National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-15

| 70 the Hindoos whom they converted, and
| was never. thought improper by any
Of them for the party TO support the
wife WIZ ,t and Hi, Offspring after conversion,
as to say that It was inbuman aud unchris-
tianlike not TO do so. Yet II Is criminal I'm
these people in Utah to do that which is right
say that there can be no case Of constructive co.
habitation as distinguished from real cOhabita.
ton. These men believe that II Tn sy obey this
law as SO construed, and desert theft offspring
and renouncc their wives, they will be ostra.
elzed, and so they would be In the District of
Columbia OF elsewhere
have rambled through this subject NThe
committee, has called my attention to specific
things, and have left other matters untouched
intended TO speak Of and therefore have not
gone through the subject coherently.
The Chairman. ! do not want you TO feel
that the, interruptions should have the effect
OF curtailing your argument In any degree.
The purpose really has been to call your at
committee felt were necessary in their own
opinions TO DO discussed
Mr. Chandler Certainly; / understood II I'm
that way. There Is section In the Edmuuds
bill that authorizes the inspection of marriage
certificates given by any officer, clergyman,
teal functions, whether lawful or not, In any
place IN the territory. That, of course, in
elpdes any private residence or other place
whcfe these certificates may be, If people feel
curious enough TO make thosoarch.
MT Stewart What section is THAR
,.aMn55 chandler. The iinh section. Y says,
'anu ~ snail be lawful for any United States
commissioner, Justice judge, or court, before
whom any proceeding shall be pending i'm
which such certificate, record, or entry may
be material, by proper warrant, TO cause such
certificate, record. or entry, aud the book,
document. or paper containing the same, TO be
taken aud brought before him or II for the
purposes Of such proceeding" Tho first pnrt OF
the section is as follows: "That every certiii-
cate, record, and entry Of any kind concern
G rraSG S SSy The nature
Now. what the ceremony can be In the
nature OF marriage ceremony, that Is not
ceremony do not know. That Is peculiar
kind of marriage which only exists In Utah.
performing civil or ecclesiastical functions,
whether lawful or not, in any territory of the
United states, and any record thereof In any
office OF place shall be subject to Inspection
at all reasonable times by any judge. magis.
authority OF the United States, and shall, on
request be produced and shown to such Judge,
MAGISTRATE, or officer b, by any person inwhose
| The Chairman. Before you pass from that
| point, will you state whether you make any
| Objection 70 that section or an equivalent pro-
| vision for having public recordand evidence
| OF the ceremony of marriage?
MIR. Chandler. do not know that there IL
any PARTICULAR objection to it, The law of
marriage has been treated in Utah precisely as
| Il has been treated in oil Catholic countries.
| IL was never made the subject Of legal record
in the common law offices Tor many years.
The Chairman. In Catholic countries the
| marriage must be n sacrement?
MI. Chandler: Yes. In Utah marriage II Is q
sacrament OF the church. There has been no
| law, understand, passed upon the subject.
| suppose Congress can take charge Of this SUBJ
| ject Of marriage. II has the power to do 1t,
and the power to abolish the territorial govern
ment and leave these people without any gov
eminent, like wanderers But is IL wise to
| establish different rule for this territory in
that, respect II It is necessary to have an ad.
vertisement OF the marriage, suppose there Is
| no constitutional difficulty In the way of doing
IT, This fith section provides that the private
records OF the family may be inspected at any
time TO find certificate, without any warrant,
without any probable cause being shown. The
| officer is given visitorial power over the fam
| ily.. lie may, go Into the family circle any time
| he feels in the humor, whether any case DO
| pending or not, and demand to SEQ their pri-
| vate papers for the purpose Of making evidence
| TO establish this unlawful relation, and to
| lily. Now, In the case OF Boyd Us. the United
States recently decided reported In ll6, U. 81
| II was held that an order to deliver papers,
| though made by court, for the nurpose of be-
ing used In criminal case, Is violation of the
| provision of the constitution against unlawful
| seizures ard searches.
