[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 Delegate Barnes of Davis County.

Journal of the fifty-first day's session was read and approved.

File No. 377, signed by David Peebles and 15 others, from Roy precinct, asking that woman's suffrage be submitted as a separate article to a vote of the people, by Adams, of Weber.

Filed.

Committee on manufactures and commerce reported as follows:

Committee Room.

MR. PRESIDENT:

Your committee on manufacture and commerce, to whom was referred files No. 144, proposition for insertion in the Constitution article on the metric system of weights and measures; 148, proposition to protect manufacturing business against losses sustained, provided prohibition should be inserted in the Constitution; 47, to regulate and license the manufacture and sale of fermented, vinous and spirituous liquors, beg leave to report that we have had the same under consideration. We have carefully and thoroughly investigated each proposition submitted to us, and found nothing that we could recommend to be embodied in the Constitution. We refer the same back and recommend that they be filed.

HYDE, Chairman.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, with Mr. Varian in the chair, and proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled mines and mining.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Sections 1 and 2 were read.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “coal,” in line 3.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that motion will not prevail, for this reason: In 1891, the Congress of the United States took it on themselves to appoint a mine inspector in every territory in the Union to look after coal mines alone. They did not go into the quartz mines or other mines. It was the danger of life that surrounded the coal mines that they thought was necessary to have a mine inspector for. The quartz miners of the Territory have not asked for anything of this kind

All the circumstances that surround all those accidents occur in the coal mines. It is unnecessary altogether to have it in there.

The motion was rejected.

Section 3 was read.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 3. That same question was passed upon by this Convention, and the judgment of this Convention was that private property could not be subjected to private uses.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor also of striking out this section. {1414} We devoted some two or three days to the discussion of this question when it came up as a proposition in the bill of rights. Members of the committee may remember at that time that I favored a section declaring the rights of way for purposes that are named in this section, and also the rights of way for irrigation purposes and drainage to be declared public uses. I would have been glad at that time, if I could, of determining by a section of our Constitution that these things were public uses, because I thought that it would be better for us to define what were public uses, or at least specify that these particular purposes were public uses, than to leave the matter to judicial determination by the courts. But inasmuch, Mr. Chairman, as after a full consideration of that question at that time, it was the sense of this Convention and of this committee that we should simply declare that the right of eminent domain should exist, leaving the courts to determine what was a public purpose, I am now in favor of striking out this section. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we should give mining any greater preference in this State than the interests of agriculture. I think myself that the courts will be obliged to decide that rights of way for tunnels, flumes, pipes, ditches, roads, tramways, or dumps or the drainage or working of mines are a public use. I believe that they will also be obliged to declare that the rights of way for irrigation and drainage purposes connected with agriculture are a public purpose, but inasmuch as we have left the one matter to the courts, I think we should leave the other matter to the courts also. I am, therefore, in favor of giving no preference to mining over agriculture. It would mix this matter up. It would be declaring certain purposes here a public use; perhaps by the very fact that we insert this in the Constitution, the construction of the courts would be that rights of way for agriculture were not public purposes, otherwise we would have designated them in the Constitution; in order to make a uniformity in the matter, in order to give no preference to one of these great branches of industry over the other, but permit both, as I think by judicial construction, to have the rights that we desire for them, I am in favor of leaving the matter to the courts and striking out this section.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion. It is very necessary that it remain. Mining is one of the most important industries of our State and always will be. It is likely to grow in importance and it is subject to the control of the Legislature. I think these should be declared public uses. There are certain limitations put upon them by the Legislature, and in order to protect one of the greatest industries of our State, I think that this section should be retained. Therefore, I shall vote against striking it out.

Those gentlemen that are so ably opposing this proposition know more about the necessities on the snowy white cliffs of the Wasatch range by what they read about it or by what somebody told them. They never were up there and developed any mines. If they go up some canyon for miles and there discover a mine and start a road that is going to give them a roadway into the city, and where the ground is no use to anybody on earth, they will have the practical part of it, and can speak from a different standpoint. This is a necessity_a necessity that the fixed industry of this State must have. I take it that that is the main enterprise of the State and one that goes to make it one of the greatest intermountain States in this Union_is the mining industry. And, gentlemen, I trust that there is not one of you who wishes to throw a stone in the way of that grand industry, because you have hundreds of square miles of rich mountains with untold treasures of wealth that will conquer the generations yet to come.

Mr. BOWDLE. Mr. Chairman, I am one of those gentlemen that do not know anything about mining. I will confess that, so the gentleman's remarks in that regard apply with all their force upon that proposition; but this is a proposition that we have already passed upon. We passed upon a broader proposition that included this. The proposition that we passed upon was taking of private property for other than public uses. Now, it was sought to make all these things a public use. We had that question up and discussed it before, so as to get around that theory, that you cannot take private property for a private use. I submit, gentlemen, it does not make any difference what you call it, it is the same thing. You may declare that a man that owns a little mining claim up here has the right to go across his neighbor's claim and that that right 19 a public use. That does not make it a public use. What is a public use? A public use is one which benefits the people generally, not where it is an individual matter. This would be in all

probability where there would be one individual against another individual. How can you call that a public use? A man owns a mine up here_one single man owns a mine. A man right next to him owns a mine. Now, would you have this Constitutional Convention declare that it was a public use for that one man to go across the other man's land and take his property? That is what you would have this Constitutional Convention do. We said once most emphatically upon that question, “We won't do that thing.” We said that when it was included in it, that it should be for the benefit of agriculture. Now, it is reduced down to the one single thing of mining, and I agree with the gentleman from Cache County, that if this goes into the Constitution, you thereby fix a limit and no court would say that any other thing was a public use_that agriculture was a public use, {1416} that you could build a flume and that was a public use, unless that included the benefits to a large proportion of the area of a country. It might be in a case like that. I think there was a case that was decided in one of the courts, probably of California, where the question came up, and the question was where there were a great many people that were interested and would be benefitted by that, that the court would then declare it a public use, but I have never known a case_and I looked this matter up before it came up on the other question. I could not find a single case where it was one man against another man that the court would declare it a public use. I am opposed to this. I am opposed to it, because it is class legislation. That is the reason I am opposed to it. I recognize the great importance of mining in this country, and I would not strike a blow that would injure it in any way, unless it was necessary for the protection of the individuals of the State and the individual rights. The right to hold and own and control one's own individual property is above every other consideration, save and except that of the public use. This is not that kind of a case at all. I am opposed to it.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you take notice that Colorado, Idaho, and Montana, the states that surround us here, with the same state of affairs that applies to us, have a section of this kind in their constitution_they found it necessary?

Mr. BOWDLE. Has the court ever construed those?

Mr. KEARNS. In those states that I have mentioned_Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, California, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If you fail to find anything, you can post yourself up.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will confine himself to a question. We cannot allow this discussion.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would not wish to say anything, if I was sure that the Convention would stand to what they have already decided. The gentleman from Summit says that no practical man has spoken upon the subject. I think that anyone that is acquainted with me will admit that I am a practical man. While I do not pretend to know much about mining, I am willing to admit that the mining interests of this Territory are of great importance. But I am not willing to admit that they are of the greatest importance. Now, I am a farmer. My friend over here is a miner, I presume, and I hold that the farming interests of this Territory are the foundation of the prosperity of this country, or any other country as far as that goes, and that the mining interests would be but little without the farming interests to support it. And inasmuch as we have

heretofore decided that there should be no provisions of this kind, depriving the agricultural interests of any privileges, rights of way of any kind, declaring it to be a public use, I shall vote for the striking out of this section unless it can be amended as to include the agricultural interests. I am not willing to make the mining interests the first and foremost to the expense of the agricultural interests of this Territory.

Mr. EICHNOR. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion to strike out this section. I also wish to be understood that I am not antagonistic to the agricultural interests of the State or Territory of Utah. I think we have made a grave mistake when we strike out the section that made the public use of these matters. Possibly we were right in striking out the section that private property might be taken for private use. It should have been declared a public use. Now, when it comes down to a practical man, I have had experience in farming. I have had experience in mining until my money {1417} ran out. I am not engaged in mining at present, and I am glad of it. Now, I think that this section ought to stand, and when the report, comes in from the committee on schedule, future amendments, and miscellaneous, that under the head of miscellaneous we should insert a clause putting the agricultural interests of this Territory on a par with mining. Let the two stand on a par with each other. It is not worth while for us here to fight against mining in one sense of the word and against farming in the other. The two exist in this Territory and they are two great interests. Now, this section provides in the latter part that the uses which are declared public are subject to the control and regulation of the State. That certainly means the Legislature. I think instead of being dangerous it would be beneficial to the mining interests, and certainly it would work no harm to the farming interests. It is a fact, the more mines you have in this Territory, the better market has the farmer for his products. The states that have prospered the best in the United States are those where great mining interests and great agricultural interests exist. I hope that the section will be retained.

Mr. Kearns hands me Lewis on Eminent Domain, and requests me to read a certain section. I do not know what it is, but I will read it:

The taking of land for water power, for running any kind of mills or machinery, is held to be for public use, and principally Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and also by the supreme court of the United States in a case which went up from New Hampshire. The constitutionality of acts for this purpose has been seriously questioned, but nevertheless upheld either on the ground of authority or under a general acquiescence and uses in Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, and Nebraska. On the other hand such acts have been held unconstitutional as authorizing the taking of private property for private use, save in case of public grist mills, in the state of Alabama.

Mr. EICHNOR. The section refers to milling. Here is one on mining:

On the other hand, the validity of such laws has been denied in California, Pennsylvania, and partly so in West Virginia.

are declared public uses the courts cannot declare them otherwise. I think that is the idea.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask Mr. Eichnor a question. I see that the last clauses of this section declare that this matter is subject to the control and regulation of the State, which I understood you to say meant the Legislature, of course?

Mr. EICHNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask if the settlement of this question when under discussion in the bill of rights does not also leave not only these necessary uses of lands, etc., in regard to the mining industry, but also to agricultural uses arising upon this same principle_if that is not at present also left with the Legislature?

