I desire to say as a matter of personal privilege_

Mr. SQUIRES. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that he is out of order.

Mr. RICHARDS._that when any gentleman on this floor arises to a point of order, he should not thereby put himself in a position, where he can be justly censured or accused of trying to choke any man off.

Mr. SQUIRES. I arise to a point of order.

Mr. RICHARDS. I have a right to state my position.

Mr. SQUIRES. The gentleman from Salt Lake is clearly out of order.

Mr. RICHARDS. Here is a motion for the previous question and I simply asked for that question. I simply say that it is unjust to say that_    

Mr. SQUIRES. It is not debatable.

The PRESIDENT. Shall the main question be now put?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Ayes and nays.

Mr. ROBERTS. What is the question?

The PRESIDENT. The previous question.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, Mr. Varian reserved the right to close the debate.

The PRESIDENT. He closes after this question is taken.

The roll was called on the motion for the previous question and showed the following result:

AYES_51.
Allen    
Anderson    
Barnes

NOES_39.
Adams
Bowdle
Button
Crane
Cushing
Eichnor
Eldredge
Emery
Farr
Gibbs
Goodwin
Green
Haynes
Hill
Hyde
Ivins
James
Kiesel
Keith
Kimball, Weber
Lambert
Lund
Mackintosh
Maloney
Murdock, Beaver
Murdock, Summit
Page
Peterson, Grand
Preston
Ryan
Sharp
Shurtliff
Spencer
Squires
Stover
Strevell
Van Horne
Wells
Whitney.

The president declared Mr. Allen's motion lost.

Mr. Varian was excused from voting.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, inasmuch as this motion is clearly lost, to save time, I move we take a recess until half-past two o'clock.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I move as an amendment to that, that we do not take a recess until we dispose of the motion before the house. There is plainly an attempt made here to delay this matter over to-day.

The motion of Cannon was agreed to, and the Convention then, at 12:43 p. m., took a recess until 2:30 o'clock p.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Convention re-assembled at 2:30 o'clock p. m., President Smith in the chair.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. President, in what few remarks I make I shall endeavor to respect the wise admonition of the chair and avoid all personal allusions. I certainly have no desire to use any acrimonious language. There has been too much bitterness indulged in already, and I shall say nothing to augment the stream of gall and wormwood. I would prefer to say to these troubled waves of thought and feeling, “Peace; be still.” I disclaim all bitterness, so far as my remarks during these debates are concerned. What raillery or sarcasm I have used has been in the spirit of pleasantry. It was good-natured irony, and it was very far from my purpose to wound the feelings of anyone.

I am opposed to the motion to recommit. It means delay, and is not necessary. The current agitation against woman suffrage is merely local. Whether it originated on the floor of this Convention or outside, does not matter. The women of Utah understand what suffrage means. They are not as ignorant of the subject as some suppose. They enjoyed the elective franchise for seventeen years, and voted again and again. Can it be conceived that this could be, and the question of woman suffrage not be discussed upon its merits in their homes? Moreover, there is a woman's paper published in this city, one of the first of its kind established west of the Missouri river. For many years it has permeated the homes of most of the women of Utah. It keeps them in touch with the leading women of the nation_with the thoughts, acts and aspirations of the champions of woman suffrage the world over.

My experience in politics is limited, but I took an active part in the campaign which resulted in the election of you gentlemen and myself to this Convention. Woman suffrage was mentioned repeatedly by speakers, and it was approved and applauded when mentioned. I know that men are sincere when they arise here and say they feel bound by the pledges embodied in the platforms upon which they were elected. It is wrong to question their integrity, to accuse them of cowardice and impute to them improper motives.

I call in question the motives of no man. That is not my style of argument. I am not in favor of the motion of Mr. Varian, but I would not impute to him an improper motive in making it. I do not say that the object in view is to work unnecessary delay, but I do say that in my opinion that would be the effect of it. It would mean that this Convention must wait here, bound {738} hand and foot, until a few agitators had had time to get out among the people, work up an excitement in their particular locality, and bring such a pressure to bear upon wavering members that the anti-suffragists would gain a majority. It seems to me that these agitators are not half so anxious to hear from the people as they are to have the people hear from them.

