The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-27
TWO SESSIONS
YESTERDAY
Continued from page u


& for his mill or his own sanitary uses.
,Wnen thing was rally of public
benefit then full rights should be given.
Not ON Caprice.
Evans denied that uses such as <vere
contemplated in the section would de-
pend on the mere caprice of tyny one
man. The courts would deny the
right to take property under the sec
ton unless they were necessary and
beneficial. He did not see why there
should be an artificial distinction be-
tween private and public uses when
both would amount TO practically the
same thing. He believed in the rights
of private property, but when it is
necessary for the development of the
country and when adequate conpensa-
tion is provided for. such rights must
be held as subject to the interests Of
the public.
Hart moved to strike out the power
to take property for private ways of
necessity and for sanitary and
domestic purposes" He j. ''ght
everything necessary was covered by
power to construct drains, bitches and
ether ways of that nature.
With the Courts.
Richards believed the power could be
left with the courts. There is no dan
ger in the section. The courts would
allow no property to be taken unless
pRwer would be construed strictly.
Va en- there is a necessity the power
should be given. When property is so
taken payment should first be made.
Partridge's substitute was lost.
Hart'S motion was lost Variants mo-
lion to strike out the entire section
was lost. The house was evidently
very favorable to the committees re-
port.
There were several important amend
ments by Hart, Richards and Evans
regarding sewers payment in advance
end necessary uses and the section
was passed as follows:
Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for private use unless by
consent Of the owner, except for pri-
vate ways of necessity and necessary
reservoirs. drains, fumes, sewers. con-
lands of others, for agricultural, min
ing, milling, domestic or sanitary pur-
poses and in no case shall such pro-
perty be taken without due conpensa-
ton first being made"
The LabOring Men.
A labor discussion was brought on by
Inc section which provides that 1.-THE
right of every citizen ITO the fruits of
his labor and his freedom to sell the
cdIIlSy Sllt1l nOI NC dOI1u6CO olldl4
be protected"
Two substitutes to the same effect
were Offered by Kicks and Coray.
Evans said the whole thing should
be cut out. 1t was useless.
James said he wanted to ask ques-
4ion. James questions have now be-
come proverbial for their length and
labyrint1ian abstruseness and there
w3s a hearty smile. He asked If this
was not designed to prevent the tax
ing Ief farmers and hucksters who
corfz,s4o this city to sell their wares.
Fcks said there was a good idea
underlying the section. 1t was de-
signed to protect laborers from moles-
tatfon by strikers whose places they
would take.
Roberts opposed it on this ground.
The whole question of the law of
strikes should be left to the legislature.
Greer said the section was drafted to
prevent the system of biacklisting, by
which certain corporations can keep
discharged employees from obtaining
other employment. Laboring men de-
sire to have a provision made, whereby
they can be protected.
President Smith said he wanted the
provision stricken out. It was one Of
those things which are so uncertain
that they are dangerous. It could not
be said exactly what would be the eff
feet.
RYAN, of Juab, asked for the strik-
ing out because of Kicks ill-timed OBJ
servations.
The provision was stricken out by an
overwhelming vote.
The Binding Section.
Roberts offered an amendment TO
section 26. reading:
ITO guard against transgression OF
the high powers we have delegated TO
4ha government of the State of Utah
bv this constitution, we declare that
everything contained in the bill Of
riahts is excepted out of the general
oeAers of governments, and shall for
O. remain inviolate."
I..is was favored as being much
better in wording and as binding by
Roberts, Whitney and Evans and op-
peAed by Richards. 1t was voted down,
however. and the section stands: THE
provisions of this constitution are man.
daItory and prohi0itory, unless by ex-
press words they are declared TO be
otherwise"
A Patriotic Utterance.
There was another breeze over sec
+ion %. which reads: Frequent re-
currence TO fundamental principles is
essential to the security of individual
right a,3d the perpetuity of free gov
ernuent."
Yarian asked what it could mean.
Were seemed to be no for to 1t. It
was simply a declaration and could
have no binding power.
Wells said this was patriotic Ut
terance which the committee had
deemed necessary. 1t had no binding
force. it was true, except SO far as it
stood to remind public officers that
return to fundamental principles was
right at times. In these days. there is
too much of q disposition not to think
of this truth.
Richards also argued for the provis-
ION. He said such a thing was not su-
per1uous 1t would stand perpetually
to remind men of a truth which is
necessary to the welfare of the gov
ernmert Such sentiments cannot be
expressed too often, and the constiSu-
ticn would not be weakened by this.
The provision was retained.
MaIOney Tries Again.
MaIoney. of Weber. offered the FOL-
lowing substitute for section %. which
had been stricken out:
EVERY citizen of this state shall be
FRAGRANT