Mr. EICHNOR. My answer to that question is this, that in some states when they had no constitutional provision of this kind, they have enacted statutes and some courts have upheld them and others have declared them unconstitutional, and I think we would be confronted with the same thing in Utah, that if the Legislature passes a law declaring certain mining interests and certain agricultural interests public uses, it is a question what the supreme court of the State of Utah will do, that is, the question will be, is the statute constitutional or unconstitutional?

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a corrected copy, as I understand {1418} it, of the bill of rights. Section 22 and 23 read as follows: (Reads.)

The CHAIRMAN. That is all stricken out_section 23.

Mr. IVINS. That being the case, I see all the greater necessity for the approval of section 3 as it has been reported from the committee on mines and mining. Section 22 of the bill of rights provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being made. Now, if I understand the design of section 3 of this report of the committee on mines and mining, it is simply to define that the right of way for tunnels, flumes, pipes, ditches, roads, tramways, or dumps, for the drainage or working of mines, shall be a public use, not to be obtained by any corporation or individual for its own special use or benefit, but may be declared by the Legislature to be a public use. I cannot see how this can possibly come in contact with any agricultural interest in this Territory, but I do know from my own experience that it is necessary that some such declaration shall be made in this Constitution in order that the mining interests of the State may properly be developed. Men secure titles to ground in the neighborhood of valuable mining property. Mines are located in marrow, inaccessible canyons upon the top of almost inaccessible peaks, and it is an easy matter for a man by locating fifteen hundred feet of mining ground to absolutely obstruct any approach to that property. A locator of such ground would be amply protected in the section which I have read, because that provides that this property shall not be taken from him without just compensation first being made, but do not let us give to the Legislature the power to declare the necessity of that road to be a public one and to condemn it for that purpose, after just compensation has been made. It may be said in regard to a drain tunnel, which may be necessary for development of a mine_it would be absolutely necessary to have that right of way in order to develop it. I do not think it is a good argument to say that

because similar privileges were not granted for other purposes that it shall not be granted for mining purposes in case it shall appear to the members of this committee that this proposition of itself is a good one. The fact that the same thing has not been granted to some one else is no reason why we should not grant it to the mining interests of the Territory. To my mind it is proper, just, and very necessary, and I hope that it will be retained.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am very much opposed to the striking out of section 3. I think it is absolutely necessary in the interests of mining, for this reason: My friend from Washington County brought forth the arguments to a great extent that I wished to in regard to the condition of the country in which mining is carried on. I think that it is not illiberal and an interest in the mining interests should be entertained by the people generally in regard to extending more than you would to the agricultural. Still, I am not a miner, but I am a farmer, and I do not think it would impair my rights in the least, nor any other farmer's. As my friend from Washington County has stated, the character of the country that mining is carried on in is very different from agriculture. And let us look at it. I do not recollect in part or as a whole that agriculture has made any particular failure, but I do know that mining has been carried on to a very great loss to a great many people, while there are some, perhaps, have made fortunes, but few in comparison to the general whole. And I say an extension to the mining interests should be certainly tolerated in the country here, while I am willing to admit that mining and agricultural interests go hand in hand, one is dependent upon the other. To be sure, agriculture {1419} is that that we cannot possibly do without. We cannot possibly do without agricultural interests and the products of agriculture, but while they are as it were at the foundation of our interests, but the mining is the source from which we expect to get our money and to get occupation for individuals that are not either agriculturalists or even miners, but they are laborers, and it is that source that gives occupation, and I say that any mine is a public interest. I say that every mine, although it may be owned by an individual, it is a public interest. Why? Because, indirectly the benefits come to the general public, so does every institution that is created. There is not an institution of a mechanical character, but what is a public interest to an extent. It employs men and the results go to the general public. So I say that my feelings are that this section should be certainly retained in the interest of the general public, because, just as my friend from Washington stated, the men might, for the purpose of, as it were, blackmailing, go and take up a piece of ground for the very purpose of asking a compensation that would be thoroughly unreasonable, and I say that the section should be retained, in my judgment.

Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask Mr. Ivins a question. In your judgment, does the objection raised by the gentleman from Cache, that the placing of this matter in this section and leaving out of the agricultural interests of the State from any constitutional provision, prevent the Legislature from making a similar provision for the agricultural industry?

Mr. IVINS. Well, I do not know that I can answer that question. I was not here when the gentleman from Cache made his argument, and had I heard it, I do not know that I would be as competent as he to answer that.

Mr. SQUIRES. His objection is, Mr. Chairman, that if we mention these uses for mining purposes, we thereby debar the Legislature from making a similar provision for the protection of

agricultural interests. If that is conceded by the lawyers, and there is any chance of having this section put in here, I believe it should be amended. For that purpose I will offer the following amendment to test the sense of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair desires to state that it does not feel like being called upon to rule upon a question of that kind, as everybody knows that I am opposed to this sort of legislation, and any ruling I might make would be misconceived. I would suggest to the gentleman it would come better on third reading, or else that the committee appoint some one else to take the chair.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would there be any harm in offering an amendment now to test the sense of the house?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would be of the opinion that all these matters embraced within the section and the preamble and bill of rights have been finally disposed of by this Convention and cannot be interjected in the Constitution in this way, except upon the reading of the whole Constitution by a two-thirds vote, under suspension of the rules or upon a reconsideration of the other vote which disposed of it, but I prefer not to be called upon to pass upon that question.

Mr. SQUIRES. This section is still under consideration. The chair does not rule that it is not under consideration?

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to make that suggestion. The gentleman can proceed as he chooses.

Mr. SQUIRES. I move to amend so that if the section be adopted it will stand in this form, insert after the word “mineral,” in line 5, the words “and agricultural,” so that this provision would apply not only to the mining, but to the agricultural resources of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should send his amendment up in writing.
{1420}
Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the delegate, Mr. Squires, that he add in his amendment, “for manufacturing purposes.” It is also an important industry.

Mr. SQUIRES. I understand that the courts have ruled that the use of water for manufacturing purposes is a public use and would not need to be put in here.

Mr. THORESON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here for this section that I think will cover the ground_an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer a substitute for section 3.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all these amendments and to the article itself.

Mr. Thoreson's amendment was read as follows:

To strike out from lines 4 and 5, the words “as a means to the development of the mineral resorcesof the State,” and insert in lieu thereof, “and for agricultural, domestic, and sanitary purposes.”

The necessary use of land for rights of way for tunnels, flumes, pipes, ditches, canals, reservoirs, roads, tram-ways, or dumps, for the development of the farming or mineral resources of the State, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the control and regulation of the State.

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir; that is worded just the same as this other, with the addition that I have put in there, “canals, and reservoirs, and for the development of the farming resources of the State.”

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Does the chair hold that that substitute is in order now?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands that it is a substitute for these two amendments.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I know, but it is just an amendment, if there are two amendments. already to the section.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right; the proposition should come on Mr. Squires' motion.

Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw the amendment which I offered, as I think the substitute offered by Mr. Howard more fully covers the point we desire to gain; that will leave the substitute before the house.

Mr. THORESON. I will withdraw mine.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the substitute offered by Mr. Howard.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Mr. Chairman, I think that this matter was thoroughly discussed when we had it under consideration in the bill of rights, and after mature deliberation this Convention decided against that, and I believe that that is what they will do again. My friend from Summit decided here some time ago, that no man only he who was practicing in the law was speaking upon that side of the question. He referred to the fact that but very few knew anything about the great white-clad peaks of the Wasatch range only what they had read about. I want to say to the gentleman that I have been upon those peaks myself, but it did not help me to form a conclusion, by reason of that, that I had any right to cast my vote to enact a constitutional provision whereby one citizen could demand aid of the State to take away the property of his fellow individual citizen.

That is what you propose to do in this article, as I comprehend it; that you are going to make a constitutional enactment whereby if one person believes that his interest demands that another

person's property shall be taken by giving him what he thinks perhaps is a just compensation, that he will have a right to do it, and I say {1421} that we ought not to do that. I say that it is sufficient, as we have already declared, that private property shall be taken for public uses and those uses will be declared by the courts. I am opposed to this system. I believe that we have done all that we ought to do, and I do not think this Convention is prepared to say that if it shall be in my wisdom deemed proper that I should take the property of my neighbor, that we should declare that I had the right to do that. We cannot tell where that principle will strike, and, so far as I am concerned, it would make no difference to me where it would strike. I should be opposed to it upon the principle of human liberty, and we ought not to be allowed to do it. I say that it is going as far as we ought to go when we say under our organic law that private property should be taken for any purpose whatever. Those purposes should be strictly public, and they should be defined by the courts, because that is where it will go eventually. Whenever this question is tested, if you shall put that in your organic law, men will not submit to it, and it is a question that will institute litigation in this Territory and will eventually have to go to the courts to be decided upon, and I believe that if we were to take that position that the courts would decide that it was unconstitutional; it ought not to exist, that private property should be taken by private individuals for their private purposes and uses. If you follow this thing up, you will soon see that the safety of the individual, that the bulwark of his liberty and safety is broken down, whenever you insert such a provision in the organic law, and I believe that this Convention, when this vote is called upon the substitute and also upon the section as reported by the committee, while not charging them with any selfishness in this matter_I want to say to you, gentlemen, if this substitute will be voted down, as I think it will and ought to be, then when the question shall revert upon the article as reported by that committee, that the fact that they have defined in there what is to be a public use, it will be curtailing upon the Legislature, as I comprehend it, that they will not be able to say that anything else shall be a public use, and therefore, you will discriminate against the manufacturing resources of the State; against the agricultural industry of the State, in favor of the mining industry, and I do not think we ought to do it, and I do not think this Convention will.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you think the Legislature would provide the necessary laws from time to time without doing anybody injustice?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). No, sir; I do not think they would have the power to do it, if we undertake to define what is a public use.

Mr. KEARNS. If you strike it out, they certainly won't.

Mr. CREER. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the gentleman a question. I want to ask if he has heard of the reputation of Mr. Choate, of New York, as an attorney. He confirms that principle.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). I do not know anything about Mr. Choate's reputation at all. It would not make any difference to me if I did.

