The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-10

DULL DAY.
Continued from page u

III TeldllOn IN the Ieuerdl UNION w neI
that was framed the states need mo-
obtained what concessions they de-
sired. No county in Utah has any
such power. Therefore there can be &c
analogy between the state and federal
system in this respect.
James said the system had been
tried in Montana and there was in
tense dissatisfaction there over it.
New counties can be created at any
time and one section becoming Jealous
OF another may have counties made.
Hart favored the substitute He
desired to give everything possible to
the smaller counties so long as there
was no injustice to the larger counties
Counties Galore.
Goodwin said that this system of
! county representation would place
/ too much power in the hands of the
Legislature which can carve out coun-
ties without number and so make
worse the Jealousy between various
regions. a man from Missouri says
he is from Posey county or someone
from Kentucky will place his county
to the front. This has been fostered
by county representation. States and
counties are two different things.
Anderson, of Beaver, said county re-
presentation was just.
Varian showed that Crane had not
been correct in his statements about
several of the state constitutions. He
showed New York Wyoming. Mon
tana and Washington, where the pro-
vision is not the one proposed by the
committee. He believed a great many
more such instances could be found.
He asked where the right of represent
tation came in when the members on
the floor were ito be shut off because
the committee had considered the
question. How many were in the
committee? He held out a warning
against putting this provision change
lessly in the organic laws. Popula-
ton is always shifting in the west,
and whole counties may go down If
counties are to be given representa-
ton. why not cities? They bear prac-
tically the same relation to the state
as do the counties. Sovereign states
do not derive their being from the
federal union. States admitted must
be SO with the consent of the people
Of the United States. But once in,
it becomes a separate autonomy and
the federal power does not extend far
Their than the. constitution will allow.
Counties are not separate autonomies.
They can be changed, created or
wiped out by the legislature. There
is no analogy. The apportionment as
reported would not be touched. 1t
was only the principle of binding fu-
ture legislatures that he objected to.
The power of fixing representation
should not be withheld from the peo-
pie. Let the people Of the future set
tie their own representation.
Would Expense Retard:
Cannon asked if the expense attached
to creating new counties would not
prevent such creation.
Varian said in making the organic
law it was a mistake to embark on
the sea of speculation. The power
should be left in the people TO suit
their conditions in the future.
Cannon supported Variants amend
Chidester cited Rhode Island and
Arkansas which have county repre-
sentation.
Roberts said Arkansas did not pro-
vide for representatives, in each new
county
BUYS said it was a narrow view to
saw county with only few people
should not have a representative.
Bowdle-Would not that apply to
precincts? Il
BUYS said precincts were parts of
counties and therefore were not on the
same basis.
Peters-Then why not apply the ar
to Incorporated cities! They
are separate from counties
BUYS said this would be right if pos
sibIe But cities could be represented |
by county members.
Wanted it Fixed.
Thurman said he represented the
second largest county in the territory. /
But he wanted each county to have its
right TO a representative fixed in the |
constitution. He said, under the stimu-
us of statehood, Salt Lake might grow
so large that it would control the state.
It might have 10000 population while |
the outside counties may not have in
creased to a great extent. He would
not give this power to any city. 1t
might grow to forget there was any
Thing else in the state. Salt Lake now
mas over a quarter of the population
and will have nearly a quarter of the
legislature. 1t can we'll afford to give
one or two members to the outlying
No Capital For Provo.
He believed Salt Lake would always
De the capital. The legislatures will
meet there. 1t is the natural centre of
he new state. Everything in the state
S bound up in the city. The members
rom the outlying counties will be in
he midst of the people of Salt Lake,
Who can bring influence to bear. The
,ity will be the best represented dis
riot in the state. He had been in five
legislatures and could see what would
come in the future. The apportion-
nent was right in every particular
even from party view he could not
object.
Eldredge cited from state constitu-
ions of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana
n support of county representation.
lie further argued the question and
when he finished Kicks called for the
previous question.
The Vote.
The roll call showed the following:
,Ayes-BoWdle, Button, Coray, Eichnor,
emery, Gibbs, Goodwin, Hart. Hill,
lewis. Macintosh. Maloney Murdoch of
3eaver, Peters. Preston, Roberts. RYAN.
sharp, Shurtliff, Squires, Storer, Symons'
an Mod Horn , Narian; Wells. Whitney-29.
ey, Buys, Call, Chichester, Christensen,
lark, Corfman, Crane Greer, Driver. Ell
ridge, Engberg, Evans of Utah, Francis,
hammond. Halliday, Heyborne, Howard,
iyde. Wins, Johnson. Jolly, Keith
<erns. Kerr. Larson L., Larson G. p
Iemmon, Lowe VIM, Lowe Peter. Low
+ Cache, Lund, Maeser, Mcfarland. Mil
er, Morris. Murdoch of Summit, Nebek-
r, Partridge, Peterson of Grand, Peter
on of Sanpete, Kicks, Robertson, Robis-
n of Kane. Robinson of Wayne, Thomp-
on; Thoresen, Thorne Thurman-52
Absent-Adams. Barnes. Cannon, Cum
ingham, Gushing, Evans of Weber,
arr Green, Haynes, Hughes, KieseI'
Aimball of Weber. Vaughan Moritz.
furdock of Wasatch, Page, Pierce. Raj
hatcher, Warrum, Williams-25
Van Horn Tries Again.
Van Horn offered an amendment TO
NJ RI ion 70 |