National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-29
be subjected to the original enabling act. must

gnMteIi tuen nhNe hotulnB iuOie W say pus
The Chairman. Why not?
Mr. CaswelL How can you distinguish Il
Mr. Chandler, ! distinguish Il because the
law itself distinguishes IL. If you are going 70
repeal q charter you must have provision de-
claring that Congress, or the power granting
the charter, may alter amend or repeal. Now,
act Of the Utah legislature. In the charter
there is no provision that you may alter,
change, or repeal, is there2 The only substi-
tue for that which 1t Is attempted now TO es-
tablish is that Congress reserved to itself the
power TO disnpprove OF the laws which Utah
enacted. Suppose that Utah passed general
incorporation law, authorizing corporations,
colleges, ana churches to tako property under
that law, and there was this same provision
that Congress might approve or disapprove of
and churches were really and actually eatab.
llshed under the law Of Utah, and Congress
waited ten years before II expressed any opin-
ion on the subject OF the law in this case, the
legal effect Of Congress's silence is assent, be-
cause there was only reserved the right to dis
approve, as they reserved the right TO veto. a
veto is simply disapproyal, and Il the law y
becomes law. Therefore there must be some
positive dissent TO that law IN order TO destroy
Congress grants to Utah the power to make
laws affecting private property, Tor the creation
OF private trusts, and for tho sale of land, and
reserves to itself the right 70 disapprove the
law. Congress secs the law that is there en-
law. Privileges arc granted under the law.
Corporations arc created with certain specific
privileges in their charters. .,
People accept those charters and titles TO
land. Congress Tomorrow, or next week, or
the next year, but not until after the accept
ance OF these charters and titles TO land, ennulS
the law, Docs II 0nnul tho charters and titles
to lnnd2 III does not Gunul the charters and
land titles there In their entirety, II does not
annul them pro tdHto. You cannot discover
any fine distinction between q destruction OF
the charters aud land titles ns such and dc.
stnctiou Of them partially suppose In the
very law IN which Congress disanprovod this
formed under IL shall be dissolved and its
property toniiscated, would amy man tell me
that The Gourmet, lawml hen mnde under the
law Of Utah, accepted by the bencnciurles, and
contributions made TO IT, could be repealed by
Congress, the charters absolutely taken away,
because of the repeal Of the law under which
the charter is granted? / say not, say that
may disapprovc of the law JUS; as II says, but
every title that Is vested under TINT law While
II was In force Is sacred. The title IL sacred
to the extent that 1t Is title to the very limits
granted. when the law IL repealed, then no
others can be formed under 1t OF any kind.
But there is no doctrine in this country,
i submit, that this committee or that Con.
gress can appeal TO, that will Justify them In
constituting the law to mean that because the
law is disnpproved or repealed that all the
Credness undor the law while 1t was in force
are also repealed. Ifthey are not repealed in
their entirety, how can you say they are re-
pealcd partially? When you give away part
Of the proposition you might as well abandon
1t all. / say that that charter, precisely as IL
cnme from the hands Of the legislature Of Utah,
and precisely as 1t was accepted by the benef-
Charles Of II, constitutes the title which was
transmitted 10 them under the operation OF
that law and with the approval Of Congress;
and Congress cannot now reach It's hand out
and take away any part OF that contract, any
part of that title. or any one of It's provisions.
That is my position. II may be absurd; IL
may DO unsupported by the judicial voice Of
this country, but would like TO sec one single
authority Of any American court holding that
where law is temporarily IN force, as al lass
ore, that titles acquired under them may be
destroyed. What does that doctrine amount
to, IL the committee please2 Didn't Congress
have the power to repeal all the laws that Utah
made without provision, such rs is read here?