Mr. CREER. His reputation is national, and he sustains this.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir; I do. I believe that when the necessity becomes sufficient, the courts will so decide.

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I am in favor of having a constitutional provision providing for that emergency.

Mr. EICHNOR. I would like to ask Mr. Evans a question. Is it your idea {1422} that the Legislature should declare these interests public uses?

Mr. EVANS (Utah). No, sir; it is not.

Mr. EICHNOR. Simply the court.

Mr. EVANS (Utah). Yes, sir; simply the court, But I say the Legislature may do it if we do not debar them by specifically setting forth one interest, by declaring it to be a public interest. These debates will be gone into in defining these questions, when they come to rule upon them. They will see what led up to it. This Convention struck the other provision all out and then inserted this.

Mr. HART. There is a matter connected with the legal phase of this question that I think should be considered. I think that the gentleman from Salt Lake, Mr. Bowdle, is mistaken when he declares that the decision of the courts in the western states at least will not uphold as a public use the taking of land for purposes of right of way for irrigation ditches, and also for manufacturing and mining and milling purposes. It is true that the decisions of the courts all over the United States are considerably at sea as to what is a public use. They are not only undecided and uncertain as to what is a public use in these different cases, but there is a difference of opinion amongst them as to the test or criterion upon which a public use is to be determined. But the decisions of the western states have very generally held, in addition to the authorities read by the gentleman from Summit County, that a right of way for irrigation purposes, for mining and milling, was a public use. It is true that there is a decision there from California that the gentleman read that does not uphold that in a certain mining case, but I can show the gentleman other authorities from California which do uphold the right of way for drainage and irrigation purposes connected with mines, such as drains, etc., from the mines. It seems to me there must have been something connected with the particular circumstances of the case that the gentleman read there that should cause them to decide that that was not a public use.

The CHAIRMAN. For one individual is the division_for one purpose.

Mr. HART. It would seem from that case that it was for the benefit of one individual solely and some other person was perhaps being injured to a like extent. Of course, if some great good shall come from some slight injury, although a few persons only were interested in that right of way, I

have no doubt the court would uphold it as a public use. Therefore, if upon the first discussion of this question we could have the substitute offered by the gentleman from Weber County (Mr. Kimball), which was the Idaho constitution on this subject, I would have been glad if that had been adopted. It would have defined and settled the question to a great extent and removed the uncertainty of the decisions of courts upon this question; but we have rejected that. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of striking out this section for the reason before stated, that if we enumerate these matters connected with mines, and declare that they can be taken for public purposes, I am afraid that the courts will be hampered in passing upon the question of rights of way for agricultural purposes. I would not oppose this section for a moment if it was simply to make certain and sure something that the mines should have which it would do. I would be willing to give it a preference over agriculture by declaring and making certain in this way, inasmuch as we cannot make the other matter certain, I would fix certain that part that we can if I was not afraid that by so doing you would rule out the power of the courts by judicial decree of determining that rights of way for agricultural purposes were public uses.

I am opposed to the substitute offered {1423} by the gentleman from Emery County for the reason that I believe it is crude and imperfect. From a casual reading of it, I am certain that it is. No layman can sit upon the floor of this house and in a casual manner produce an article that will stand the test of the courts or will give us satisfaction. Mr. Chairman, if we were going to declare these matters public uses at all, let us include the whole list, rights of way for milling, manufacturing, mining, and agricultural purposes. Let us by unanimous consent go back to the section introduced by the gentleman from Weber County and get a section that is well considered and nicely worded, and not attempt either to hamper the courts in their discretion as to what is public use by declaring some of these purposes public uses, or let us not on the other hand attempt to cover the ground by a crude and imperfect substitute that is offered upon this whole subject. I am in favor of striking out the section and oppose the substitute.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be opposed to the substitute. I am opposed to the third section and was opposed to it in the committee, but I did not see that it would or could do any good and would not answer the purpose which it was designed for. Some remarks have been made showing or tending to show that a man might take up a piece of ground below a valuable mine and obstruct the right of way for drainage, for roads, or for any other reason. He might take it up for that purpose and he might not.

One mine might be developed and be valuable. A piece of ground adjoining it might be undeveloped and equally as valuable, and if you, Mr. Chairman, wished to cross my ground with a road or a ditch, claiming it to be a public use, and I would deny your right, this section I do not think would settle the question. You would have to go into the courts then, would not you? And looking at it in that way, and taking that view of it, I cannot see that it would accomplish any purpose whatever.

Mr. SQUIRES. Would it be necessary to have more than one case taken to the courts_could not a test case be made that would settle the whole question?

Mr. RYAN. I presume so; that would settle it, without this section, would not it, so that the

section would not do any good?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman permit the chair to make a suggestion, that each case would have to depend upon its individual facts?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, this whole matter that has come up for discussion this morning, as I remember it, was very thoroughly considered in sections 22 and 23 when the bill of rights was under discussion. The latter part of section 22 and the whole of section 23 covered all and more than is proposed by this substitute or by section 3 in the article on mines and mining. I think, sir, at that time, the result of the discussion was that the latter part of section 22 and all of section 23 was stricken from the bill of rights and the provisions left thus:
Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.
That, sir, as I remember it, left all this matter to the Legislature and to the courts. It left mining, agriculture, and manufacturing interests, so far as these matters proposed in this substitute are concerned, upon an absolute equal footing, and now to disturb the action that was then taken by the Convention, after full, free, and prolonged debate upon the question with a full house, I think it is exceedingly unwise and unprofitable, and as was suggested and brought out by the remarks of the gentleman from Juab, in the question propounded by the gentleman from Salt Lake to him, this whole question {1424} at any rate would have to go before the courts and depend upon the decision of the courts as to what public purposes might be. And for that reason I am unwilling to disturb the candid decision of this Convention upon this proposition.

And now to spring an ill-prepared and doubtless ill-considered and hurriedly prepared substitute, to work into this Convention what was once ejected from it, is not the part of wisdom, and I think that in all these respects we can safely trust the Legislature, and we can safely trust the courts, and the miners can do that just as well as the agriculturists and the manufacturers can do it. Now, sir, for the reason that we have fully discussed in this Convention and settled these propositions, I am opposed to the section and also to the substitute.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention, of the gentleman from Davis County to the fact that it is necessary in order to secure rights of way over these mining properties that they should be declared rights of way for public purposes by this Convention, otherwise the courts would have no power, as I understand it, to declare rights of way over these private properties for private uses. We are attempting, as I understand it, in this section to determine what is a public use, and as I understand it, it is within the scope of this Convention to make a declaration of that kind.

Mr. ROBERTS. Does the gentleman not remember that substitutes were offered for section 23, attempting to declare what public uses were, in the discussion that we had on that question?

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir; I do. You are right.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then, I ask you if you do not also remember that those substitutes were rejected on this settlement by this Convention?

Mr. ROBERTS. Is not this reviving a question that was once settled by the Convention?

Mr. JAMES. That is also correct. I take for granted that if this Convention in dealing with some question should have enacted or passed some provision that they would afterwards discover that would be beneficial to the public to correct, that it would be a proper thing for them to endeavor to do so. Now, the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. Murdock), called your attention to mining as a public benefit. Now, I take it for granted that no gentleman on this floor will question the gentleman's position regarding mining being a public benefit. Now if there should be any question in any gentleman's mind regarding this statement of the gentleman, let him look to Europe. There, after hundreds of years of experience in mining, we find to-day the government of_

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I arise to a point of order. This Convention has decided this question in Convention, and is not it out of order to be discussing it in this committee?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair is of opinion that that matter would be properly decided in the Convention. I should not care to rule upon it as chairman of the committee of the whole. When this committee makes its reports the Convention can decide it.

Mr. JAMES. Then I will proceed Russia to-day is taxing all classes of industry for the purpose of working their precious metal mines to a certain extent. Now, if it was not a public benefit, would that great nation, Russia, be found taxing the public in order to work those mines? And is not it so, gentlemen, that Europe has for generations discriminated in the interests of the mining industry, that is, they have made the burden of taxation light upon the industry? Now, I simply mention this to you, gentlemen, as I vote that mining is a public benefit, and that is the reason why the gentleman, I suppose, {1425} from Summit County has come in here and asked you to declare rights of ways over these properties public uses. Now, Mr. Chairman, so far as I am personally concerned, I have not one particle of personal interest in this thing being done. As you all well know, I am an old miner of long standing in this Territory. My titles are perfect. I am not seeking rights of way anywhere, but, gentlemen, there are poor men in this county to-day that own mining property that, if I do not see fit to give them rights of way over property that I own patents to, in this county, their properties are not worth one cent to them, and they have spent years in trying to develop them and make them of some value to themselves. Now, for the reason that it cannot injure anybody and it is a public benefit, that it is no concern to the agricultural industry, excepting. to their benefit, I do not see why this question should have come up here unless there is something improper or illegal in our proceedings. I concede if there is, that we should not do it, but otherwise, there should be no question about this I say to you, gentlemen, that are engaged in agricultural industries, this very proposition is to your particular benefit. Why? As the gentleman from St. George has told you and as you all know, because you have lived in these mountains and you are familiar with how mines are located, how they are situated, and where they are found, and know that it is frequently a narrow passage, we cannot get into the mountains where mines are without these passes, and a man, as he has a right to do under the law, has got that and located that piece of property, shutting off the right of way to that narrow

passage; now, suppose, gentlemen, you vote here so that you put yourselves in a shape that you cannot get over that piece of ground, and what is the result? Why, you farmers must go up into the mountains to get that timber. You must go up there and seek_

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. In your mining experience, how many cases have you met such as you speak of, desiring the right of way over another man's property_how many cases have you met that you were not able to settle amicably with the claim owners?