The vote taken at a matinee at the Grand opera house in this city has been referred to as indicative of the popular feeling among the women of Utah upon this question. A majority of those present voted against woman suffrage. But what was the character of that majority? I have a little daughter ten years old who attended that matinee. She came home and told me she had voted against woman suffrage. I asked her why she had done so. She replied, naively, “Because a woman told me to.” [Laughter.] That is how they obtained the majority. Some lady anti-suffragist acted as a steering committee for these little, innocent children, who did not know what they were doing. It reminded me of the schoolboy who was asked: “Which is the largest city in the world?” “Chicago,” he answered, and when asked for his authority, said a Chicago man told him so. [Laughter.]

But I realize that I have no right to argue. I am lacking in “the logical sense;” I am not a

philosopher, but only a poet, I am told. I do not claim to be even a poet. I am only a lover of poetry, but one, I trust, who has a proper appreciation of the poetic faculty. Poets, gentlemen, are not mere rhymsters, not mere sentimentalists. A poet is one who sees into the the heart of things, and is capable of leaping by intuition to a correct conclusion, while the philosopher, or mere orator, is groping in the mazes of his own fallacy. [Applause.]

Again, I am compared to a mountain peak, “the proudest of them all.” I disclaim that honor also. I am only a humble foot-hill. But there are mountain peaks, towering intellects, in this Convention, to whom I defer and with whom I fraternize. For them I accept the comparison. And let me remind you that it is the mountain peaks that catch the first glimpses of the rising sun, while the valleys, where stand the anti-suffragists, are still shrouded in darkness. [Applause.]

They tell us that woman suffrage in the Constitution will imperil statehood. I do not believe it. But if it should, what of it? There are some things higher and dearer even than statehood. I would rather stand by my honor, by my principles, than to have statehood, if I must sacrifice my honor and my principles to obtain it. If Utah is to be immolated for standing by her principles, for enlarging the borders of liberty, let the sacrifice be made, let her be bound upon the altar, let the high priest of tyranny come forth and plunge the knife into her breast. She cannot perish in a nobler cause than that of freedom and equal rights. But the dagger that strikes at her heart shall be fashioned into a scepter for her hands, and the blood of her martyrdom shall rise as an offering to offended justice and become the seed of her future glory.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. President, I favor the granting of the desire that has been expressed to recommit upon this ground: I was in favor yesterday of extending the time that was asked and fixing a day for which this question should be heard. It matters not how small a minority may be. The smaller the minority the more tenacious I would be in regard to granting to them the same rights and the same privileges that I would ask if I was in like circumstances. It would have not been unreasonable, in my judgment, to have granted the request yesterday, and I look exactly from that standpoint relative to the motion that is now before us, that it would not be unreasonable {739} or inconsistent to grant the motion. We will lose nothing by it. I presume that there is no gentleman upon this floor that is any more firmly fixed in his purpose than I am and I do not fear the arguments of my fellowmen or any thing that may be brought to bear, and I look upon all other gentlemen upon this floor just exactly in the same line, and as we had a vast amount of work before us that we could have given our attention to and used the time that we have spent parleying over this question profitably, and allowed a small courtesy to those who asked it, I felt that we could not consistently refuse it, and it is upon this ground, Mr. President and gentlemen on this floor, that I favored the proposition yesterday, and it is upon this ground that I favor it to-day; and there are gentlemen in this hall that have seen me upon other occasions when the minority asked privileges that I was ready to accord it to them, to a reasonable extent; and in fact I am willing to go in the interests of a minority a little beyond reason, that they may not say that there has been any influence brought to bear that curtailed their rights. One or two or three days would not jeopardize the question that we have under consideration, or a week would not jeopardize it, nor it would not delay us in our deliberations when we saw fit to go into committee of the whole and consider that which we have upon the calendar. I think that when we talk about consuming time and wasting time, that we can look to the opposite of the house. When

we begin to talk in a belligerent sense upon this line that there has been more time used in discussing this question by the opposite side of the house than what is known as the majority side, politically speaking. Therefore, in all fairness to the minority upon this proposition, I am going to commit, and trusting what the future may be, I am not afraid of the people, of the public, of the sovereign power.

