are willing to work for $1.50 a day, and there is no reason for saying that $3 a day would be the price.

Mr. MILLER. The statement as to $3 a day was entirely presumption on my part. I assumed that any person who was qualified to sit as a member of the board could not be expected to sit for less than $3 a day. His hotel bills would be $2, and he should have some compensation in addition to that, and the Legislature in providing compensation for the service would at least pay them for their time and service what their actual expenses would be.

Mr. GRAY. We find plenty of men who are ready to serve their townships at $1.50 a day, and we think we could find some more who would be ready to serve them for $2 a day at least.

Mr. MOER. There are other as objectionable features. Section four for example-this is purely Legislative. Section five, too; section four reads as follows:

SEC. 4. In counties already organized, where the county seat has not been located by a vote of the people, it shall be the duty of the County Board to submit the location of the county seat to the electors of said county at the first general election after the admission of the State of North Dakota into the Union, and the place receiving a majority of all votes cast at said election shall be the county seat of said county. If, at said election, no place receive a majority of all the votes cast, it shall be the duty of the County Board of said county to re-submit the location of the county seat to the electors of said county at the next general election thereafter; and the electors at said election shall vote for one of the two places receiving the highest number of votes at the preceding election. The place receiving the majority of all the votes cast for county seat at said second election shall be the county seat of said county.

It seems to me that this is purely legislative, and that if we are to go on the theory as embraced in the File submitted by the Committee on County and Township Organization, it seems to me that we will legislate on every subject that it is possible to bring in. We shall have enough legislation, do the best we can, and it seems to me that the whole thing should be stricken out. It is a matter for the Legislature to say how we shall change county seats. Section six is perhaps wise. It reads as follows:

SEC. 6. The Legislature shall have no power to remove the county seat of any organized county.

We don't want to go on and tell the Legislature just exactly what they will have to do to change county seats, or in the organization of boards of supervisors. In my county the mileage alone would cost our county $150 every session, and in view of the fact that we have a great many very large counties, it seems absurd for us to

attempt to inaugurate a general supervisor system. The only men who favor it, it seems to me, must be the men who come from states where it is in vogue and where there are nothing but little counties. I am heartily in favor of referring this to the committee again.

Mr. SPALDING. I would amend the amendment by including as desirable for us to adopt all of sections six, seven and ten, except the word "other" in the tenth section. These are not matters of legislation, but are limitations on the Legislature, and I believe they would be proper sections for this article, and that they don't come within the objections made by the gentlemen who have just spoken.

Mr. MILLER. With the consent of my second I will accept that as part of my amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I am heartily in favor of re-referring this report to the committee, but I am opposed to instructing them that we won't have county township organization, and I will ask for a division of the question. I desire to vote on the question separately. I am opposed to doing away with the county township system, either that, or such as the committee may recommend. I have lived under it, and in counties where the county seats are located anywhere near the centre of the counties, the mileage is not very heavy.

The CHAIRMAN. How shall the question be divided?

Mr. STEVENS. First whether it shall be referred, and second whether the recommendation shall be given to the committee.

Mr. SCOTT. I think that we can make better progress if we take up this report section by section. There are some sections that I favor, and some that I am opposed to. I don't believe that we should adopt three, four or five, but I think six is all right, and I am not so sure but some of the remaining sections are perfectly proper. At all events if this report is going to be re-referred to the committee it should be informed as to what our wishes are in the matter, and we should decide whether we are in favor of township organization going into it or not. Then the committee will know what to do with it. Take section seven-I am not clear that section seven is not all right, and so with eight, and with section six I think there is nothing the matter with it.

Mr. ROLFE. I suppose that we shall, before we get through with our work here, listen to the cry of proposed legislation a good many times. If the cry is listened to, our Constitution will

probably be a very small and comparatively unimportant document. I undertake to say that pretty nearly every member, if not every member, has suffered at the hands of the Legislature in one respect or another to a sufficient extent to make him suspicious of Legislatures. If the real and honest intent of this Convention is not to introduce some wholesome legislation into the Constitution, then we had better go home at once. In regard to section three, it does not seem to strike the gentleman from Cass as being particularly objectionable, except that it is legislation. But he undertakes to throw a cloud on section three by attacking section nine. He undertakes to blot out all respect for three by insisting that section nine is in our present condition a ridiculous system to introduce. Now, let section three stand on its own merits if it has any. Let us settle this report of this committee section by section. If section three is not a wholesome restriction on the Legislature, let us blot it out. But don't get a new report on section three because section nine is bad. I apprehend that there are many here who are in the same position that I am in-who have suffered from abuses that have arisen from a system that has been in vogue, and which system section three will correct. In the county from which I come, we were obliged to vote for the candidate for Delegate to Congress last fall that we did not want