Mr. JAMES. Well, personally, not any; but I know of several that have caused serious trouble. Now, I want to say to you, gentlemen, supposing you want to pass over this piece of ground or to get out of those mountains to take rocks or drive your cattle up in there to herd them, in the summer season, just as is done in all of these mountain ranges, just as you have the privilege to do. Providence put the timber up there for your benefit, and it should be utilized. Now, supposing I should come, and in my contrary, stubborn and selfish disposition, shut you out of there and say you shall not go up there, am I doing anybody any good? Now, I cannot understand, unless it is for the reason I speak of, why there should be any question of adopting this section with this mining article. You will all observe in the bill of rights, passing over this ground or taking possession, that cannot be done without compensating the holder of this property for what it may be worth, and what more should he ask?

Mr. BOWDLE. I want simply to reply to what Mr. Hart has said in one regard. He has challenged the correctness of my position, and claims that it is not backed up by the decisions of these western states. He has asserted that that is not the case, but he fails to bring the decisions to contradict them. Now, the gentleman misunderstands one thing. I made no assertion with reference to mills. It has been held in a great many states that milling was a {1426} public benefit. Everybody has to go to mill unless somebody comes for them, and it was held that that was a public benefit, and all of those cases that were referred to in the Eastern states, save and except possibly one, was on that ground. I admit that, and the court here would hold that milling in that term commonly used_that a grist mill, saw mill and the like would be a public benefit, and that you could have a road to these mills. I believe in some of the states it is held that in laying out a road you can make a terminus at a grist mill, because that is a public benefit. You can make a terminus at a public graveyard or cemetery, because that is a public benefit. Everybody has to die and be buried.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you hold that mining is not a public benefit?

Mr. BOWDLE. Mining is no more a public benefit than is agriculture_no more.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you hold that both are?

Mr. BOWDLE. I hold that they are both a public benefit in this, they furnish the means of subsistence to the people. One man raises the crop from the ground and the other digs the mineral out, and simply because a mine which employed a hundred men_it is no more a public benefit than a ranch that will employ a hundred men.

Mr. BOWDLE. I do not know. The test of public benefit is the amount of good it does to the public, and it does not make any difference whether it be a mine or whether it be a farm, if the farm is equally productive and turns out as many dollars and benefits as many people, it is as much a public benefit as is the mine. But I do not want to be understood in this that I am antagonizing the mines, not a particle. I wish for the mines of Utah the greatest prosperity. But I do claim that when this section, if we pass it in favor of one industry, and by passing it we discriminate against another that is equally as great in this Territory, you cannot get away from the proposition that if that section passes you thereby say to the courts, “we have passed on the question of what is a public use. Agriculture and manufacturing is not a public use and you cannot benefit them by any decisions you may make.”

Now, one other thing, I do not believe that it is the province of this Constitutional Convention to make a thing by declaration a public use that is not a public use.

Behind this Constitutional Convention there is a power that is greater than it. The Constitution of the United States has guaranteed unto men their property, and this Constitutional Convention cannot say to them, “We take that and declare it to be a public use.” You cannot do it, and I do not believe that it means anything, that if we stand up here and declare a thing that is strictly a private enterprise or a public use, the public benefit, that that makes it so, and I am opposed to that on that ground. I am just as anxious that this Territory should improve and grow as any man dare to be in this Constitutional Convention, and every industry should prosper, but I am not willing to put that section or to put the substitute in this Constitution, because when we do, you say to one man, “You have the power to go and take another man's property,” and one man stands in the eyes of the law just as good as the other, and the first is guaranteed that right and you say you will take it away from him.

Mr. HART. Just a moment in reply to a remark of Mr. Bowdle. He referred to the fact that I quoted no authority to substantiate the position I take. I will refer him to the same authority that my friend from Summit has over there on eminent domain, as {1427} bearing out the position that I take. If I had the opportunity of reading the words, I would read them, and I am satisfied that it bears out the position I take. It is true, as he says, those cases named from the eastern states are in reference to milling purposes, but the same reason can be applied to agriculture, milling, and mining here in the west. There is no reason why a grist mill is any more a public use than a theater, and upon the same reason you could condemn a man's city lot for the purpose of erecting a theater, a public building to which all the public could go. It is just as much a public purpose as a mill is; it is not upon that ground that they sustain that line of industry in the west_the necessity of it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the section that is sought to be stricken out. I believe that it is necessary for the development of our mining industries. I do not share in the belief that it is unconstitutional. The section simply declares that the necessary use of lands for right of way, for tunnels, flumes, etc., are hereby declared to be a public use. Now, when

gentlemen argue that these lands can be taken and appropriated for anything different from what the section expressly provides, the intimation in the argument is not well founded. It is only where the use is a necessary one for these necessary purposes. That is, for the purpose of developing the mining industry. Take, gentlemen, for instance, cases where men first located upon mining grounds. They secure all the grounds around them, and if somebody happens to get a subsequent location in a situation that is surrounded by the prior location, he would not be permitted to develop his ground, although it might be rich in mineral.

Mr. SQUIRES. Did you hear the substitute offered for the section?

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I did not, and would like to hear it read.

The substitute offered by Mr. Howard was read.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). I confess I am not opposed to the substitute. I take the same position that I took the other day upon this question, that courts will determine the question as to whether these purposes are necessary; they must be essentially necessary before the courts would deprive the owner of his land, and even then the title to the land is not taken, but simply the use for the purposes mentioned. It has been suggested here that there is no difference perhaps in agricultural pursuits and that kind of mining. I think in this respect there is a difference and I will state the reason for it. In agricultural pursuits the county courts and public authorities fix rights of way and ways by which people may travel and secure access to other lands, whereas in the mining camps up high in the mountains the public exercises no such control. The Ruler of all has placed in His wisdom the minerals in our mountains for the purpose of developing them and taking them out for the use of man. Why should man be permitted to so locate or be fortunate enough to secure lands in the situation that it will prevent the design of developing these minerals and developing the country and securing that additional wealth to our new State?

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask Mr. Evans, in the case you refer to, if the prospector were to locate a mine which was surrounded by the mines of other men, possibly patented ground, would not the court permit that prospector, on proper application, if the owners would not, to get access to his ground?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). There would be, I think, in a court of equity a way of necessity by which the court would permit such a use, but there are other uses that are just as necessary as a right of way over which persons may travel. It is just as necessary that there should {1428} be tunnels, and equally necessary that there should be flumes, pipes, ditches, tramways and the like. I can see no injury to any man owning mining property to permit these uses to be declared public uses. He cannot be so deprived of his property that he himself will be injured. It simply permits another person, under necessary and proper circumstances, regulated by the acts of the Legislature, to use that property for these essential purposes, to develop the mining industries of the new State. Why, gentlemen, we talk about these mining industries. They are something, in my opinion, that are paramount to all other industries in Utah. They are only temporary, however, in their character. While they are being worked, let them be worked to tothe fullest extent, let them be developed; do not make a Constitution here which would stay the hand of enterprises, or stay the

hand that desires to delve into the earth to extract from it these precious metals, which are essentially necessary as a medium of exchange. There can be no permanent injury to any man owning mines, whether he be the prior locator or not.

Mr. HART. Do you think this Convention can authorize the taking of private property for private purposes, by a simple declaration to that effect? Would not the courts have to pass upon it anyway?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). This is not a declaration that private property may be taken for private use. The whole thing is left to the Legislature, under certain regulations and restrictions, and doubtless the Legislature will deal wisely with it, doubtless the Legislature will say the manner in which this property may be taken. Of course it could not be done without just compensation, that is clear.

Mr. JAMES. Cannot this Convention declare what shall be a public use?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Undoubtedly it can.

Mr. JAMES. Is not that just what we are trying to do?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That is all, as I understand it, that we are trying to do. We might make such a Constitution here that private property could be taken for private use, and then declare those private uses public, and it may be possible that our supreme court will hold that it was not a public use, but there is a division of opinion in the courts of the land upon this particular question. Our courts, I have no doubt, would decide that mining was a public use, that it was essentially necessary that these things should be permitted in order to develop the interests of mining.

Mr. BOWDLE. You have almost answered the question I was going to ask you. Simply declaring anything to be a public use, would that make it so?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). It would not I will say that in the abstract, it would not, but many of the courts have held that mining is a public use. Gentlemen, it seems to me that it is a public use. The minerals that are deposited in the earth originally belonged to the crown. In the United States government, they belonged to the people until segregated from the domain of the United States and title given by the government. A. person who locates upon public land does it by the grant of the government. He receives benefits from the government. Why should he be permitted, upon public ground granted by the government of the United States, to be put in the position, as I stated the other day, of the dog in the manger, and develop his own grounds and exclude other people who honestly desire to develop their grounds, in cases and circumstances where the person first owning the land is not injured in the least?

Mr. SMITH. Would it be taking property for a public use by my having a mine adjacent to yours, and being unable to get over to mine, to take your property in order that I might {1429} reach my mine? Would that be a public use or a private use?

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Weber favored section 3, or the substitute therefor, I would ask him why he did not favor the substitute of the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Kimball), some days ago?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I did favor it, and the records of this Convention show that I made a speech in favor of it. I am still in favor of the substitute, but I do not believe that the temper of the Convention is such that it can be secured. For that reason I hope to secure the next best thing.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is a very strange course we are pursuing. We spent two or three days on this identical proposition. I myself got somewhat startled at the proposition to cut it out of the original bill of rights, and afterwards we reconsidered the matter and did take virtually this item just as it appears here, with a little changing in the wording. Struck it out after having debated the matter for, I do not know, but some two days. To my mind this is simply rethreshing of old straw, and I am just as much convinced now as I was then. I was willing to vote that this section should go out and that it should go out now. I believe it is a dangerous course and should not be in here. The courts should have this matter under consideration.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, that section that was stricken out of the bill of rights, was it declared a public use and under the control of the State?

Mr. SMITH. It had not those words in it, but it amounted to the same thing virtually.

Mr. KEARNS. The section you are talking about?

Mr. SMITH. I think you are tampering with fire in this thing. We had better leave it alone. Some things we may mention and others not. By mentioning some things it will put the other matter in an unfortunate shape.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I understood, Mr. Varian to champion the striking out of the section of the bill of rights, but he made no serious objection to declaring certain things a public use. That is exactly what we are doing in this section, and nothing else.