I am not afraid of the oratory or the argument of the gentlemen of this Convention. I have my ideas and my views upon this. I have my ideas upon men's honor and upon men's pledges, and upon the pledges of the parties, and I hold it constantly before me, and with all of this I am in favor of granting the motion and I shall vote for it.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, if I may be given a minute now it will save explaining my vote. I have heard some very extraordinary things since I have been in this house, one of which was to the effect that if the people of Utah decided to defeat the Constitution because the clause of woman's suffrage was in it, that freedom would be wronged and that she would still rise up and be avenged. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we are wandering away from the subject. If there is anything on earth that American people believe in, it is the rule of the majority. It seems to me it would be no hardship to the people of this State for each one to decide through his ballot whether he wanted woman's suffrage or not, and if we could get a full vote of the men, we would be sure to have a full vote of the women, because the men would vote as the women at home would want them to. We were told just now that a little girl was overpersuaded by a lady in the theater telling her that that was the right thing. Men have been persuaded that way for six thousand years, by having ladies tell them the wrong thing to do, perhaps. Now, there is a great deal of principle in this and a good deal of politics. I think I made my own position clear, and I shall say to all these gentlemen, that if this then was to make a fair proposition to the voters of this State, that they should or should not endorse woman's suffrage, the result, when it was figured up, would show exactly the sentiments of the people of the State of Utah. Suppose a majority of them did not want suffrage. Would that be the {740} rule of the majority to force this down their throats or compel them to vote against the Constitution in order to bear it?

Now, the question to-day is simply on a postponement until Monday morning, in order to give those who want to at least cast their first vote for a submission to the people the chance to put themselves on record that way. The majority can do what they please, because the old law of might can be called in, the same law that governed in the old age before intellects of men began much to expand and before their hearts had begun to expand at all. Is it an unreasonable request? I think not. All around us there are murmurs that the people are dissatisfied. Perhaps there is nothing in it. What harm will be done if we wait until Monday morning? It is now 3 o'clock. We have two more hours this week. Why not take up the regular order and let this thing go by until Monday morning? I will agree for one that I won't say a word if it comes to a vote on Monday morning. I think I can pledge a great number of gentlemen here, although there are a good many gentlemen_and especially on the other side of this question_on the majority side who have spent hours and hours in telling how much time was being wasted here, and my friend from Weber County this morning tried to cap the climax when a motion was made for a recess for an hour and half, he interposed an objection or an amendment that we should remain here to all eternity. They are the fellows that are continuing this thing. It is not us. We do not want anything that is not fair,

and when the final vote comes we will be found all right. And let me tell you it won't make a bit of difference. If you commit this, you can vote us down Monday morning as easily as you can this afternoon. It will have a look as though we had a little consideration. It will quiet the swelling clamors of this city, and that is worth while, because, let me tell you, Mr. President, this city controls the elections in this State. Parties are so nearly divided on the outside that this city is the place to look for a majority. I know what my friends on the other side think. They think by crowding this to an issue that a few republicans will fly the track and that they can go out into the country and say that the republican party did not keep its pledges. They will get fooled on that. That is all their anxiety is to-day, and I say the gentlemen that are trying to crowd this thing onto this Convention this afternoon give away the fact that in their hearts they have a fear to leave it to the people of this State, and that is not republican. That is not American.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). May I ask a question?

Mr. GOODWIN. With great pleasure. I will try to answer.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Will you speak for your party and say that we can have a vote at any time on Monday next, if we will defer this matter?

