thing anyway, but I do have a little lumber, and I am perfectly willing to pay a tax; but that is out of the question and has nothing to do with the matter under consideration — it is simply whether we shall take up two proposed amendments and then adjourn.

It is much more important that we stand by the boys who at this very moment on the battlefields and in the trenches are giving their lives for you and me. This conflict we are engaged in dwarfs all others. I was rejoiced and I listened intently to the strong and patriotic words of our President. Are the people of New Hampshire in any frame of mind to consider amendments that may be proposed? Go upon the trains, go anywhere, see the little boys, see the little girls working, women knitting, and we staying here to discuss whether we will save a pine tree or not? The last gentleman said the boys would come home and ask us what have you been doing? Let us see? I happen, unfortunately for my business, to be a member of a draft board, and the government instructs us to even defer sending boys who are engaged in agricultural work who went to Camp Devens in September and have been in training five months, and they have been given furloughs for the summer in order that they might work on farms; and it seems to me if we continue here we will simply fritter away our time to no purpose after the manner of the recent and still continuing Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.

The people of New Hampshire are interested in other and more vital things than amendments to our Constitution, and will not give amendments that we may submit their attention. Why then should we go on, thrash out and put forward amendments and have them rejected at the polls? I trust we will go home soon. Personally I think we ought to go this afternoon.

Mr. Emerson of Milford. - Gentlemen, it looks to me as if we are going far afield in the consideration of the question before us. If I understand the question before us correctly, it is, first, shall we vote immediately to adjourn and go home and quit, leaving a committee of the President and ten other members to decide whether at a later date we shall be called back for further business. That is the proposition of the gentleman from Rochester, as I understand it. The second proposition is the proposition of the gentleman from Concord that we consider two questions and then quit, quit possibly this afternoon, quit probably tomorrow, with two questions for the people to consider, that they have already considered in time past very carefully, one of which at least was acted upon by the last Constitutional Convention and on which the people at the polls cast a large

majority of votes in the affirmative, showing that the people were interested; if the question had received just a little more discussion before the people, it is my confident belief that the people would have approved of the amendment to the Constitution providing that the Legislature might classify timber differently from other property. The question is not a specific question of taxation here; the question is, do we believe in allowing the Legislature a free hand to deal with this problem; that is the question. It isn't this or that method of taxation. There is no one here, so far as I know, who is advocating allowing standing timber to escape any part of its just burden of taxation. There is a considerable belief that the proper time to tax timber is when you tax other things, when the crop is harvested. I for one don't believe that any tree should escape its just share of taxation, but I do believe that it is a crime against the best interests of this State to tax standing timber before it is ripe. But I am not here to discuss that question; that question will come up after these other two questions which I have tried to outline to you are determined; first, shall we immediately and now adjourn? On that question, I vote no; and then on the question Shall we consider the two questions which have been carefully considered by the people and on one of which at least the people have passed an affirmative judgment by a majority vote? On that question, I vote yes.

Now then if going home right this minute would bring back those boys that have gone to France, your sons and my sons, I would vote yes; but it won't do it and we might just as well face these problems. Personally I for one am not disposed to stay here and listen to unlimited discussion on a lot of these questions, but I am disposed to pass, if we can, on those two questions which have received considerable discussion on the part of the people and upon which most of you yourselves have your minds made up.

Mr. Lyford of Concord. Mr. President, just a single word. The gentleman from Milford has brought us back to the question before us. I have not indicated in any way how I stand on either of the propositions that will be discussed and considered here if my resolution is adopted. This is merely to give an opportunity to consider these propositions. Now, the amendment, the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Rochester, Mr. Varney, is unnecessary, because if this resolution of mine is adopted, it does not bind this Convention in favor of or against either one of these propositions. There are no amendments to the Constitution in my resolution, and when an amendment is offered, say for instance, to classify growing wood

and timber for the purpose of taxation, it is in order for the gentleman from Rochester to move to indefinitely postpone; that is a debatable motion, and you can then debate the merits of the question, and if this Convention votes to indefinitely postpone, that ends that proposition, and if one proposition is ended that way, the other will undoubtedly follow. You have got no concrete proposition here to discuss. The discussion has wandered far afield, but it is brought back by the gentleman from Milford. It is whether you will vote immediately to adjourn or whether you will vote for the resolution that I offered, which gives an opportunity to consider these questions, which you can reject as a Convention, if you then see fit.