Mr. SMITH. My memory in regard to this matter is that so far as he was concerned, he was opposed to the whole proposition in the form in which it was presented.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I understood him to say that in Nevada the courts have declared it to be a public use.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I shall not occupy the attention of the committee very long, but I trust this matter will remain as it was in the bill of rights. The fact of the business is, this is a question that belongs to the courts. The courts have always had control of it, and in every instance they have worked for the interest of the people. I challenge any attorney on this floor to cite one case in the books where a court ever strained a point against declaring anything a public use that was for the benefit of the public. The fact of the business is, the trend has been in the opposite direction. They have been declaring things that are strictly private use, a public use.

Mr. PIERCE. I pick up the gauntlet which he throws down.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is out of order.

Mr. THURMAN. You can answer when I get through. I say that is the trend of judicial decisions, and the books lay it down that it is essentially a judicial question, and I maintain that this Constitutional Convention has no right to attempt to say that the property of a man shall be taken for private use, and if we are not here attempting to do that, what are we attempting to do? That is the question. If we undertake to say that mining is a public use, then the courts will declare that the right may be exercised. If it is a public use the courts will so declare it, every time. If it is a private use that we are trying to allow property to be taken for, I say we have no right to do it and it will have no effect. It has been determined time and time and again that where the legislatures of the states have declared a thing to be a public use, it is not a final determination of the question. The judiciary still have the right to say that it is or is not, and I say that the same principle will apply, if we in this Convention undertake to say that a certain thing is a public use. After all, the judiciary will have to finally settle the question. I think we ought to leave it as it is.

Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I think this section ought to be retained for the reason that I conceive that the section if retained will very materially aid in the development of the mining resources of our Territory, and the mining resources is one of the principal resources of the Territory. If I recollect correctly the law upon this proposition, it is this, in the state of Nevada, some time in perhaps 1872, the eminent domain law contained a clause similar to the one that we have passed in our bill of rights. Subsequently the legislature passed a law declaring that the right of eminent domain existed in favor of mines and mining property, as a public use. That came up for construction by the supreme court of the state of Nevada, and they held that the law was

constitutional under the general clause such as we have in our bill of rights. Of course, if, our courts took that construction, there would be no danger, and the right of eminent domain would exist in favor of mines and mining claims. But, sir, upon the other hand, against the decision of Nevada the weight of authority is in direct opposition to it. The question has come up in the state of California, I cannot now recall the case, in the state of Georgia, and in the state of Pennsylvania, and they have held that under such a section as we have in the eminent domain act or in the bill of rights, that the courts could not construe that mines and mining property were public uses and at the same time enjoyed the benefits of the eminent domain act, and, to place this question absolutely beyond controversy, I think it is the duty of this Convention to declare in favor of mines and leave the section in as it is reported by the committee.
{1431 - PROHIBITION}
Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will also support the substitute that is offered here. It is strange, but I have to differ with the able gentleman from Utah on the way he has laid down the law and as to the necessity and how the courts could find for the people of this country. It is strange that in 1894, in the revised constitution of New York, that that able body found it necessary to say that general laws may be passed permitting the owners or occupants of agricultural land to construct and maintain for the drainage thereof necessary drains, ditches, flumes and dykes, upon the lands under proper restrictions, etc. Now, if they found it necessary there, it is strange that the proposition should be made here that this section will not do our Constitution any good.

Mr. THURMAN. Has that been construed by the courts?

Mr. KEARNS. That, I suppose, if two parties differ on it, would necessarily have to be, but if it was an understood fact between the people themselves, it would save construction by the courts.

Mr. THURMAN. I understood you to say you differed from me in respect to what I said about the law. I said the courts would construe what is a public use and what the Legislature would do would not be final, or what this Convention could do would not be final.

Mr. KEARNS. I understood the gentleman wanted to strike out this and leave it to the courts to do this.

Mr. THURMAN. That is right under the bill of rights.

Mr. KEARNS. I am opposed to it. Also, in Colorado_coming nearer home_they find it necessary there and put it in a good deal stronger than we do. There I believe the committee on mining and irrigation is one and the same thing. They provide that all persons shall have the right of way across public and private and corporate lands for the construction of ditches, channels, flumes, and for the purpose of conveying water for the domestic, for the irrigation of agricultural lands, and for the mining and manufacturing purposes, and for the drainage, upon payment of just compensation. Now, gentlemen, I do not think there is any danger in leaving this to our future Legislatures and I hope that the amendment will prevail.

The question being taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Howard, the committee divided and by a vote of 40 ayes to 43 noes, the substitute was rejected.

Mr. EVANS ( Weber). Mr. Chairman, I desire to now move to strike out sections 1 and 2 of this article.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the article entitled prohibition.

The article as reported by the minority of the committee was read.

(See journal, pages 204 and 205.)

Mr. RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that when this committee arise, it report the adoption of the majority report.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Sevier, that the committee adopt the majority report and so report to the Convention when they arise.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that is the motion of Mr. Ricks. You second the motion.

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion, and as an amendment I move that the recommendation of the minority be adopted. The disposition of at least some members of this committee seems to be to dispose of this question without any discussion whatever. It does not seem to me that that is the proper thing to do. It is a {1432} fact which we must all recognize, that a very large number of people in this Territory have petitioned asking us that this question of prohibition be submitted to the people as a separate article, to be inserted in the Constitution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to define my position upon this question. I am and have been a prohibitionist. I do not want to be misunderstood in regard to the position that I take. I have contended against the saloon element and existing laws which make the sale of intoxicating liquors respectable and legal, for years and years, and I do not wish now upon the floor of this committee to allow a question of this character to pass by without at least entering my protest against it. My conclusions in regard to this question have been largely the result of personal experience. I shall not attempt to discuss it at length, but, Mr. Chairman, as I have remarked from my own personal experience and observation, I have become opposed to the licensing of saloons for the disposition of intoxicating liquors. In the early part of my life, for the lack of better material, I was used as a prosecuting attorney in one of the counties in this Territory. During my experience I came in contact with many criminals. I was required to prosecute men for a great variety of offenses, and I want to say here that from my observation more than three-fourths of all the criminal cases that I ever had to deal with were the direct results of the use of intoxicating drink. I have prosecuted men for murder, for arson, for incest, for larceny, and almost without exception, when those men were brought before the bar of justice, it became apparent from the

testimony adduced that their misdeeds had been the result of the use of intoxicating liquors. I have it from the statement of an old attorney, one who has had years of practice at the bar, that out of four thousand criminal cases that have come under his direct observation, in many of which he appeared as counsel, three thousand were directly traceable to the effect of strong drink, and many of those were indirectly traceable to the same cause.

I tell you, gentlemen, that I believe that fully half the expense of our court proceedings in this new State may be abolished if you will first abolish the liquor traffic. So, from a point of economy, I am in favor of this provision, and I stand here and advocate it today, and if it shall go before the people I shall advocate it there, and I shall advocate it in the hope that it may be incorporated into this Constitution and become a part of the fundamental law. I have no faith that good results will come from local option. I have no faith that high license can abolish this s stem; but you make it a part of the constitutional law, let it be removed from politics, and I believe I know the people of Utah well enough to say that if they once make up their minds that the liquor traffic shall be abolished, it will be abolished. Why, gentlemen, every man who reads the papers knows that this thing is sapping the very foundation, undermining the corner stone of this government.

I remember reading of a young man who, in a paroxysm of drunken rage, struck down and killed his own father. And when he was arraigned for murder, it was brought out in evidence that the liquor which he had procured had robbed him of his reason and prompted the murderous blow, and that it had been obtained from a saloon hard by, the keeper of which had been licensed to dispose of that liquor by the very court before which he was being tried for murder. I remember the case of a young man who struck down and killed his bosom friend, and when the saloon- keeper in whose resort the deed had been done was placed on the witness stand, he testified that his license to dispose of that drink had been granted by {1433} the very court before which he was then being used as a witness. I remember a little child being struck down by a blow from the hands of a drunken mother, of a wife whose head was cleft in twain by an ax in the hands of a drunken husband, of one who struck down in drunken rage and killed his only brother, and these criminals, when they when dragged before the bar of justice, crying in the remorse of souls for pity, were living witnesses that they were not murderers at heart. No. The element that was responsible for those bloody deeds was a dollar's worth of the meanest whisky on earth, that a Christian had licensed a respectable citizen to place to their lips. In my own short experience, I have sat by the grave of a drunkard and looked back to a time when he was at the head of a happy household, sheltered by a roof, where plenty abounded, peace prevailed, and the happy prattle of children made the homecoming of the evening the most pleasant anticipation of the day; but this demon, this tempter, came into that household and I thought as I looked down into his narrow resting place what legacy he had bequeathed to his heartbroken wife and tattered children, his will could be written in a few short sentences: “To my heartbroken, poverty stricken wife, I bequeath the recollection of broken vows, blasted hopes, and a life of penury and woe. To my little children, I will and bequeath lives of degradation; shame, and sin, and to the rest of my kindred I bequeath the recollections of a misspent life and the monument of a drunkard's grave.” How many thousands of such wills, gentlemen, are filed before the courts of heaven every year for probate, God only knows, but we know that they are many, and I say that when a time shall come that all men receive the reward of their merits, we, who are the framers of the law, will not

be found guiltless if we shall give our sanction to the enactment of laws which make the saloon respectable and which is surely and relentlessly making criminals of otherwise good and honest men during every year that this earth turns around on its axis. I have no quarrel with men who are engaged in the liquor traffic. Under existing law's their business is made respectable, and I would not in any way interfere with them. It is a source of regret to me that I am obliged to stand here to-day and take the position which I know brings me in opposition to the ideas and the views of many good men whose judgment is equally good and perhaps better than mine, but, gentlemen, I cannot be misunderstood upon this question. I am a captive to my conscience, and my conscience prompts me to contend here in favor of the incorporation into the Constitution of the new State of this article, because I believe that the safety of our sons depends upon it.

