The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-20

to secure their regular administration
| through the means of equitable tribu-
nails. in cases where there would other
wise be failure of Justice"
The same doctrine is laid down by
| this court in the Pennsylvania College
cases. Ii Wallace. 212. The court says
Corporate franchises granted to
private corporations. il duly accepted
by the corporators, partake OF the ma
ture OF legal estates. as a grant under
such circumstances becomes contract
within the protection of that clause OF
the Constitution which ordains that no
State shall pass any law impairing the
| obligation of contracts. Charters of
private corporations are regarded as
executed contracts between the govern
mentand the corporators, and the rule
is wellsettled that the Legislature can
not repeal, impair, or alter such q
charter against the consent, or without
the defanlt, of the corporation ascer-
tanned end declared"
In the case of ferret vs.. Taylor, 9
| Cranch. pages 40. so aud 50. Mr.. Justice
Story, for The court, says:
"fhe free exercise of religion cannot
| be justly deemed to be restrained BY
aiding with equal attention the votaries
of every sect to perform their own
religious duties, or by establishing
funds for the support of ministers, for
public charities, for the endowment of
churches, or for the sepulchre of the
dead. And that these purposes could
be better secured and cherished by cor
p0rate powers cannot be doubted by
any person nho has attended to the
difficulties which surrouud all volun-
tary associations. We hava no
knowledge of any authority or princi-
pie which could support the doctrine
that legislative grant is revocsble in
its own nature, and held only
d,trante bene pIacito. The property
was. in fact. and in law, generally pur-
| chased by the Pensioners or acquired
by the beneficenc= of the pious donors,
and the title thereto was indefeasibly
vested in the churches"
The doctrine commended for has been
uniformly upheld and maintained by
| this court, from the organization of the
government down to the present time,
and it cannot be repudisted in this case
without striking down one of the
strongest and most precious bulwarks
of civil and religious liberty
| Second-The power of Congress to
disapprOve and annul acts of the Gov
ernor and Legislative Assembly of
Utah Territory applies to such acts as
are general in their character and does
not apply 10 an accepted charter of a
| private corporation which contains no
| reservation of the right to alter, amend
or repeal the same. when there is no
general law of the Territory reserving
such right at the time the charter was
| granted.
The last clause of Section 6, which
gives the Legislative Assembly of the
Territory authority to legislate upon
all rightful subjects of legislation, de-
clares. that all the laws passed bv the
| Assembly and Governor shall be sub
mitted to the Congress of the United
States, and, if disapproved, shall be
null and of no effect. By fair con-
struction of this clause Of the section it
could not be claimed that to render q
Territorial act valid it should be ap-
proved by the Congress of the United
States, nor has it ever been so held. but
| it requires the affirmati re act of Con-
gress to disapprove the Territorial act;
and in the absence OF such disapproval
| 1t certainly becomes valid legislative
enactment; and, as no time is fixed
| within which Congress may disap-
proveaan act of the Territorial Legisla-
ture, it is very clear that this right of
+! disRpproyal is a mere declaration on
the of the Congress of the United
States passing the organic act for
the Territory. to the effect that the acts
of the Territorial Legislature are not
the supreme law over the people of the
Territory, in the sense in which the
acts of a State Legislature would be
supreme over the people of the State,
and is an announcement that Congress
reserves the power of supreme legisla-
ton over the Territories, and that it
may at any time abrogate the la US of
the Territorial Legislature, hat it NAV
at any time repeal an act of the Terri
torial Legislature. just as it may repeal
| an &C. of Cong ess, or as State Legis-
lsture may repeal an enactment of q
former legislature.
We say, therefore, that while it is ad-
mitted that the Congress of the United
States has supreme legislative author
ity over the Territories, it has not the
| power, to undo what it authorized to be
done. We say that while the granting
| OF a corporate franchise is an act of
legislation. a law, because it is an act of
the law-making power, the only repre-
sentative of the State in this respect, it
Is something more than, law in the
general sense of that word. A law in
| its general sense is rule of action, and
| 1t applies to every citizen in the COM
| munity.. An act of incorporation, or
any other contract made by the author
tiles representing the State, applies to
one individual, or to limited number
| OF individuals, and while it is law, as
applied to them, it is at the same time
q contract made with them, which, if
executed. may not De impsired by any
| subsequent act of legislation.
Third-The charter of the church
corporation, by the act of July L, 1862,
as well as by the lapse of time between
| Its enactment and attempted disap.
proval-thirty-six years-received the
sanction of Congress, and therefore
could not be annulled and the corpora-
alton dissolved.
But we insist that in, thiscase the
ordinance in question must be held to
!shave fecGived the implied sanction OF
I;Congress. The law requires that the
& cresary of the Territory shall trans
NIT to the President of the Senate and
to the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatfves. for the use of Congress, two
Ecoples of the laws and journals of each
session of the Territorial Legislature
within thirty days after the end of each
session. and one copy to the President
OF the United States. This court will