National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-29

revolution Is tustihable, II public Indignation
Is law, then Of course. VIII abandon the NJ.
gument,
:, The Chairman. You need not argue against
that here.
Mr.. Chandler. No. sir: am not arguing II
here. | am not referring 20 Il as having any
force before this committee whatever, as know
II has none here; but am talking about the
state Of mind the people IN such n community
might be wrought up to I'm such n case. tn
state Of mind which they would naturally be
in, resulting from the constant increase OF
property, might lead to n violent overthrow Of
the corporation ITSELF but am discussing legal
principles and not the law of violence.
Suppose II has this unlimited capacity TO at
state. We can tolerate that. Suppose It
undertakes to attain another county In
The tn state. Where a. does the degree
has got TO be in its charter. Ifit be not in iti
charter, although public feeling may stand
oghast at 1t, that Is danger which will show
and a prudent corporation would prepare II.
self against such state of public inaamma.
ton. Yet cannot distinguish the line Of &C.
marked that line. But that is purely an
imaginary case. No such case as that ever did
occur no such case ever will appear on the
face of the earth, That is an oxtrcme case,
which Is appalling when 1t Is mentioned and
an impfactcable case; one that Is not known
anywhere in our history or in the history Of
any other country; so that IL seems to mo II Is
not nm apprehension that is really to be felt.
The Chairman. was only calling your at
tention TO ~, because IL was an apprehension
that was felt in the mother country, which
was limited by the statutes of mcrtmain. The
power OF religious corporations to increase the
amount OF property, generation after genera
ton, makes II very important question
whether, If once established with this un.
limited power there is no political power In
the state that can limit IL.
Mr. Chandler. Well, under the power OF the
English government to sweep away this prop
crty, It did so.
In pall attention IN Tho country from Nylipl
We derive our institutions has unquestionably
held that parliament has the power TO take
this aftlon II reference to q corporation; q cor.
political, and in It's influence, rs II It was
part Of the institution Of the government
some time ngo whether the ndjudlcations that
You read did not rest upon the express CDnsti-
tutional Limitations In the written constitution
OF this country.
Mr. Chandler. think they do. II they did
not would not argue the case for q moment.
If Congress has Unlimited power oyer this sub
jeCt, and there Is no constitutional Limitation
ON Congress to deal with contracts, have
nothing more to say but l am assuming that
there is such lin itation. Our whole system of
constitutional government was. changed from
that Of the mother country. OF conrse we in
herted good deal from the mother country;
but there was II good deal discarded ont of that
inheritance when we took IT, We established
our government with division of power. Par
Lament may forfeit charter, possibly, without
any judicial hearing, 80 far ms know, because
parliament IL not pfOnlnlten from cNerClBlnB
judicial power; Indeed. parliament always did
exercise judicial power There was always
an appeal nom the courts to parliament.
Parliament exercised judicial powers az
much Hs legislative powers but In this
country Congress cannot do that. Then
there must be some difference between the
powers uf parliament and the powers of Con.
| gross. What is that difference? The difference
| is that which has been made by these constl-
| tutiunal limitations. No matter whether we
| think they are wise or uuwise, there is only
| one way TO get rid of them, and that Is to re-
| peal them. As long as they stand here they
| arc to be expounded in favor of those things
| which they were put In TO protect.
The Chairman. l dislike to make your dis
| cussion in any degree conversational one,
| but we will perhaps understand you better by
! pursuing that course. Did the original act
| creating the territory of Utah retain to Con-
| Gress the power of disapprovng Of the acts of
the territory? In this act Of 1862 find that the
| followi ng ordinance of the provisional govern
| meht of the state OF Deseret, and so on, Is
| hereby annulled.
| Mr. Chandler. Yes, sir. Now, that brings us
| back to the question which lies behind that
law. suppose Congress had passed a law for
| the distribution or snle IF the public domain of
Utah, and in enecting that law It contained
approve Of the law which Utah enacted for
| that purpose. Now, what would be the statusl
| Congress reserved to itself the right 10 disap.
makes. The law Would be as T valid as IL made
] by Congress until disapproved. II half of the
| territory of Utah had been sold under that law
before II was disapproyed would anybody tell
| me that the contracts made under that law
| while II was in operation could be overthrown
| Because Congress, ten years afterwards, disap-
| proved the law Congress did not reserve to
| Itself the right, II the chairman please, TO re-
peal the contracts made under the law which
Utah might make. II only reserved to itself
the right to approve, or disapproye rather OF
Cn,ll Congress did d!Sapproye OF that law, It
was the law of Congress and all the contracts
made under thnt law while II was In existence
| ~ NotrpI n ityinlnllla n q thpiV tltnt
| provision were not IN the law Tae contract
| incorporating this private charity was made
under that law before Congress disapproyed OF
| 1t, the territory of Utah having the authority,
with tie assent of Congress, to mcOrpO-
rate this private charity; when Incorporated,
ii being contract any disapproyal of the law
which Congress expressed uiterward would
not bea disapp.oval of the contracts made
The Chairman. This + the Language of the
ran the laws passed by the legislative as
scmby and governor shall be submitted TO the
CONGRESS Of ne Uni United states md 4 disap-
Mr. Chandler. Yes, sir. Now / admit the
hll force Of that suggestion. They arc sub.
milled to the secretary Of the Interior and
they not binding IN the meantime? That Is
the first question Are they not an equivalent
for direct law of Congress while they last?
Nobody can say to the contrary, it seems to
me, that until disnpproved they are the law
| lIdlNlNuNlS LOOK lltle 10 property uDuer the
law us II stood. Charters were granted to pri-
yate charities under that law before Il was
| disnpproved Congress- ten yenrs Gtterward
FEEL; i'srlf inclined to dsarpToys OF IN lazy;
charters Internationally granted uuder the
| law before II was disapproved
| The Chairman. But IL can say that II shall
be null and void and OF no effect from the
Mr. Chandler In It's operation for the fI-
tuIe?
The Chairman Yes. for the future. Con.
gress having disapproved this law in 1852,
what is the effect OF II after that disapproyall
Mr.. Chandler, Can Congress disapproyo OF tho
| rights which sprung up under the law before
it was disapproved, and II one of the rights
of the church Is that II could acquire
property, can Congress dsapprove of that part
ofthc rights which they lawfully become pos
The Chairman So far as the acquisition of
property up TO that time is concerned u can
not but 1t can prevent any further acquisition
| of property.
Mir Chandler say not. say that that char
ter, ifit is sacred TO protect them IN the enjoy
cred only because 1t Is contract. Ifthnt rea-
tract coptRins i i' that they may &C.
quire property In future; can any one tell me
the difference between the two provisions of
the contract? One provision OF the contract
permits them to acquire property, and they
have acquired IT, The provision y not limited
10 the acquisition OF property within given
time, but 1t Is 9 privilege togo on acquiring
property for all time
NOW mark YOU IL lSa private estate, not a
| public estate; not quasi public, but wholly pri.
Ynte in all its characteristics. Congress-, by
disapprovipg the law, cannot disapproye of any
provision of that contract which has been
made with the assent OF Congress under tho
instrumentalities of Utah acting for Congress.
The Chairman. Then, do / understand you
to say that after the act Of dlsapproval which
makes Il law null and of no effect, that the cor
pOration can by virtue OF that original enact
ment, 20 on, after the disapproyal, and acquire
property In excess of the Limitation?
, | Mr Chandler 1hnf liz nrapIgnly Vybnl | v
The Chairman. Then what would be the
effect of the annulmont and making OF non.
effect the original law?