I shall not discuss the question of the infringement of personal rights. No one here will protest against laws which look to the extermination of the opium joint. There are no such great interests involved as this committee says in its report. It applies more particularly to the Chinaman, but when you come to apply it to the free born American, then you are attacking his personal prerogatives. I want to say that I am ready to take chances and have this incorporated in our Constitution, notwithstanding the great property interests that may be at stake. What are property interests in comparison with human life? There is no other argument. I have talked with saloon men and I have never met one in my life that attempted to justify his traffic, except from a position of gain, “Gold, give us gold, no matter what the cost.” For it, men murder, rob, steal, women sell their virtue, and men place in the trembling hands of their fellows the maddening drink, when they know from their step and from their trembling hand that every drink they take is {1434} bringing them nearer to death, and not only ruining the body, but placing their souls in jeopardy. Gentlemen, I shall vote for this minority report. I shall contend for it. If your wisdom shall say that it is not right, proper, and expedient that it should be incorporated in the Constitution, all well and good. I have not much faith that it will be. I did have some little faith, some little anticipation, some hope previous to the junketing trip we took to Logan the other day, but that spoiled it all.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would ask the gentleman if he knows how many signers to these petitions asking for the submission of this article have been flied in this house?

Mr. IVINS. I understand that these petitions have been signed by a very small minority of all the people of Utah, but I stand here to-day advocating that that minority should be heard [laughter], and I hope the gentleman will not stand in opposition to me upon this question.

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to ask another question, and that is, if the reputation that this Convention has established in regard to dealing with the petitions of the people that chance to be in the minority, leads the gentleman to expect that the Convention will pay any more respect to this minority petition than it did to a certain other minority petition which the gentleman voted not to accord? [Laughter]

Mr. IVINS. Mr. Chairman, I voted not to accord what the other minority asked, because I thought that they asked for the wrong thing. I vote to accord what the present minority ask, because I think that they come for the right thing.

Mr. IVINS. It was from saloons in mining camps. I do not refer, gentlemen, to little cases of misdemeanors. I refer to cases of very grave importance that came under my observation at Silver Reef and other mining camps while I was prosecuting attorney.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask the gentleman if the wine that is produced in Dixie has the effect upon individuals that he has described?

Mr. IVINS. I want to say that while I come from a country where a great deal of wine is produced, I do not drink much of it. I believe that the gentleman himself is better capable of answering that question than I am. [Laughter.]

Mr. MAESER. Mr. Chairman, although a signer of the majority report, I have come to this Convention with a full conviction within my heart to cast all my influence and all my efforts for the cause of prohibition in whatever form or shape this Convention might deem proper to advocate and promulgate that cause. I endorse every word that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Ivins), has been saying. It corresponds with my own experience and my principles. There is not a man on the floor of this Convention that has worked so long and faithfully in the cause of prohibition, I dare say, as I have done in my capacity as a teacher of the people. I have suffered personal insults times over and over again from the saloon element from trying to keep young men that have been under my charge from those influences that are so destructive, and that have been so vividly painted before us by Mr. Ivins. I say I come here with the full determination to cast my influence and all my efforts for the cause of prohibition, but this has been my first experience in legislative labors. I have never gone and entered into politics. My life has been spent in the school room exclusively, and all the labors connected therewith. My views, I must acknowledge, have {1435} been broadened somewhat. I find myself in a new field that has been to a very great extent foreign to me before, and with this, in regard to methods of dealing with matters and things, have had to undergo a change somewhat. I am just as much for prohibition as ever I was. My whole heart is fully devoted to this. I have seen the evils of the saloon element among our youth. Hundreds of cases I have had to deal with; labored hard and faithfully to rescue young men from the downward course on which the saloon element was driving them. This I have done over and over again, and perhaps more sacred work I have had to do in this respect than I wish to dwell upon on the floor of this house just now, but when I found that I had an oath given to help frame a Constitution, before all things a Constitution that would be acceptable to the people of this Territory, in order to secure statehood for Utah, this was my oath. I was not to come here only for the sake of prohibition, nor for any other special purpose, or scheme, but this was the main principle to which I was devoted by my oath here on the floor of this Convention, and I found by my close observations_you know all I have not been much of a talker on the floor of this house, but I have done a considerable amount of thinking. I found there was a great opposition to the movement of putting it into the Constitution, and not only directly in the Constitution, from this Convention, but also by separate voting of the people.

Mr. MURDOCK (Beaver). Mr. Chairman, I regard this as I do many other questions that come before this body of men, that this is the most important question_one of the most grave questions; I do not think there is any that is more important than the one that is now before us. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, here is a body of men that is chosen from all parts of the country. They are supposed to voice the mind of the people from the districts from which they come. And this is a question that is in the minds of all the people. I realize this fact, that it takes a man of stamina to meet this question, and I am proud that I seconded my esteemed friend from Washington County_that I seconded his motion to accept the minority report. I know that this is a very important {1436} question in many respects, and that I have got no feelings against men who are in the business. I presume they have chosen that business because to them it perhaps is the most paying business that they could enter into with all the surroundings. I do not wish to say anything about the matter, but here is an evil, gentlemen, as I regard it, as an evil, and I think the great majority of the people of this Territory regard this as being an evil.

Let it be ever so paying to individuals in the business. I know it touches the interest of a great percent. of the people. I realize this fact and there are many great investments that have been made, many outlays that have been gone into for the purpose of the business. There are other businesses possibly even worse and more disreputable than this, that men make money out of, but the fact is this: let them be tolerated. We propose to start out in this as nearly perfect as we can in all our fundamental principles. That is what we are aiming at. That is what we are struggling for, although many minds differ upon the principles that are set forth, but is there anything that is more important and of greater interest to the commonwealth and the people than this principle of traffic in intoxicants? Is there anything that is more_while it may pay a great revenue and results in advancing their interests, we want to look at the interests of the general whole_of all the people. Now, I endorse the minority report for this reason, the responsibility to- day is upon this body of men. A responsibility rests upon us, and now do we want to shift that responsibility and place it upon the people? I do, most emphatically. I want to shift it from off my

shoulders and place it upon the people. For that reason, I thoroughly subscribe to the minority report. What does it say? It does not ask anything unreasonable, and I am pleased to be associated with the men that had the stamina to move that we reject the majority report and accept the minority report. For this reason it was got rid of, or it seemingly was. There might have been much said. You will excuse me, gentlemen, it was seemingly got rid of very easily, I must say, for the majority of the committee shifted it off very easily. I know it takes something to reverse this idea. I realize that fact. I like a bold man, and if there is an emergency, that he has the stamina to stand up and meet an emergency. This is an emergency, and we want to take hold of it like men.

While I do not like to impair the interest of any manor any set of men in business, yet here is a great evil. It is not simply the evil in just drinking an intoxicant, that is not all the evil there is in it. Of course my friend from Washington portrayed what the results of drinking these intoxicants led to. We might spend hours here in detailing this. It is the experience all over the country, but saloons are places where, to my understanding though I am not a customer in any of them, either at home or abroad, but the great. evil amongst them is the allurements. Saloons are made most fascinating, they are made most enticing, they lead the young, not only the young men, but the youth as it were_lead them in there, and if I am able to judge of what I hear, there are not many fine examples set or virtues set forth there, but they are places that are calculated for enjoyment of that class, and consequently it is continually leading our youths and our children, as fast as they get old enough_it is leading them into those places which I think are very contaminating, and I think it is very injurious to the general public. It may not be injurious, you will excuse me_to a certain per cent. of people, but it is very injurious as a whole, and for this reason I feel thoroughly to endorse the report of the minority and give the people the privilege and the opportunity of exonerating this body of men. We {1437} do not want to bear the responsibility of saying that we have not the manhood, the stamina, to step forth and look after this matter. It is one of the most important interests. It is growing. If it is an evil, which I say it is, to a certain extent, it is an evil, and shall we leave it and not undertake to do anything to stop its progress, or shall we stand up like men and do what we can to stop such an evil that is growing in our midst? There are many evils and that is one of them. While, as I said, let me repeat, there are other avocations that perhaps are remunerative, that are of a worse and of a lower character, and let us handle these matters with wisdom and with judgment. I am not opposed to the men. Many men are in the business that are my friends, and I believe that I am their friend, in many respects, as citizens, but here is an evil, gentlemen, that we have either got to shoulder or let the people dispose of it, and that gives an opportunity for the people to take this responsibility off from our shoulders and say what they will have.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, after listening to my friend, Mr. Ivins, from Saint George, I thought that I would like to make a few remarks upon this subject. I have no doubt in my mind but what every word that he has spoken is true, and that his experience in the country from which he came has brought him into contact with men who have been guilty of these crimes, and these crimes have been traced to the improper use of intoxicating liquors. I am also with him on this proposition. If it was possible that by this Convention endorsing this minority report and that it would forever prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks in these United States and make of every man, woman, and child, water drinkers, I would be in favor of it. Some have suggested that I am

engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors. I am. I never went into that business with the idea of making money. In fact, I am one of those unfortunates who in the faithful discharge of his duty in certain directions in this Territory_was suggested_I don't know how to term it, I was promoted. The reputation that I had obtained from the faithful discharge of my duty induced my friends to try and improve my condition. I was recommended from the president's office to go to William S. Godbe and ask him to give me employment. William S. Godbe at that time was a dealer in drugs and intoxicating liquors. Up to that time possibly in all my life I had never tasted liquor. I had never smoked a dozen cigars in my life, and at that time I was thirty years of age. I have listened to this gentleman narrating these awful details of crimes that have been committed through the use of intoxicating liquors. I have never seen the effects myself. Possibly I have not been associated with the class of persons that he has been brought in contact with, and I will say, Mr. Chairman, that if this is the result_the sale of intoxicating liquors, and that became universal, it would be better that we had prohibition to-day and for all time. I do not think that we should engage in any occupation that has a tendency to destroy life, and I would think that it would be proper and right for this Convention to deal with all subjects where it can be proved in the history of the world that human lives have been sacrificed in its support.