The Chairman. What case is that?
Mr.. Gibson. II ~ an unreported case. This
| opinion was only recently handed down by
Mr.. Chandler. say that section of the bill
Is condemned by, that decision. l now call
| your attention to the proposition to contiscatc
this ,church, property, and forfeit its charter
Has II ever happened in this country that the
| government saw I'll TO appropriate the prop
| erty ola private corporaiionP 1t may provide
laws or methods of procedure for the forfeiture
OF a charter OF corporation, II II be such
| corporation as the government has a right TO
| control, and If 1t has transgressed the law
| OF the state; In such case a judicial
inquiry would be necessary TO show that there
| had been such acts AZ in law work a forfeit
ure OF the charter, and that y was such a
charter as the government could forfeit. But
| is there any decision that the government can
| take the property after the forfeiture? l know
Of none-l can find none. While they may
visit upon a corporation forfeiture Of Its
charter under certain circumstances, provided
| the corporation be Of such character that the
| government has the right to direct its course
| OF action but II cannot take away the property
| itself
| II is provided in one section of this bill that
| proceedings be instituted to escheat this prop
| eIty TO the government.
| Section - of this bill cannot be maintained
| ifpassed, for the reason that 1t is not c0npe-
tent Tor Congress. If a corporation has taken
| property In Excess of the amount under its
| charter II may hold, to forfeit that property TO
the United States, This bill provides that the
Attorney General shall institute proceedings
TO ftrf II ana escheat to the United States prop.
erty OF COZ poratons held in violation OF section
1890 OF the Revised Statutes,
ms GonlS M ialsS, ia effect; that all OF said
$4,000 shall be conllscated by the United States
| government.
with the matter, and the word "escheGt" is
| used IN the bill withouta u apparent knowledge
| of its meaning Property escheats to the gov
eminent only in case of an extinction of ten
| ure-wheTe there are no heirs to receive It.
| a Kents Com, 42i), This section does not
make a new definition Of the word "escheat,"
that provision of the, bill SO far as the doc
tIine OF che at is alluded to, absurd.
The word forfeiture. which is miscellane-
cheat ICates an enrey Gerent s%te Of
fncts from those governing eScheat. Chancellor
Kent says q vol, 43Gy there Is a dlstlac-
crown: The law Of forfeiture went beyond the
law OF escheat II extinguished forever all in
herItable quality OF the yassals blood. Their
rests SHu upon Corruption OF blood which in his
country, IS universally abolished. a Kents
If The Church, or any other corporation has
assumed to take land or property in excess of
| the amount which the law permits them to
take, and in violation Of the law, the convey
ance OF such property to such corporation
is no conveyance. The utmost thatthe govern
ment can do in such cases Is to repeal the char
ter Of the corporation by judicial decree which
property. Even at common law where the
government takes land by escheat or by for
ieiture, 1t takes II with the title which the
| party had against whom the forfeiture was
| enforced. II Is taken In the plight and extent
by which he held II and the estate OF remain
der man Is not destroyed or dvested by the
But the law limiting the power OF the church
to hold over s500OO worth of real estate was
passed ten years after the charter was granted,
| In which there was no such Limitation. If the
| charter of the church DO contract between
| the church ana the government, then Com
| gress rCSoTvlng no power TO repeal or modify
| II, can not change its capacity to hold property.
| llanything Is settled in this country II Is that
| the government can not change the cOnstitu.
| ton Of private charity, unless In the act OF
Incorporation, orin the general law existing at
the time of the incorporation, the power to
change 1t was expressly reserved 70 the gov.
| enment which is not the case here. Tho
limitation, therefore, TO enforce which proyi-
| sion Is Eero made, Is void and can not DO
| enforced
| Mr.. Stewart Will call your attention to the
first section of this bill which provides that tho
| wife isa competent witness In this case. Now,