Mr. GOODWIN. I will speak for this particular one of my party. That is all I have any authority to speak for, but I believe that nine out of ten will agree to the same thing this minute.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). If an agreement can be reached by which a vote can be taken_

Mr. GOODWIN. Without debate on Monday morning?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Yes, I would be very much pleased to do that, but I would even be willing to give you until Monday evening if you would say that then you would bring this matter to a vote.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I made that proposition to keep my friend from Weber making four or five speeches on Monday, but I want to state how I feel first and to say that I believe at the same time it will save a great deal of heartburning, it will save some recriminations and eloquence, if we agree to {741} grant this postponement to-day and come in Monday morning and make a final vote_give us all a chance to vote how we feel first and if you are strong enough (and I have no doubt you are) why press the thing? Then we will have the chance to say to our constituents_“we tried to do the right thing all the way through. We tried to keep our pledges in the platform. We tried to do our duty to the constituents. If you do not like that the next time you have a constitutional convention, get some one to serve you that will do it better.” That is all we ask for. Private_this is an executive session_let me tell you, Mr. President, my honest opinion, that this motion if it is permitted to go until Monday morning will be voted down then and the other motion will be carried, and if it should be left to the people and they should adopt the Constitution and refuse to place woman's suffrage in it, it would not take more than one month to cure the evil, because I think the first Legislature of the State would give it to the ladies with an overwhelming majority. So we are really fighting windmills. This thing is coming. It is only

about eight months off. Do not take any chances, let us have a square deal and go out or in as we can, like honorable men and like Americans, keeping in mind the fact that majorities in this country ought to rule. If we ever lose sight of that, if we ever have enough people to tell somebody else what to do, as the little girl was told in the opera house, and they do it, we will have trouble. Leave it to the whole people. Let them have their say upon it_at least on this proposition. Give us out of courtesy to the weaker party_out of courtesy to the public sentiment of this city, only two hours to-day, for you have only two hours more to work to-night of this week.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman a question, and he simply has given me the answer, that so far as he is concerned, he is willing to bring this matter to a vote on Monday morning. Of course, I do not take that as being spoken_

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I had no authority to speak for any gentleman here except myself.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I take that as not being authoritative for the party which the gentleman represents. What I meant was submitting the proposition on Monday morning, was to submit the whole proposition, that this question might be voted upon at that time, and as the gentleman does not speak for his party, but only for himself, I shall address myself, Mr. President, a few moments to this house. And I say now, that so far as I am individually concerned, with me this question, which is now before the house, is a question or contest of endurance. I purpose to yield no further. I purpose to stand now upon the very platform upon which I was elected, and I ask no indulgence from any gentleman, neither do I expect him to ask any from me. I say now, that so far as I am concerned, there is no gentleman in this house who can say that I have voted to cut off debate: or that I have ever done an act which would stifle free speech. Neither can any gentleman say that I have impugned the motives of any man, whether he be against this proposition or not. I honor the judgment and honest opinion of all mankind, but this matter has reached this point where we must act. If we cannot act this afternoon, the debate will be continued until we do act, if men who are friends of equal suffrage will stand by me upon this proposition.

Mr. ELDREDGE. May I ask the gentleman one question?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You may.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Did I understand the gentleman to say that he had not voted to cut off debate?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I never have except_