We know if we read the history of the past that religion has had a great deal to do with the sacrifices of human life, possibly has cost more wars and bloodshed than has the sale of intoxicating liquors since the first time that the still was discovered. I never hear any gentleman say we must abolish religion because of the massacres or persecution of one class of Christians by another. I have never heard anyone attempt to stop the water that {1438} flows between Utah Lake and Salt Lake, because some people have been drowned in the river. My idea is that if we want to enforce this prohibition article, if we want to keep the people from intoxicating drinks, convert them. Convince them that it is wrong to drink it, and use it, in any form whatever, and when you have done that you don't need a prohibition article. Now, Mr. Ivins has made the remark that he knows the people of this Territory, that they are in favor of this thing, and this little minority report will accomplish it all. It will do nothing of the kind. Here is a community in these valleys that have lived here a number of years. There are men over them for whom they have the most profound respect. They would give up their lives for them. They have a book in their Doctrine and Covenants called the Word of Wisdom. If its power and influence in this Territory is not sufficient to make temperance men and prohibitionists of every man, woman and child in this Territory, I do not see how the introduction of this minority report or this article in the Constitution or out of it is going to accomplish anything of the kind. It will not do it. It will make sneaks of men. It will make honest young men to-day dishonest. I will show you one little instance, if I may be permitted. If this article is enforced, it will not stop the introduction of liquor into this Territory. There are certain kinds of business that cannot be carried on without brandy, or whisky or alcohol, alcohol, especially, in the preparation of certain medicines. Now, for instance, I will go_after this article is inserted in the Constitution and the people have voted on it that we shall have prohibition, I will go into a drug store. I will single out the Co-op., in preference to any other [laughter]. They have three or four young men in there, honest young men, sons of good families, sons of pioneers in these valleys. Their fathers have known the history of the people and have been associated with them for forty years, some of them. I go in there and I say, “Sir, give me a pint of alcohol.” This good young man, a member of the mutual improvement association, and possibly teacher in the ward [laughter], will say to me, “We don't

sell it.” “Well,” says I, “I must have it; I don't need it for a beverage; I don't drink it;” and I wish right here to say to this Convention that I do not use it either, and I do not drink whisky, but you will say to this young man, “I have a sick wife; I have sick children, I need this alcohol to burn.” The young man says, “We don't sell it.” Well, you start to go out of the store and the first thing you know you are called back; he says, “We don't sell it, but we sell liniment. I can let you have a pint of liniment.” “Well,” you say, “give me a pint of liniment.” You take it home and examine it and you find it the very article that you asked for in the first place, that the young man said he did not sell. I say you make young men liars and frauds. I say that this is wrong, to drink liquor to excess, to get drunk, to encourage gambling and all this kind of things, and if I had my way, if a man got drunk and came up on the street to annoy his neighbor or any citizen, I would put a ball and chain on his leg and make him work out his fine on the public streets; but I say it is wrong for men to say that the use of wine is altogether improper, that the use of liquors is altogether improper. I know it is not. I have had people come to me_female relief society ladies [laughter]. They say, Brother Driver, “I want a pint of wine for the sick.” I give it to them. They say, “Bless you, God bless you.” [Laughter.] The next day possibly the husband of this lady comes in and he wants a bottle of wine and I sell it to him; he says, “You are a sinner.” Now, I cannot see it. In one case if I give a bottle of wine I am a saint, in the next, if I sell it, I am a sinner. Well, now, I believe in the proper {1439} use of all things, and when they are properly used and not abused, when they are used for the purposes for which God created them, and gave men knowledge how to produce them, it is no sin or crime, and I will say one thing, that there is no more danger of men bruising their wives' heads, or killing their children, or striking down their fathers or stealing, or doing anything of the kind through the drinking of one glass of wine than there is in going to a church and hearing one minister abusing the whole community and raising an emotion in the audience that creates mobs and finally ends in a loss of life.

Now, my doctrine is, abolish everything that you can ever read of in the history of the world that has ever been the cause of one person's death and espeically those that have been the cause of the death of many thousands, and where would they be? The gentlemen say we must not take this whisky as a beverage. Why not include everything else? Why not include Jones' ale, Bass's ale, Ginnis's stout, Moritz & Keyser's beer, Hires's root beer, and everything else, and when you get through the whole of it, when you have told us what we shall not drink, be kind enough to tell us what we may drink, and then we will know where we are at. Now, I do not want to be understood in this Convention that I am speaking one word in favor of drunkenness, nor the temperate use of intoxicating liquor; but I say this one thing, that the gentlemen that have introduced this article do not know what they are doing. They are wise men, good men, benevolent men, religious men, but they do not understand the outcome of this article. They cannot prohibit it. It will be shipped into the city and all over this Territory and come back itself labeled all kinds of things, possibly vegetables, with a demijohn in the center of the box, and in all kinds of things, groceries, and everything else, and the people will have it if they need it, and my doctrine is, convert them_convert them by your example and by your precepts that they should not take it, that it is injurious to them; and I say when you have done that you will have no use to incorporate in the Constitution an article prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors for a beverage.

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

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt but that if liquor could be successfully prohibited the journals and records of crime would be greatly reduced and mankind no doubt benefitted. I believe it is stated by some of those who have studied the question that there is more money expended for the use of liquor than there is expended for the combined uses of food and clothing. All these facts, together with the myriads of people who indulge in its manufacture and in vending the same, are appalling.

At the same time, I cannot help but agree with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Maeser), who says that the question is a practical one, rather than a theoretical one. Gentlemen of the committee, will a prohibitory law in the Constitution reach the evil which is intended? It is very clear to my mind that it will not. You cannot legislate away the appetite of man. You cannot, by putting a prohibitory law upon the statute books, prevent the sale and use of alcoholic spirits.

Mr. CORAY. Could not prohibition prohibit in regard to Indians_did not the prohibitory law passed by the government prevent the sale of liquor to Indians?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). That law is rather more stringently enforced than others, and yet it does not prohibit. But, gentlemen, this question is not a new one. We have experimented with {1440} it throughout the United States. Take the states of Maine, Kansas, and Iowa, and in the latter two, states such laws have proved to be complete failures.

Mr. MILLER. Will you dare to assert that the prohibitory law in Kansas is a failure?

Mr. EVANS (Weber). I say in part it is.

Mr. MILLER. I deny it.

Mr. EVANS (Weber). Well, there is simply a difference of opinion between the gentleman and myself. I will come more nearly to the people at home, and give some little practical experience which we have had here. I, too, like the gentleman from Washington, have had occasion to prosecute many people who were charged with crime, and many crimes that have been committed have been directly traceable to the use of alcoholic spirits. But, gentlemen, there was a time in Utah when the city council had the power, and I believe they have it yet for that matter, to prohibit the sale of liquor within the territorial boundaries of the municipalities. At Provo I happened to have the honor of witnessing the prosecution against the violations of the liquor law. At that time there was a law on the statute books which permitted a person desiring liquor to go to a drug store and sign a certain register or take a certain oath that he was sick. At that time drug stores were the principal means of carrying on a successful business. They grew rich. The use of liquor did not diminish. The officers undertook in good faith and in honesty to enforce the prohibitory law and it proved to be a hollow mockery. We found young men, and old ones, so far as that is concerned, going into these places, committing perjury, declaring to the druggist that they were sick, and we found crime in those places reeking from cellar to garret, and yet with all the moral forces and the forces of the execution of the law by the officers, the whole matter was a

complete failure. I will tell you, gentlemen, why it is a failure and why it always will be in any locality, and that is this: According to the Constitution and laws of the United States, it is an interference with inter-commerce between the states to prohibit the shipping of intoxicating liquors from one state to another, so long as the packages are not broken; while the liquor is in its original package the laws of Congress require that they may be shipped from one state into another, so that whatever law we may pass here, whatever we may put into the Constitution, we cannot exclude the importation of these liquors in the Territory or new State of Utah.

Now, can any gentleman so deceive himself as to say that if liquors can be shipped into this Territory the sale of them can be prohibited? The experiment was tried at Logan. A like failure was made there. The experiment has been tried in other localities, and the only way by which this law could be made effectual would be for the nation to enact laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor, and indeed I believe it would have to be international before the execution of the law could be properly carried into effect. I believe in leaving these things to the moral agencies of the community. They do very much good in that respect, and I commend their efforts in that regard, but I do say that a law written in the Constitution of the new State would be a complete failure. It would be a hollow mockery. We would find men vending liquor, drinking it in as great quantities as they drink it to-day, where they can go openly into a place where it is sold and satisfy their thirst.

In those localities where liquor is prohibited by law we find that the community is deprived of the revenue. Not only that, but we find that people send to distant points and receive it, and when they receive it they drink it in larger and more excessive quantities than they drink it where they can get it {1441} at will. Another thing, now, gentlemen, with respect to this question which we have before this Convention, and it is a very serious one, and that is the danger in which our Constitution will be placed if we undertake to insert this, even as a separate clause, because if that be done, already there is some dissatisfaction with what the Convention has done. People will conceive the idea that by submitting it separately it may carry and that if it does carry it will be inserted into the Constitution as a part of it, and an organized movement will be made throughout Utah to defeat the very Constitution which we are here to frame. Besides all that, the committee has stated in this report it is noth-thing but experimental at least. Insert it in the Constitution and it will be difficult to have it amended. Leave the matter to be dealt with by the future Legislatures, and if it then be found to be a mistake the Legislature can repeal it, if it ever should enact it, even upon the floor of the Legislature. With the experience that I have had upon this question I should vote first, last, and all the time against prohibition, and yet I do not desire to say that I believe in the use of these liquors in the excessive form in which very many times they are used by various individuals.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the question of prohibition from the beginning has had a very hard chance for life in the committee of committees and in the committee on schedule, future amendments, and miscellaneous, and I am glad to see that it is in such a thriving condition to- day. It is a live babe, gentlemen. It is going to grow, and in the future it will master the situation. I believe that all the arguments that have been produced so far by the opposite side amount to nothing. They are only assertions, old straw that has been threshed over in regard to this question in every state where it has been brought up. The gentleman from Weber who has just taken his

