The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-11-29

control this fund for the schools; he
can invest it as he choos, s, AID unles:
| he SO desires, the trustees may never
get their hands on a dollar of tia
money, although it would be used in
the interests CT the schools OF the Tel
ritory.
He called attention to the fact that by
g decree Of this court the fund had al
ready been escheated to the United
States, and asked how Judge Zane was
| going to get abound that
Mr.. Hobson then went on to say that
| the estimate of $26S 600 was made from
transfers of property Oy the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the
various stakes OF Zion, and as 1t consisted
of a bushel of wheat, a speckIed hen, &
spawned horse. q pig, hog, one
thought $50 600 was very right
amount to get, "for God knows that il
we had gone on to pursue this property
by reple7y we would get about $50 out
of it,"
Further on in his argument Mr.. Hob
son said that ne did not propose to al
low any such amount as $25 600 to the
receiver at this stage of the case.
Mr.. Hobson closed by defending Mr..
Peters for appearing in this case as at
tornev for the receiver, saying that he
did so with the aCvice and consent of
the Attorney-General, the Solicitor
General and of This court.
JUDGE Powers then arose and said
that he would add few words to what
Mr.. Robson had said in relation to the
actions of The receiver in this matter.
| In the course OF his remarks Mr.. Pow
ers said: They bring no proof Of the
charges made egaI st the receiver and
| his attorneys.
JUDGE ZANE-Well give US chan ce
and Wen see. All We want is chance
to prove it.
JUDGE SANDFoRD-Please to wait until
the gentleman is through, Judge Zane
before you make any such remark.
Judge Zane smiled placidly under this
rebuke, aud Mr.. Powers went on with
out noticing this interruption. His main
point was that the case had gone
beyond the jurisdiction of this court
that it was already in the hands
of the Supreme Court OF the
| United States, and that the
trustees had "lost their golden oppor
tunity if they ever had one"
| THE DEFENDANTS OBJECT.
LeGrande Young objected to the ad,
mission of the petitioners on the ground
that they were interVenors, and argued
his point briefly. He claimed that they
had no vested right There had beer
no property escheated. The presump
ton that they had vested right in thu
property, would authorize them Il
escheate it to tt mselves.
ave, on the gro, 80 that people have
10 right in this at that have NJ
interest in it, object to their coming in.
Judge Zane then again arose and wen
on to state that he had introduced hi
petition In the hope that it would b.
admitted so that he could prove tn,
charges made in it. Referring again t
the sheep, he said: II think we cal
prove it by friends of the receiver tina
they are worth more than they wer,
charged in the estimate"
I'm reference to making charge
against the government, all we want t,
say is the truth. The truth is NOR
sacred than everything else. The trutl
will stand. All we want is chance tt
prove that the charges are true. If al
officer of the governn snt has neglected
his duty and we can prove it l thinl
we should have chance to prove it.
have nothing personally against Mr.
Peters. We may differ from him in hi
ideas of his duty.
We WANT THE TRUTH.
1--WE want to be heard and to PROV,
the truth, and If any court on esrtl
can smother it, why let it b.
smothered.
He claimed that the examination be
fore the referee was an &c parte exami
nation; that the receivers counsel ex
amined what witnesses they chose t.
call. The counsel for the defendan
corporation objected to Mr.. Peters ap
pearing for the receiver and the govern
ment at the same time. and had re
fused to go on with the examination
under those circumstances. "a MAJ
can't ride two horses going in opposit
directions at the same time"
When Judge Zane closed, Mr.. Hobso
made his closing argument, and th
court adjourned till p. m.