The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-11
tive. I think it was an insult to the

tive. I think 1T was an insult to the
convention.
Varian insisted on his motion to re-
turn the document to Low and the
motion carried with only a few dis
petition over and the incident closed.
Committee Victorious.
The apportionment article was
taken up at 1920 and Borvdle moved
the striking out of the proviso which
binds the legislature to always give
one representative to each county.
He said this would leave the whole
matter in the hands of the legisla-
ture. Aftel some little debate this
was voted down by the regulation
majority which the committee Is
holding together-2s to 66.
The question then REQUIRED on the
motion OF Van Horn to make county
representation apply only to the coun-
ties as at present constituted and no
new ones.
Squires argued that this would only
give justice, because new counties
might be created before the next ap-
portionment and in order to give them
representation members would be
taken from the populous counties.
Crane denied this. He said the
legislature will have full power to
change at any time
Snow argued the proposition In
favor of county representation. Con-
tinuing he denied that the Democratic
minority of the committee had been
taken in by the Republicans. He said
they had done the best they could and
the apportionment is just and fair.
He would vote against amendments.
No Unfairness.
Thurman said he would not favor
any provision which would deprive
the larger counties of representation
in order to give it to the smaller
counties. However, on suggestion OF
Buys, Thurman, Squires and Rich
ards agreed that the matter was
fully governed by the right of the
legislature to increase the number OF
senators to 80 and of representatives
to 90.
Van Horns motion was voted down
"a to 60.
Squires Tries Again.
Squires said he was about dis
couraged. 1t was becoming evident
that the committee and the house
would not allow a word or syllable to
be changed. However, in view Of
Cranes assertion that it was the in
tention to have an apportionment
every five years, he moved to make
that clearly obligatory on the legis-
lature.
There was some discussion as to
whether the FIRST apportionment would
be made in 1860 or 1905. The weight OF
debate was very much in favor of the
former. Squires' motion was voted
down.
Van Horn tried to make another
blTf was voted down.
The Committee Went Under.
Whitney made motion to change
the word greater" to more" To the
surprise of everybody this carried.
Squires-I move a vote of no con-
fidence in the committee on apportion-
nent. Oaughter)
Greer moved the adoption of the ar
ticle,. but Jol1ey arose to make kick.
He said Sanpete has only sixteen less
voters than Cache county, and yet
Cache has-three representatives and
Sanpete only two.
The President-There is nothing be-
fore the house; the gentleman is out
of order.
Thurman-There is something before
the house; there is a motion TO pass
the article. That is open to discus
sion.
The president hastily subsidized and
JOlley went on. He moved that San
pete be given another representative.
Squires-I second the motion and
suggest that it come from Salt Lake.
Qaughter)
Evans. of Weber-ks the suggestion
comes from Salt Lake it will go by
unanimous consent. daughter and
cries of mo. no"' from Salt Lake
members.)
More Prospective Voters.
Lund said Sanpete had only sixteen
less voters than Cache and had more
prospective citizens. 0aughter) The
apportionment was unfair TO Sanpete
Hart thought this apportionment
was based on population. Cache is su-
perior at that point. What is the diff
ference?
Crane-About 1900 votes.
Lund moved that Sanpete be given
an additional representative. How
ever, he was voted down with loud
majority.
The roll was called on the article
and ninety voted for it, while only
Jolley, William Lowe, Pierce, Slower,
Van Horn, Varian and Wells voted no.
At I1:55 a recess was taken until 2
O'Clock.