seat asks, will a prohibitory law cure the evil? I say, yes, and I wish to emphasize it that a prohibitory law with officers under oath to enforce it will cure the evil. He also made the remark that the law in Kansas was a failure. I want to inform you that even the Kansas Pacific railroad and the Sante Fe and the Rock Island recognize that law in their journey through the state, and I claim that it is not a failure in Kansas. It is true the liquor traffic is pot annihilated, but it is prohibited, and there is no crime that is annihilated by any law that has been placed upon the statute books; but I say that if a prohibitory law shall be placed in the hands of men who will see to the enforcement of it, then it will not be a failure, but it will work the object for which it was intended. I infer from some of the remarks that were made this morning, especially by the gentleman from Weber (Mr. Driver), that he has been reading some of the old cast off arguments that have been hurled at Kansas. In his remarks this morning, he stated that it would only throw the business into the drug stores and there they would use the blind tiger, and he would go in and he would call for liniment or call for beef tea or call for lemon juice, or any other name that he might call for, and the clerk would hand him out beer or whisky, or intoxicating liquor of some nature. Now, I want to state to the gentlemen upon this floor that Kansas met that and she crushed it out. She laid her hand upon the tenement, the house in which the blind tiger was run. So that the law can be enforced in regard to the blind tiger, or sage tea, or catnip tea, or liniment, or whatever you may call it. All we need at the helm is a man that will guide and direct the ship of state and see that the laws are enforced. I do not believe that the gentleman from Weber who closed the remarks this morning before recess is a very close observer. If my memory serves me right, he said that he had {1442} never seen any of the evil results from liquor that had been stated upon this floor. If my memory serves me right, I saw the gentleman one evening when he was very warm under the collar through beer.

Mr. DRIVER. No, sir, you never did.

Mr. MILLER. I heard him get up and ask a gentleman if he had ever been in the Blackhawk war.

The CHAIRMAN. We cannot permit that kind of remarks.

Mr. KIESEL. I call the gentleman to order.

Mr. DRIVER. I wish to say that is false in every particular.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Miller, in order.

Mr. DRIVER. And I want the chair to understand that it is a lie.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, Mr. Driver, that the direction of the chair must be observed.

Mr. MILLER. I did not wish to cast any reflections upon Mr. Driver. I just merely desired to call his attention to a fact that did transpire, that is all.

Mr. DRIVER. It is a dastardly lie.

Mr. MILLER. Then the gentleman says the only way to cure the evil is to convert the people convert the drunkard. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this Convention, if a man is in the grasp of habit it is impossible for him to release himself without some power coming to his aid. If a man has contracted the habit and love for intoxicating liquors, it is impossible for that man through his own individual power of will power to release himself from that habit. Hence, we that advocate prohibition do it from a humane standpoint and from a desire to help our fellowmen. Mr. Chairman, I have been brought under the damnable influence of intoxicating liquors, and as the gentleman from Davis said “I am terribly in earnest in regard to the suffrage question,” I am in earnest in regard to this. I say that it has entered the households of thousands upon thousands in our fair country, and families have been ruined. Though I do not wish to be understood, Mr. Chairman, as having anything against the gentlemen who are engaged in this business, I have not one thing in my heart against them. It is the business that if I had my way about it, and had the power to do so, I would wipe it out of existence, not only out of the United States, but out of the entire world.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I had almost hoped in the very beginning that the merits of this question might not be entered into here upon this floor. I had no thought myself of entering into merits of prohibition, inasmuch as I do not believe that this is the time or the place for that. Our petitioners who come before us, gentlemen, come asking that we insert this in the Constitution. They come to us asking that we give them the privilege of voting upon this to submit it to them as a separate proposition and allow them to be the judges whether or no they desire prohibition in the Constitution or not, and if the measure shall have passed (and I haven't the least hopes that it will), but if the measure shall pass through this committee of the whole and shall also pass through the Convention at its third reading, and shall go before the people of the Territory to be voted upon as a separate measure, then will be the time to enter into the merits of prohibition. Then will be the time to hold before the people the merits and demerits of the question. But as I also anticipated after the first speaker had taken his seat this morning, I discovered at once it would be impossible for me to make any remarks upon this without going into the merits of prohibition. In regard to the report from the majority, I look upon the majority report as meaningless_as a makeshift to evade this question_a kind of a makeshift to shift the responsibility from the committee onto the shoulders of this Convention; {1443} and now seeing we have proceeded so far, I am really glad that there have come before this committee two reports, that of a majority and a minority. Now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this being an experimental question, one would suppose from the remarks that have been made upon this floor by the opposition, that it was an experiment. They seem to know all about it, and I claim that so far as Kansas is concerned, it is not an experiment, but it is a real fact and that prohibition does prohibit. But Mr. Chairman, it did not prohibit until the people had united upon every hand to put down the evil, and until they demanded from the keepers of the law that they should protect the prohibitory law as well as all other laws upon the statute books. And I see no reason why, Mr. Chairman, prohibition may not be just as successful here in Utah as in other places. They tell us that we are peculiarly situated here, that we are set down in this intermountain region, surrounded on every side by states who have placed no restrictions upon the liquor traffic, and hence if we pass a law like this, we will become the dumping ground for the refuse of these other states.

Don't believe it; don't believe it.

I do not believe that there is a lawyer upon this floor, who is in love with his profession, but what, if he was called upon to protect the prohibitory law, would throw all his being into it and would defend it from every standpoint. If he would not, then he is not in love with his profession. It is true, there may be as there were in Kansas, county attorneys elected to that position who were scallawags. They were bought up by the element that desired to have the prohibitory law become a nuisance. But, sir, those things were removed. Now, in regard to legislation, I do not believe that any legislature in any state can legislate against this and make it a success. I claim that it must become a part of the organic law of the state, in order to be made a success. Now, gentlemen, all our petitioners ask for_in the minority report they have given you their feelings and their ideas. We do not ask you, gentlemen, to commit yourselves in regard to next November. A vote to send this before the people does not commit you. Neither is it for or against prohibition. It just merely leaves it in the hands of the people to vote it up or vote it down, and I claim that the petitioners ought to be recognized, and if I mistake not the gentleman from Davis in his determined fight to bring woman's suffrage before the people as a separate article appealed to this Convention in like manner and held up the fifteen thousand petitioners that had petitioned this body to submit woman's suffrage as a separate article. I know that the petitioners who have petitioned this body asking that prohibition be submitted as a separate article do not number less than ten thousand.

There has not one petition come into this body, sir, asking that it be not recognized, and I claim that we ought to recognize the petitioners who have thus asked us to give them recognition.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the gentleman submit to a question?

Mr. DRIVER. May I rise to a question of personal privilege?

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot rise to a question of personal privilege in committee of the whole; when we get into the Convention you can.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the gentleman if he does not recollect a petition that I myself introduced, signed by more than two thousand people from this city, asking that prohibition be neither put in the Constitution nor submitted as a separate article?

Mr. MILLER. I have no recollection of it, sir. It may have been presented when I was not present.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a fact, however.

Mr. MILLER. If that be the fact, Mr. Chairman, I recall the assertion that I made.
{1444}
Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this is a matter that demands careful attention, as I view it, of this honorable body. Petitions have come here signed by prominent men from various parts of the Territory, and while it may appear a waste of time to discuss this subject, I do not think it can be passed by without giving it the attention it deserves. I

listened with profound interest to the remarks made this forenoon by my friend from Saint George, and my emotional feelings were moved at the beautiful pictures, touching in their nature, which he drew, and I would call your attention to the fact, as stated by profound writers upon this subject, that the people of England and the United States expend enough money each year for intoxicating liquors to buy their bread and meat. They spend more money for intoxicants than would clothe them, and certainly there is no evil with which civilized people have to meet and contend greater than the drinking habit. Every building on the shores of Great Britain might be wiped out by a single calamity, every rail of her roads might be torn up and in an hour her merchant marine might be blotted from the seas and her war vessels sunk to the bottom of the ocean, and yet if her people were to be temperate and should cease to expend their hard earned earnings for this demon in disguise, they could replace them with the money saved in five years, so that the use of liquor in that country and in this has proved a greater scourge than war and famine and pestilence combined. And when we bring it down to the home, many sad pictures could be drawn that come near to our hearts here in Utah.

Twenty years ago, I remember to have seen on the quiet streets of Logan. early in the evening, the winter snow glistening in the cold moonlight, two friends struggling in a physical contest, all in good nature; one having tapped the other gently in good humor upon the cheek, angered him, because his blood was fevered with whisky. An angry speech, a few steps backward, out leaps from the scabbard the deadly pistol, and the messenger of death sped through the heart of his friend, and his heart's blood gushed upon the pure white snow. How well I remember how his slayer was tracked by night and by day for more than a week, and the angered citizens of that quiet village were wrought up in their feelings so that when the half-starved drunkard was finally caught, the patience of the people broke over all good judgment, they overrode the law, taking it into their own hands, lifted to a telegraph pole the slayer, and a leading citizen, while watching the people do a thing of which they have always been ashamed, took sick and in a few short moments dropped dead upon the streets in broad daylight. Thus three lives were lost through the use of whisky that fevered the blood, and our little town north has never forgotten that tragedy. She will never be able to wipe from her record that stain of awful triple murder. And yet, gentlemen of this Convention, how shall we meet this evil? Shall we not be consistent and reasonable in our thought and in our legislation? I think we should be. Now, permit me to give you, having in our minds this sad experience to which I have referred, our attempt at prohibition in the north. Public sentiment was wrought up through the press and from the pulpit. Ninety per cent. of the people felt just as my friend on the left has expressed himself, that that great curse should be wiped out, and they petitioned the city council to enact an ordinance that would accomplish that end. What was the result? Instead of three saloons under the eye of the guardians of the law, an attempt to prohibit the use of liquor in that town developed sixteen dives_dark cellars in which liquor was given to all classes of people surreptitiously. {1445} These dives became holes of iniquity and nightly carousals were had there, notwithstanding we doubled our police force and had spotters and spies who were employed and paid a heavy salary to root up this evil. The people's sympathies went with the illicit dealers, rather than with the law or with the detectives. Thousands of dollars were expended to put down, and as my friend on the