Mr. ELDREDGE. May I then ask {742} you how you voted on the previous question, the last time it was called in this house?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I believe the gentleman is right. On that question I did, because I thought everybody was through except Mr. Varian.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is right, Mr. Eldredge. I am speaking on general propositions, and I did vote_I say it frankly, I did vote for the previous question upon that occasion because I believed that everybody was through except possibly myself, and I voted to cut off my own debate, rather than that of any other gentleman. So far as I am individually concerned, I desire to say that there has been upon the part of the opposition some imputation cast upon those delegates who favor equal suffrage. It has been done very cunningly, so that it could be scarcely discovered that an imputation was being cast upon those who stood firmly in the interests of equal suffrage for men and women. I desire now to refer a moment, not personally, or specially, to the argument of the gentleman from Davis_the hero of the hour, he toward whom all eyes have been turned. Two or three times he has made some sort of allusion to somebody, I know not whom it might be. He has spoken in one instance of scurvy politicians and in another instance something respecting peanut politicians. I do not know, gentlemen, whether he means you of the republican party or not. I take it that he does not, because he calls you patriots. So that the reference must be made to some upon this side of the house. Why the necessity of making of remarks of this kind? What is it the gentleman wishes? Does he desire to elevate himself here before the people of this Territory as a perfect Lucrece of virtue? Does he desire to spread the impression that he strides the earth like a Colossus and that all ordinary beings peep between his huge legs to find themselves dishonorable graves? Does he mean to insinuate that men who favor striking the last shackle of political slavery from the limbs of women are scurvy and peanut politicians? I have stood this thing long enough. I care not whether it be the gentleman from Davis County or any other, it makes no difference to me. I stand upon this question upon principle and I am ready to vote upon it. The gentleman says, “wait a little while. Let us hear from the people.” I referred to that upon yesterday. To-day I saw the gentleman get into a barouche, drawn by a pair of white horses, with some ladies, and I presume he went to the theater for the purpose of edifying them. I noticed upon his table, which he had the courtesy to show me, a set of resolutions which he had prepared presumably for that meeting.

Mr. ROBERTS. Excuse me, I did not prepare them.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I asked you if they were yours.

Mr. ROBERTS. I did not tell you I prepared them.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Anyway the resolutions were prepared in advance, and I doubt not those resolutions which were lying here upon this table will be adopted verbatim, and what does it all mean? Are we not here as delegates under oath for the purpose of casting our votes honestly and conscientiously upon this question? Must we refer from this dignified body of men a question which we have had under consideration so long to the people in this uncertain way? What would we know_what can we know if the secretary's desk be lumbered up with petitions, remonstrances, and memorials for woman's suffrage? How do we know_are we to appoint a canvassing board for the purpose of determining the question as to whether they are honestly gotten up or not? Are we to determine {743} the question as to whether the ballot boxes have been stuffed? Are we to determine the question as to whether the particular individuals who

signed these petitions and memorials did it from their honest judgment? Are we to go in this particular question in this unauthenticated manner for the purpose of determining what our action shall be here? The only way by which people can determine the wishes of their constituents is in the regular manner, in the regular order, in our primaries, and in our conventions, and the sentiments of the people as we found them at that time, and then act upon it. Gentlemen, you can see that this thing will lead to interminable trouble and turmoil, heartburnings, and charges, criminations, and recriminations. Upon the one hand, as I stated yesterday, there will be positive assertions that the people of Utah favor woman's suffrage, and upon the other hand, there will be a denial of it. After all, we are here as men upon oath. Shall we not act upon our best judgment? If any man desires to be absolved from his political pledges let him vote upon his conscience and disregard his platform, but to postpone action for the purpose of securing the sentiment of the people in this unauthentic manner is a thing which is unheard of in the annals of history in dignified legislative bodies.

But gentlemen say it is fair and proper that this matter should be submitted to the people separately for the purpose of securing an expression of opinion. To what people? Those who are already enfranchised? A convention is in a limited sense a revolutionary body congregated together for the purpose of forming a new government, by which the people of the particular locality might act. Suppose we submit the proposition separately to the people. Who votes upon the proposition as to whether women shall be enfranchised? Is it not the men? Women have no voice, but they must submit to the majority of the opposite sex. Is this right? It seems to me that the whole question recurs to the proposition, is it right that women should vote? If it be right, why not insert it in the Constitution? If it be wrong, why not vote against the insertion of it in the Constitution and likewise vote against the submission of it to the people?

Now, I want just for a moment to refer to a remark which my colleague from Weber County (Mr. Kiesel) made