Certainly IL did Is Congress not exercising
power TO repeal any Law OF Utah? Did that de-
clare any new principle, or did 1t give those
persons any notice OF any extraordinary power
what Congress would have the right, what
every state has the right to do in its own case
had that not been in the law, to wit repeal all
the laws that Utah enacted. But when II has
permitted people TO ottain property under the
law, no matter whet .hc nature Of the property
whether e be title to land or contract of SER
wee 10 the territory of Utah. that RICH. OF title
conses yod do supPSif hn hsa @ s
authorizing Utah 10 make such contract
and think this is fair ilpstrotion-he made
a contract TO furnish 100000 worth OF pork to
the provisional government of Utah, under IL
law OF Utah which Congress permitted the ter
riiory 10 make and after no had furnished
$4,000 worth Congress passes law and say.
We won't take the other Sj00 G0 worth.
Mr.. Caswoll We do not differ 50 much as To
the rights acquired before the notification act
OF lG2ns We do rs to the contracts made since
Mr., Chandler. No. We only differ with re.
gard to what the contract Is. am told, how
ever, that this law has not been annnled up to
| date,
Mr.. Cnine. Congress staitcd out 10 aunul 1t.
MIR. Chandler. II Is doubtful question
whether It has ever been annnilea or not.
| There Is rrOviaO TO that act. II provides that
| II shall have only limited effect rs the com
| mittcc Will rec. Bnt the proposition rest on
| Is this Suppose the law had been passed nli.
ihoSgiug them to buy this $4,000 worth of
| pork; they made contract for 100000 worth
| ofpOrk; then Congress repeats the law; would
| thnt repeal also one half of the contract?
| Mr.. Caswell. That docs not necessarily follow.
| We do not propose, for instance to interfere
| with contracts made prior to the notification
| net.
| tain peTmls iolI to acquire other properly than
| the $4,000 worth? Dovs the charter on its
face authorize this church 10 own more than
| $4,000 worth of property?
| The Chairman. Suppose II did. The law OF
! Congress Of 1884, nterieres aud fix - the limit
| ana says II shall not hold above $4,000, and
| il II does, the excess shall escheat.
| Mr. Chandler. Yes, that is the. very prOpo
| sitiOn fairly stated. II they could not pass a
| law to repeal the contract for pork. which was
for S1C0, 900 worth, after $4,000 had been fur
nished, and say we won't take tho other ESQ.,,
| 900 worth, how then can they repeal the pro
| visions Of this charter that allows this Church
to acquire 100000 worth Of property and Il
only has $4,000 worth at the time the law 1:
| repealed? ] say the contract for pork and the
contract of permission to take an equal amount
OF property are equally valid, Of equal force
destroy. This Limitation of the power OF Con
| gress 10 impair contracts is not to Impair Ger
tain kinds OF contracts. but 1t is an Inhibition
| against impniiing any contracts.
II this charter, fairly construed, authorized
| this church TO take, when the charter was
| granted, 100000 worth OF property, aud altel
1t has acquired $4,000 worth Congress under
takes to say TO 1t, You shall not acquire thai
other $4,000 worth oft, / say to that extent 1
| * taking away and appropriating to Itself ont
OF the privileges of that charter. If II may III
| wade q charter at all and take out one privilege
as the supreme court OF Connecticut say, DO
cause Of any reason which suggests itself q
Congress, then there is no limit to which
Mr.. Collins Suppose Congress step in wher
| $4,000 of the 100000 Is acquired and annu
the charter, doesn't II thus deprive the charte
of the corporation OF power to acquire tht
other $4,000 under Its contnctY Is mott ha
Mr.. Chandler. would say not, for this rea
son; that when Congress passed or made thu
eorporated into its contract, the RICH
to furnish the pork, tho law author
izing contracts In tho future, ant
while It may repeal that corporation, and no
allow II to furnish any more pork amer II hat
furnished the 100000 worth, 1t cannot in
trude itself into the midst Of that contrac
and take one.half of II away b!
force. IT, under the law providing 70
the sale of land a man buy Gao acres, but befor
he clears II all the law under which he pur
chased Is repealed, and II Is declared In the re
pealing act that he shall have only One-half hi
purchase, would that be valid? II not, VIII,
not? If the committee please, will not wear
you any longer. have large number Of au
lhorites tnat I would IKE 70 cue, put WI
The Chairman. II you Will Just make
memorandum of them and give them to tn