The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-01-30


tions above, Messrs. Penrose, Carrin
ton, Lyman and Smith, On the ps
Of the House.
Mr.. Peary's bill was then read az
referred tothe committee or iudicisr,
1t Mr.. Grover presented report frol
10 the committee on roads, bridge
ferries, etc., returning four bill, Il
- passage of one Of which was recon
&c mended, while the other three weI
K reported unfavorably, these tire
q were House files II. 81 and 80, and
d was said they we're fully provided fC
in the bill reported fayorsbly; Hous
o file q. Some discussion followed a
J, to the rejection of bills, when it wa
g decided they should be read befor
u voting on their rejection.
e The bill was read and Mr.. Grove
= explained il.
!. Mr.. Lyman said there was on
t provision which il was provided SHOULD
8 be rejected, and which was not, b
he understood, provided for in tn
bill reported favorably. This referred
to the no-fence law, and he and Mr.
8 Hatch thought it an injustice that Z
fence law could only be adopted
, in a county upon a two-third
majority; in other words, if the
majority in favor of fencing lacked
but one of a two-thiIds majority, then
the majority had but to sbide the vii
of the minority. The people OIL
Wasatoh and Tcosle Counties wanted
fences, but we're prevented on the &C
count stated.
Mr.. Grover stated that any one
could fence that wanted to, but be
thought there was eaough protection
for the herder now, and he thought il
the change was made it would work
a great hardship to agricultural re-
sources.
Mr.. Murdoch thought the point a
very important one, and that it was
unfair that one-third ehould control
the ether two-thi1ds in this regard. 1.
made one man equal to two, and he
believed it would be much fairer il q
majority were to have the right OF
saying as to how the matter should
be.
Mr.. Darlington said that the idea OF
Mr.. Murdoch, of one holding two,
was net of weight. when it was con-
sidered that one man could hold half
of a valley of fifty persons by bare
majority. He favored the retention
of the law the way it stood. He
thought it was far cheaper for one to
pay for the care of his stock than tC
make his agricultural neighbor fence
ard keep up q fence. This was not
q stock-reisiDg country; and he guar
anteed that in fifty years, if the fencing
provisions we're all abolished, and stock
men compelled to look after their own
property, the territory would be much
richer. Every man should care for
his own property, and il the law were
changed, toe agriculturist would be
compelled to loyk after his own land
and the property OF the stock raiser
besides.
Mr.. Penrose opposed a change
from two-thirde to bare majority;
and in caring for the citizens of the
territory, thought the agricultural
should first be cared for.
Mr.. Jacques thought that which did
the damage should be made to pay
for it; though good fence was an
excellent peacemaker.
Mr.. Hatch said if this no-tax law
was 10 obtain, every animal would
have to be led; and in SUCH an event,
the price of beef would raise &C., as
every head of cattle would have to be
led. He thought country would be
worthless where there were no fences.
Mr.. Darlington sa;d the reason
France had 60 rapidly recovered from
the results OF the Frsnco-Prussian war
was because she had no fences.
There wss not a fence throughout
the whole length and breadth of Ger
many, and there was no complaint;
but there the stock was cared for by
the owner. It was much cheaper for
the raiser 10 care for his stock than
for the sgriculturist to maintain g
fence.
Mr.. Hatch again arose and said
that nearly the entire area of France
and Germany was agricultural and
this was the reason France bad re-
ceived go rapidly. There the people
could afford to tie up COW and afford
to keep it, because 1t was not stock
raising country, while this was.
Mr.. Darlington again replied.
The discussion followed on the same
basis, participated in by Messrs.
Grover, Far, Lyman, Preston,
Fisher, and others, and was very
earnest throughout.
Mr.. Preston then moved the pre-
vious question which was put and
carried.
The main question on she rejection
of the bill Was then put and carried,
and the bill was rejected.
A communication from the Coun-
ell announced the adoption by that
body, of the House joint resolution
relative to memorislizing Congress in
regard to the reduction of the mem
bers, officsrB and salaries OF the
Assembly, and stating that Messrs.
Welle, Thurber and Caine had been
spro;nied s. committee OF the part OF
the Council.
Consideration was then resumed OF
the report of the committee on roads,
bridges, etc., and II. F. 81 was read.
Before voting on the rejection oi
this bill, it was the desire of tbe
members that the long bill (H. F. 81
be read, which is said TO include all
the provisions OF the other bill. Being
very long, it was ordered that the bill
be printed, and that the report OF the
committee lie on the table until the
bill is printed.
Mr.. Hatch presented bill prohib-
ting marriages in certain cases, arc
, prescribing penalties against person.
| guilty ef sclemniziDg the same. TIT
; bill refers to cases of miscegiustiop
The bill vas read, and it was moyet
3 t. refer it 10 the committee on penl
I Tertiary. Mr.. Hatch wanted the bil
!; refsrred TO the judiciary, and d.
think it was of sufficient importsnc
/ to entitle it to serious consideration.
The merits Of the bill we're blieH
discussed By Messrs. Penrose sn
: FAIR, and it was referred to penitent
airy. -,
Mr.. FAIR reported back from Oh
q committee on judiciary. the bl
amending section 1160 of the Con
, nilad Laws. defining what may /