The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-06

/ change. Mr.. Thompson, of Sanpete,
! had spoken in favor of the change,
/ holding that many settlers having more
than $50 acres would be done an IN
justice by having other land taken
] away from them. Mr.. Critchlow, in re-
I plying, said if the legislature was go
! ing to stop anywhere it should be done
at $50 acres. If it was raised they
might as well go on and make it 2,40o
acres or even more There was no IN
| justice being done for the reason that
! the improvements on such land IS not
/ to be taken into consideration when
/ the land is being appraised. The own
er would therefore be entitled to re-
move his Improvements or be paid for
/ them.
In any event the settlers affected
had lived there for years, in many
cases had grown rich, and in no case
had they paid any taxes or contribut-
ed in any manner to the expense OF
/ government, While they had the pro-
lection thereof. The motion was ex-
/ tensively discussed and was lost, when
| brought to vote, as was the original
one of Mr.. Lowry, the amount which
/ the actual settler is to be allowed the
/ preference right to purchase remain
! ing at 160 acres.
Mr.. Egan moved to amend section 10
/ to the effect that the preference right
/ of purchase should not extend to the
man owning 100 acres of land. The
motion was opposed by Messrs. Smoot,
Mansfield and Murdoch, and was lost.
Mr.. Smoot moved to make the inter-
est which the board should require on
/ loaning the money received for the sale
Of land, mot to exceed per cent.
! The motion was lost, when Mr.. Thomp-
son, of Sanpete, moved to strike out
per cent. and fix the rate of interest at
6 per cent.
Dr. Condor was very much in favor
of the motion. The farm today did
| not even pay its owner 3 per cent. He
would not make motion but believed
the interest might not be higher than
8 per cent.
Mr.. Larsen said he was not so tirnid
and moved to reduce the interest to )
/ per cent.
Mr. Mansfield favored the reduction
He had wanted ITO fix it at that in
committee but could not get it.
Mr.. Raddatz did not consider it a
good proposition from business stand
point for the state.
/ Mr.. CritchloW thought it somewhat
/ exasperating and he oft-times got tired
to hear the pleas that were constantly
being made for the farmer. One would
think they We're entitled TO some spe-
ct21 privileges to which other people
were not. One would be led to sup
pose the farmers were beggars He
didn't think the farmers were asking
for such begging in their behalf. The
committee had once fixed it at per
cent. and it had then been raised to Z
( per cent. There was no business rea-
son why it should be changed.
The debate lasted until the clock in
Dictated 4 o'clock when upon division
both the amendment to the amend
ment and the original amendment were
lost, the interest remaining as reported
in the bill The committee at this time
arose and reported progress
WAS RECONSTRUCTED.
In accordance with his notice of the
day before Mr.. Lewis moved to recon-
slider the vote by which substitute for
H. B. No. 80 was lost. The reconsider
alton was vigorously debated and was
finally successful, the bill being filed
for third reading.
a SUDDEN STORM.
When the order of third reading was
reached at the head Of the calendar
was H. 3. No. 139, Mr.. Critchlows bill
to repeal that clause of section 4461 of
the compiled laws in relation to justi-
fable homicide which makes it iuStifi-
able for a man to kill one who betrayS
or defiles his wife or other female rela-
tive.
Mr.. Sorenson at once moved to strike
out the enacting clause, stating the
belief that it was class legislation of
the most vicious character. Some one
interpolated the query as to what
class Of citizen it was in favor Mr.
Mansfield replied feelingIy, "The hber-
tine
Mr. Mansfield supported the motion,
! asserting the belief that one who kills
/ in the heat OF passion another who has
deflled wife or relative should be held
! justified by the law. He was opposed
/ to the bill also for the reason that it
/ deprived a man of the right to mete
out justice ito the defler of his family
after the act had been committed or
unless the defiler were to- be appre-
hended in the act. A colloquy ensued
between the gentleman speaking and
! Mr.. Harris who enquired if the gen
tleman believed any man should be
| held justified in taking human life on
any other ground than in self-defense,
to which Mr.. Mansfield replied yes.
Random inquiries were piled by vari-
Gus gentlemen from their seats until
Mr.. Mansfield relinquished the floor.
CRITCHLOw'S EFFOR-.
Mr.. Critchlow, observing that the
tide of popular sentiment was about
! to put an end to his bin, arose and adj
dressed the speaker. There was emo
! ton and intense earnestness written
| in every line of his face as he began
his argument against killing the bill,
which compelled the attention of his
| hearers as he said:
L do not deny that the recent awful
I tragedy enacted in this ely was the &C.
ca,sion which prompted the introduce
! ton of this bill at this time It is
sometimes necessary that the atten-
ton Of legislators and Of the public
I be arrested by a stirring event before
action on matters such as this will be
taken. do, however, take occasion to
/ deny the insinuation which has been
/ publicly made that this bill is either
/ designed or intended to affect in any
way the case of any person accused
4 Of crime, or that up to the time Of the
! introduction of this measure no criti-
cism has ever been made of the law
which this bill is introduced to amend.
! you know and [ know as sensible
men. that no measure which this Leg
! isIature can enact into law can in any
manner affect either prejudicially or
/ otherwise the rights Of any party now
! resting under a charge of crime
! AS to the other part 1 affirm that
/ there is not a reputable member of the
] bar of this state who has ever had oc-
! casion deliberately and impartially to
pass judgment on the provision which
/ it is intended to strike out who has
not denounced it as monstrous, a dis
grace to civilization and q blot upon
the statute book of the state. This is
no new proposition. The attention of