The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-04-27

I
the subject at length in manner of interest
to the various benevolent associations. Hi
opinion is as follows:
There is but little difference between counsel fol
the reator and those for the respondent as to the
law Of this case On the side 1t is practically
conceded that if the respondent has shown that 4
Is an association formed for benevolent purposes
within the meaning Of article TO- chapter 81 Re
vised Statutes, and the acts amendatorY thereof
then 1t Is lawfully exercising its corporate powers
though it does issue benefit certificates in the
nature of life insurance policies. And on the other
side it Is likewise conceded that II respondent Is
counterfeit Of such an association, organized
merely to carry business of life insurance in
evasionsof the insurance laws of this state then
| Judgment Of custer must be rendered But the
| point upon which counsel differ widely Is as to
| what constitutes a benevolent association within
| the meaning Of our statutes and whether this
respondent is such.
Whilst some Of the rules governing courts In
the construction Of statutes are artificial in their
character, and among such, to some extent at
least, is the rule that the meaning of the statute
is to be gathered only from its face yet courts are
not bound by that rule to such an extent as to re-
| quire them to affect ignorance Of matter OF
such public notoriety as that it is morally certain
| the legislature had it in mind when the statute
was framed Who is there, familiar with the
social condition of the people of this state, that
does not know by name the principal charitable
or benevolent societies that exist in our midst,
and, knowing this who can doubt that the legisla-
| ture meant those very societies, by name, when
| it used the descriptive name Of charitable or
| benevolent associations
In the first legislation on this subject certain So
cietieJ were designated by name as Freemasons,
Odd Fellows and Sons of Temperance, and then
followed the general description, and any other
= Il,
purposes" etc. The subsequent revision Of the
statutes omitted the names Of particular societies
and used only general description. The reason
for this doubtless was that the number of benevo-
lent societies had increased very materially, and
to name some and omit others would not only be
to make an invidious distinction but the ejusdem
generiS rulo of construction in such would be
difficult to apply, because some Of the societies
named were secret, and, therefore, it might be
hard to prove that n given society was Of the same
general character as those named The testimony
in this case shows that the time of the passage
CT these statutes, the respondent was very large
and well known society, being one of the largest
in the state and protesting, at least to be of the
character mentioned in the statutes. have no
doubt, therefore, that the legislature had, among
Others this very society, by name, in mind, when
il framed the statutes now under discussion.
But Independent Of that fact, the testimony in
this case amply vindicates the respondents pro-
feSsion of being q benevolent association. There
is technical difference between charity and be-
nevolence, the understanding of which is in
voved in the law Of charitable trusts. If the leg
islature intended that the word charity in the
statute should be understood in the technical sense
above named, then some of the arguments ad-
vanced by counsel for the relator would go to
prove that respondent is not charitable society,
since the evidence shows that it does limit its
good deeds to its own members and their de-
pendents, but, bearing IN mind the difference be-
tween charity and benevolence, that fact does not
defeat the claim of respondent TO being benevo-
lent society. 1t is not likely known THAT the
word was intended in any such technical sense.
1t is argued with great force by counsel for the
relator that all the corporate machinery OF the
respondent is framed only for the protection of
its life insurance feature. That is probably so if
we look only to its business features. But there
two aspects to the society: the one is its moral
social feature the other is its business feature
the one appeals to the sentiment of its members,
the other appeals to their reason the one is per-
suasiVe, the other Is mandatory. 1t may be true
that there is nothing in the corporate laws OF this
society that makes it obligatory on its members
to do acts of charity, and it may also be true that
the grand lodge, which is all that there is of the
corporation proper, does not Immediately do any
charity yet if the fact is that the moral effect OF
bringing men together under such terms and con-
ditionS as are prescribed by the laws laid down by
the grand lodge, is to create q feeling OF frater-
nifty among them, and that feeling mcnifeSts it
self by voluntary gifts to O needy brother by
helping one who is out Of employment to situa-
ton, by visiting and nursing him when he is
sick, burying him when he is dead and keeping a
friendly eye over his widow and orphans after
wards, how can we say that the object and pur-
pose of the society is not benevolent And if it
further appear that in the practicing of such good
deeds men are made better by it, how can we say
that it does not provide for some good In the
order Of benevolence that is useful to the public?
The testimony abundantly shows that such acts
have uniformly marked the course Of this So
ciety.
The charity that flows from the sentiment thus
aroused is not inferior to that whose quality is
strained; and the influence that arousss the senti
ment is not less an actor in the good work than
the medium through whom 1t is accomplished
The character of the society for benevolence is
Is not affected by the fact that its insurance feat
ure is conducted on strict business principles To
conduct it on any other principle would be self
destruction
When the legislature conferred the right on
these societies to insure the lives Of their members
it contemplated that that right would be exer-
c!sed in a rational way and the fact that it did
confer such right, which, when exercised in q ra-
tional way, necessarily excludes all who are not
good insurGble risks Is an answer from the stat
ute itself to the argument that society is not a
benevolent concern in the meaning of the statute,
because it limits its benefits to its members and
their dependents and limits its membership to
men who are good insurance risks. Since the
passage Of these statutes companies have appeared
In this state which were counterfeits Of benevo-
lent societies, and were, in fact piratical insur-
ance companies but this respondent is not one Of
them
From the testimony In the case the court finds
that the Grand Lodge Of the Ancient Order Of
United Workmen is duly Incorporated under the
provisions Of art. TO- chap. 81, Revised Statutes,
and the acts amendatory thereof; that it Is
benevolent society within the meaning of those
statutes, and is exercising only the rights and
privileges which by its said charter it has the
right to exercise.
Judgment for respondent.
Knights of Honor.