a man who belonged to a different party, because it was the only way in which we could preserve our county intact. We made a trade; the party to which I belonged was obliged to make a trade with the opposite party, and we voted for their candidate for Delegate to Congress and they in return voted for our candidate for the Council who was pledged to oppose and defeat, if possible, any measure looking to the cutting up of our county. We sacrificed our political principles in many respects for the purpose of preserving our county life. Now I apprehend that there are a good many here whose experience has been similar. They will agree with me that there is some merit in section three. Therefore I am very much in favor of considering this section alone.

Mr. MILLER. The gentleman suggests that he has suffered at the hands of the Legislature. That may be admitted, but the suffering may be remedied after two years; the suffering that will be occasioned to the people of this Territory if these sections are adopted will be universal and will last for more than ten years before this Constitution can be amended. There is not an indi

vidual taxpayer who won't feel it. I have no doubt but that legislatures sometimes trample on the toes of people and localities who try to organize counties. Their financial interests are trampled on, and as Judge Cooley very wisely said, we have to trust somebody in the future, and the Legislature seems to be the only tribunal that we can trust in these matters.

Mr. WALLACE. It seems to me that the best thing we can do is to take up this matter section by section.

Mr. NOBLE. I move that the committee do rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The question was put and lost.

Mr. MILLER. My motion is that section three be re-referred to the committee with the opinion of this body that it is proper subject for legislstion, but should not become a part of this Constitution.

Mr. APPLETON. As one of the committee that submitted this report, I would say that we were of the opinion that section three was not legislation. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong in this Convention saying that all changes in county boundaries shall be submitted to a vote of the people. We are simply saying that before a change is made in any county the people shall have a voice in the matter. We say that where the people vote to be set off and be made a new county, they shall assume their portion of the debt of the county. It did not seem to me that there was anything unfair about the proposition that before any of the boundaries or lines of the counties shall be changed, the people shall have a chance to vote upon it. I move that section three be adopted.

Seconded by Mr. COLTON.

The Chair ruled that a motion to refer back is not capable of being amended.

Mr. O'BRIEN. As I understand it the motion of the gentleman from Cass would be practically of no effect at all. If this motion prevails, then section three goes back to the committee. But for what purpose? What are they to do with it? Are they to change it and bring it back to us again in the shape of another report? It seems to me that a better plan would be for us to take this up and discuss it in Committee of the Whole, and if we arrive at the conclusion that it is legislation, of which I am somewhat of the opinion, we can settle it right here without burdening the committee again with it. I think it would be a great deal

better for us to settle it here. There will probably be a great many other subjects that will come up in the same way and if they are to be referred back after half an hour or an hour's discussion, the committee may make another report like the first and we will never reach the end of our discussions. But if after a full and free discussion of this matter we are of the opinion that it is not proper subject to be incorporated in the Constitution, that settles it, and we can proceed to something else. For that reason I oppose the motion of the gentleman from Cass.

Mr. COLTON moved that section three be adopted.

Mr. BARTLETT of Dickey. Whether this is legislation or constitution I cannot say, but of one thing I am certain-it is good, wholesome law. I know that it should be in the Constitution, and that is why I am in favor of it. I have listened with great pleasure to the arguments of the gentlemen in whom I have confidence as lawyers, but that section suits me mighty well.

Mr. HARRIS. I move to amend section three by adding after the last word the following: "As the assessed valuation of the part so stricken off shall bear to the total assessment of said county or counties."

Mr. COLTON. I would accept the amendment and I would have put it in, but I saw that there are so many who want to leave the Legislature something to do, and I thought it would be well to leave that to them. I believe at the same time that in the matter of the dividing of counties it is well to let the people have a voice, and that is why I am in favor of having this article adopted as part of the Constitution. I have seen the effects of there being no restrictions on the Legislature; I have seen cases where the Legislature has, without consulting the people, taken part of one county and added it to another, and made the county that took the piece, pay what they had a mind to. It is not right to leave it so that a Legislature can make one county take a piece from another whether they want to do so or not.

Mr. MOER. I move to strike out all of section three after the word "thereby" in the third line.

The amendment was declared to be out of order, and it was then moved as a substitute.

Mr. ROLFE. In the minds of the committee there was a good reason for every word in that section, and I would like the members of this Convention to analyze it carefully. It provides that changes in counties shall not be absolute when passed by the Leg