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

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

Roll call showed a quorum present.

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

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

Mr. Creer was excused for the day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1 was read.

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

The amendment was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. VARIAN. Well, I simply say this, I do not claim this motion to strike out a part need necessarily interfere with the other amendments to that, but I say that it ought to be submitted before the motion to strike out the entire section is submitted, for the reasons I have indicated.
{1035}
Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, as I have repeatedly said, I do not pretend to be much of a parliamentarian, but in this matter, I am decidedly of the opinion that the chair is right As I understand the situation now, Mr. Strevell has offered an amendment, by inserting the words, “conciliation and,” after the word labor, in line 2. Then Mr. Peters moved that all after the word labor, in line 4, be stricken out. Then Mr. Cannon moved that all of section 2 be stricken out. There are three amendments now pending before the amendment offered by Mr. Varian to strike out all after the word employe in line 7. That would make the fourth amendment, which, under any parliamentary rule that I am familiar with, would not be right. But aside from that, I go deeper into the question, and according to my view of it, where a motion is pending to strike out an entire section, it is useless to undertake to perfect that section and then have the motion

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

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the ruling of the chair is that the motion made by Mr. Varian is not upon the ground that there are already two amendments to the motion, but it is on the ground that a motion to strike out has been made and until that motion has been voted upon any amendment to the question would not be in order. Now, it is true that there are two amendments before the house and if the gentlemen are going to be captious about this matter, why of course, you would simply have to wait until one of those motions are passed upon, but it is a matter of very little question. If Mr. Varian waited until the amendment of Mr. Strevell had been voted upon, then there would have been simply one amendment before the house and his motion would be in order. Now, Mr. Varian, as I understand it, concedes that there being two amendments before the house, his motion would not be in order, if the objection was made on that ground. Of course, as I stated before, he could simply wait for a moment, until the motion by Mr. Strevell was voted upon. That would bring one less amendment before the house and then his motion would be in order. But, as I understand it, the chair puts his decision upon the ground that the motion to strike out having been made, that must be put first and the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Evans) sustains the chair, as I understand it, upon that ground. He takes the position, as I understand it, that a motion to strike out is not an independent motion, but in the nature of an amendment and in the face of the authorities that were read here yesterday, he takes the position that when there are amendments pending and a motion to strike out is made the motion to strike out should be put first. I venture to say that the gentlemen will find no authority anywhere for any such a position as that.
{1036}
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to you, Mr. Hart, for your information, the chair ruled on the question as it stood before the house, without making any particular statement as to all the details.

Mr. HART. (Reading.)

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

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

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

Mr. HART. Well, yes.

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

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

Mr. EVANS (Weber). You then oppose the chair, because he has given a wrong reason for a right decision, do you?
{1037}
Mr. HART. Oh, I will sustain the chair upon the proposition of three amendments. I was not aware at the time that Mr. Peters' amendment was before the house.

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

The amendment of Mr. Strevell was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than in Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SQUIRES. I think it should be mandatory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

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

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

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

The motion was ruled out of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulate or prohibit blacklisting and the importation of labor.

Then, the protection of employes from political and commercial control. That is a very serious matter also, that where a company of men or an individual employing a number of men_now, in a matter of politics, or in the selection of a candidate for office, or something of that kind, he wields a great power and he uses it_a great many use it, and do not hesitate to use it. Hence, you destroy the individual liberty of the man or you give it in the power of the man wielding the capital to use the men, that is to deprive them in a measure of their liberty.
{1048}
And prevent the commercial control. That is another very important matter, and a matter that men universally complain of, and if any one has ever lived in a community where companies employing bodies of men have supplied them with all the necessaries at general store and boarding houses and things of that kind, they will see and know how it paralyzes a whole community. If you go from that community to another community following a like line of business where the individual liberty of the worker is regarded and he can do as he pleases, you will see the great difference. The more prosperity, the greater content in a community. Men are better and live better and are better citizens under that condition than they are under the condition of restraint and control. That would be the reason for that provision.

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

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

The motion to strike out was rejected.

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

AFTERNOON SESSION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The substitute offered by Mr. Ryan was rejected.

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

The amendment was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blacklist at all.

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

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

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

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

Mr. THURMAN. We can never do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point of order was sustained.

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

The substitute of Mr. Evans was rejected.

Section 3 was rend.

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

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

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

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

Mr. THURMAN. That is right.

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Then it is not in order.

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

Mr. THURMAN. Second the motion.

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. PRESTON. Vote them all down.

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

The noes have it.

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

Mr. VAN HORNE. Division called for.

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

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

The secretary read Mr. Strevell's proposed amendment.

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

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

Thirty three noes. The amendment is carried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. The decision of the chair is appealed from. All in favor_
{1055}
Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, before you put that question_    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. THURMAN. I second the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

The question being taken on the appeal from the decision of the chair, the decision was sustained.
{1056}
Mr. MACKINTOSH. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have got a little resolution, “That four dollars shall be the per diem of underground miners, and silver shall have a fixed value of $1.25 per ounce.” [Laughter.]

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4 was read.

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

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

The motion of Mr. Thurman was agreed to.

Section 5 was read.

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

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

The amendment of Mr. Cannon was rejected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). He does.

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

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

Mr. EICHNOR. Under no circumstances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The substitute offered by Mr. Van Home was rejected.

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

Section 6 was read.

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

The motion was agreed to.

Section 7 was read.

Mr. Evans of Weber offered the following substitute:

The exchange of blacklists between corporations shall be prohibited.

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

The CHAIRMAN. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SQUIRES. In what way?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. THURMAN. Then, what does it mean?

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

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

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

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

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