The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-12-01

the authorities on this perplcxing ques-
ton Of conditional legislation, am entire
ly satisfied to take the rule and test laid
down by the court rs quoted by Judge
Cooley on pagelil Of his work on Con-
siitulional limitations 1t is as follows:
The event or change OF circumstances On
which the law may be made to take effect
must be such, as in the judgment OF the
Legislature, affects the question OF the ex-
pedlency OF the law; an event on which
the expediency of the last, in the opinion
OF the lawmakers depends. On this ques-
ton OF expediency the Legislature must
exercise its own judgment definitely
and finally, When the law is made TO
take elect upon the happening OF such an
event, the Legislature declares the law in
expedient il the event should not happen,
but eXpedient ii it should hap
pen. They appeal 10 no other
man or men TO judge for them
IN relation TO its present or future expedi-
ency. They exercise that power them
selves, and they perform the duty which
the Constitution imposes upon them.
Now, apply this test b. the act OF ls47. If
IT was intended by the act TO make the
subordinate lodges independent corpora
lions, the provision was that wheneyers said
Grand Lodge shall establish or charter sub
ordinate lodges, they were created corpor-
atoms. Clearly under this plan the power
was conferred on ihc Grand Lodge TO
udge OF the expedcucy OF the creation o
subordinate lodges, and TO determine their
number-locations. As 10 the eXpedicncy
OF creating Chickaslw Lodge No. s an in
dependent corporation, the Legislature
never exercised It's own judgment dcfini-
lively and finally mt alI, bu. delegated that
judgment TO the Grand Lodge. They APP
pealcd TO IL 10 Judge for them in
relation TO the eNp,ilrncy Of this estab-
llshmcnt Of a corporation. In fact on this
su bject of the creation OF subordinate
lodges, the Legislature in effect abiiclted
its constitutional function and committed
the whole matter t. tEr act and Judgment
Of the Grand LoIy. But under the
authorities and on principle | do not re-
gard thus mention us even doubtful. and
lOrbear further discussion Of IT, Ii the
Legislature intended hv the act 30 make
the subordinate LODGES Independent cor
pOrations the act j. unconstitutional.
"Bnt did the legislature intend this?
This must DO determined by q careful
consideration OF the scope and provisions
OF the act. My conclusion, after much
thought upon the question, is that by the
legislature 1t was not intended To create
the subordinate lodges (of which the
Chickasaw Lodge No. S was One) indie
pendent corporations,
The Chancellor then takes mp an array
OF authorities 10 sUh-auiiaic this con-
clusion, deducing thay!rom arguments in
the clear forcible way Characteristic Of
him, following with what be knows
judicially OF the ori.r rs learned from
cases and decisions on record. Con.inu-
ing he said:
81 hold, therefore, that the Grand
Lodge, a duly incrYomivd association.
had the power, through lbs agencies, tho
subordinate lodges. gul Toe the names OF
such agencies, 10 ucq Iirc, hold and enjoy |
property lO the eSt'lt of $1,000 and |
therefore that II had this power in the |
ilne OF the ChckasgW Lodge No. s. IL |
follows that Il had TIA power in this name |
b. acquire the prOpery IN question, aud |
that the bcqucst under Mrs lloWel's will |
was in favor OF a pcR-un having sufficient |
capacity To take rs dgyiscr or donce "a, her |
death, aud was hsi lore valid under the |
doctrine OF the supp sme Court OF TcnnOs- |
see. As before Stated, the Chicka-uW
Lodge No. . nader this hcqnes,, takes,
not 1s benz liriuy, but rs trustee. and |
unlot ihe authorities. II the bcqupst X |
valid aud the charitable use sufficiently |
definite, !, makes no difference that the |
trustee has NOT the legal capacity 10 exc
ruir the trust, Tor a court Ui equity will !
not iu such c3ses, allow the trust 10 fail |
Tor the want IT a trustee, but will appoint |
one. The question hero is simply the val. |
liiiy Of The bcqucst, Ii 30 should be found |
ihg. the trustee appointed under the will |
has not the legal capacity b. act. thscOurt, |
la proper case, will appoint one"
Announcing his readiness To- hold, were !
Il urc,sstry 10 decide the qucs ION. that |
''thi, cooperation has the LEGAL carnritv To |
execute this trust, the Chancellor says
"lint Il remains 10 consider whether this |
Is charitable usc with thc doctrine of tha |
courts or whether Il J. too in e.in'o 10 be |
executed 10y a court II equity. Tho Ian. |
yuagc iE The dividends from stock To be |
used hy said lodge for the benefit OF the |
widows aud orphans Il 10 well settled !
hat q drviss iur The hnnuit oi the widows
lud orphans 81 particular parish ~ other !
locality Is q good charitable nee. Author |
tiles are given. ono Tor the benefit of
widows aud orphans generally, without |
language 10 dcIiynl'o those who nrs |
intended 10 be benefited, or Der.
hlps without special power in
the trustee 20 appoint or designate |
them, would be- too indefinite. Here lhc !
b,qucst h not 30 widows and orphans in !
wurul, but b the wIIlWsm orphans.
What lid the trslat0r mean by this Ian.
u1gu' 10 Is feature ~ the old Fellows
Association o. provide iur the widows aud /
orphans ~ deceased mgubprs. aud Article |
XVIII II tho Constitution and By.Iaw. |
ol the Chickasaw lOdy' No. s, In evidence |
in hi, case, provide the means and
methods ct extending Iu brnohctons to
the widows and orphan. under the care of !
the lodge Ia which they lru entitled, under
The bylaws u the l0dgH A list Of Theses
widows and orphans thuG undcr Tho caro-
II the lodge at The date OF Mrs
llowclls death Is m ryidcncc In this
ease. IN the light Of thI fact. aud upon
well settled rules OF construction, thrru
can boz no doubt that tho tOstatrix. Ia
using the Language tho widows AMI or.
phaus meant tile widows aud ophans
under the care Of this lodge, and that
thusD whose names arv given in evidence
are tor the present the hunchciarics oi The
trust. The usc IL therefore a charitable
one and the obicc, definite and certain
"But IL Is insisted thli tho bruuost /,
void because tho limitation on tho
amount of property which the stat.
utc permitted these subordinate lodges
20 hold was already ptHrd. as shown
10y the evidence. NotuIlhsinding some
conflict Ut authority ON tbis question, |
think the sound rule sustained by thn
weight ol authority h VOL expressed by
the court Va DcCamp W uobbins. 2 stew.
N. -, li2. as follows IL IA. however,
rnnmrL In nv ON fhll LLlI n. L.. l..nr,