Mr. Metcalf of Concord. - This Convention has something to do or it has nothing to do. If it has nothing to do, it should adjourn at once, sine die, and go home. If there is something that has to be done, it should be done and submitted to the people. The argument against submitting any amendment to the people at this time is that we are in war, and that consequently we cannot consider properly anything of this sort; that our minds must be entirely taken up with this great question of the war. Mr. Doyle of Nashua put this in very strong words, and Mr. Stone of Andover. Now it is true that we are at war. It is true we want to do all in our power to win this war; but I notice Brother Doyle goes on trying cases in Court just as before, and I notice the Courts are in session just the same as before. It is suggested that we canont properly consider these questions; but look here, gentlemen, more questions are going to be before us. We have to consider the qualifications of the candidates for United States Senator, and Mr. Lyford of Concord agrees he is infinitely better qualified than any of the four now in the field for the job; and the people are asked to consider this question, and they will have to consider it before long, and then we have to consider a candidate on the Democratic side; we have to determine "what in thunder" we will do if Hollis gets out; that has to be considered. Then we have to nominate candidates for Congressmen and Governor and all such officers, and the attention of the people is going to be taken up by those things, and there has to be an election, and the people will meet in the voting places and consider which of the candidates presented are best qualified for the job, and vote accordingly. Now do you pretend to say, gentlemen of this Convention, that if one or two important amendments, with which the people are familiar, were submitted at that time that they cannot consider and act upon them intelligently? I think to put that proposition up to you is nonsense.

Mr. Howe of Concord. Mr. President, what would be the fair thing to do under all the circumstances? There are various projects here. Different people are interested in different ones of these projects; that is sufficiently apparent. The timber people are interested in the timber project; the people holding intangibles in the taxation of intangibles. Some people are interested in the initiative and referendum. Other people, it has been suggested, are interested in the project of the election of judges by the people. I might go on indefinitely. It is known that another measure in which there is public interest is the pensioning of our retired judges. Now under the circumstances what would be the fair thing to do? Are we satisfied that the timber people and the intangible people have the only issues that are worth considering? They say they have, and that we ought to sidetrack everything else and deal with their matters and then go home and that the people who are interested in the other matters should be satisfied with that program. Now is that so? I want to submit to you, Mr. President, that the fair thing to do, the right thing for us to do is to take either one of two courses: either stay here and deal with every project that comes legitimately before this Convention, or deal with none. Treat the timber people fairly; the intangible peopie fairly; the initiative and referendum people and all the others fairly; give them the time they ought to have, it will take a month, no doubt about that. Take that course and you will be fair to everybody, or else not select one or two of these projects, deal with them and let the other people wait. Now there is one more thing I want to suggest for your consideration. It has appeared in the discussion which has been had here today that there is a grave suspicion in the minds of many people that back of the timber project stand the millionairs timber owners. I don't know whether that is true or not; but there is that suspicion. Now, gentlemen, just recently the people of New Hampshire voted on this. This very question was submitted to them; it failed to carry; the people voted against it. Conditions have changed to some extent since that vote was taken. A certain proportion of our voters who were here and voted then are across the water now. Will those boys, those who return, feel that you have treated them fairly if you have put through your timber proposition and your intangible proposition when they were absent in France and could not vote upon it?

Mr. Clement of Warren. One point has been brought up here twice today, that was in regard to this question being submitted from the last Constitutional Convention. Gentlemen, these two questions, the exemption of growing timber from

taxation and the question of taxation of intangibles, were linked up together, and one killed the other. That is why the growing timber was not exempted, because they embodied the two together, made them sink and swim together, and the result was exactly what I predicted, they were both defeated. Now you have a State Forester here and a State Forestry Association who are not interested in any millionaires. They have made a study of this question for years. They have done something. Are you going to be slackers? Aren't you going to consider the preservation of the resources of your State? Haven't we been told repeatedly it behooves us to conserve at home, to do our own duty in conservation of our resources, when our soldiers in Europe depend on them? Are we quitters?

Mr. Hayden of Hollis. - We have been told this afternoon we are in a great war at the present time. We were in a great war in '61. I was there myself, and I know something about it. At that time we faced the front and obeyed orders, and now don't be slackers; don't go to the rear; face the front if the bullets do come; we are here to do business and let's do it.

Mr. Duffy of Franklin. I would like to ask a question for information. If this motion prevails, as I understand it, it does not preclude the possibility of taking up the two subjects mentioned in the resolution of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford.

The President. —I should say it does preclude it. The Chair understands that the question is now upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rochester, Mr. Varney, which I have just read. If that resolution is adopted, it seems to the Chair that the taxation amendments must fail, unless they are submitted before we adjourn today.

Mr. Varney of Rochester. I want to say in regard to this amendment which I have offered that at the time I was asked to be a member of this Convention, I stated to the people in my ward that I would go under one condition, and that condition was that if I was elected, I would present to the Convention a resolution asking for immediate adjournment, and I have carried out the promise which I made my constituents at that time. Moreover, I have not changed my opinion since the time I was elected. I have not had cold feet within the last week or two and changed my mind. I still believe it is for the interest of the State of New Hampshire and that there is a sufficient sentiment among the people of the State that this Convention shall adjourn until such time as conditions may be settled after the war, in order that we may determine just what is needed. We cannot vote intelligently upon any amendments that may be