The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-12

because we felt that we had reached The
result of the litigation to the satisfaction
of US and those above US; the invesfiga-
tions we made no doubt influenced the
offer to compromise; when the receiver
attained the results sought for he sus-
pended, OF course.
Mr.. Baskin was very eager In his pur-
| suit of Mr.. Williams, and frequently
interrupted him as he was answering
one question by propounding another.
This brought Judge P1wers to his feet,
| who insisted that The witness should be
allowed to answer the questions in his
own way, and remarked further. that,
| up to this morning everything had
tlemanly and courteous treatment and
propose 10 have it"
Mr. Baskin discIaimed any idea OF
ungentlemanly or uucourteous treat
| ment.
This little scene was repeated twice
or three times during the morning, and
there was no little bad blood apparent.
Continuing, Mr.. Williams said: 1t
| was my duty as attorney for the re-
ceiver TO assist in collecting all the pro-
perty the church had; | have stated all
| that did in reference to the searching
of titles; the suits | contemplated
bringing in which complaints were not
| filed were quite numerous and lntri-
cate; in the Church Farm case, for
instance, it could not have been re-
covered by one suit; all the property
that we contemplated bringing suits for
was delivered-or nearly so; l aban-
doDed the idea of bringing suits for
property when that property was sur
rendered; there are other suits that
we propose bringing just as soon
as it is possible to do SO;
there were great many reasons why
we did not take Immediate steps TO re-
cover and tie up the personal property;
it is an easy matter to suggest, but
considerably harder TO cary them out;
the property was held by people who
would not give Us particle of informa
ton to save our souls from purgatory-
and you know that; to have attempted
to sue the church corporations would
have been the poorest policy anybody
could have pursued; it would merely
have been giving those who did hold
the property warning that if they did
not desire US to take it they had better
move it away and secrete it. The first
time | became acquainted with the
efforts for compromise was in May; 1
think it was about that time that it
seemed to dawn upon the defendants
that they did have some property; we
had testimony that seemed to indicate
that they owned certain properties;
their proposition was to surrender GER
tain property-we demanded all they
had; the outside properties are yet 10
be subject of litigation; it was
understood that the defendants
had turned in all their property
it was accepted as so much
property, not as all of it.
I do not know whether it was under
stood that there were to be further
trials by which personal and real prop.
erty might be recovered; [ never saw
any of the high officers OF the church
present al the negotiations; l was in
court when the decree was finally made;
the question of the surrender, so as to
admit of decree was between the
government and the defendants in the
case; there was no compromise made
by the receiver; there was an agree
ment to surrender certain property to
the receiver; there was an agreement
to turn over for SIS 600 all the property
embraced in the schedule, and which
was valued at $268 .000 the question was
as to whether the receiver lad right to
make such compromise; it was clear
that We would REALMS great deal more
by asserting to the agreement than by
pursuing it to the last: it was his
duty to do the best he could to
take the most he could get
instead of the least; 1 am certain
that had Litigation been carried on to
recover it, we would not have recov-
cred one-tenth; due and ordinary dill.
gence had been used, think; there is
no doubt about it; 1 do not remember
that the compromise IN reference to .he
personal property is mentioned in the
decree; | think the facts are mentioned;
the decree expressly continues the re-
ownership.
BAsKIN-Now, if it was the intention
to pursue other property than that
mentioned IN the decree, why was not
clause inserted to that effect?
Powers thought the section was not
competent.
Marshall called the attention of the
court to the fact that witness had al
ready testified to similar questions,
and that he had been consulted about
it.
BAsKIN-Doesn't this examination go
to the compensation of the counsel in
the case?
WILLIAMs-I take it that even YOU
(Baskin) would not say that my charges
were unconscioaable. If I were to put
you on the stand now you would swear
to that. I think all you want, Mr..
| Baskin, is found in the decree, but not
in the shape you want it. There is no
doubt but that it was distinctly under
stood that the receiver would pursue
property not mentioned in the decree.
That was most distinctly understood by
both parties. l construe the decree to
mean that; ii il does not there is a
mistake. We did not think 1T was ne
cessary for the receiver to go into court
and ask if he should take
property that was offered him. l do
not think it was as necessary in the per-
sonal property as in the real estate. /
think this matter is contained in the
RECEIVERS reports which have been pre-
scented to the court. While I was in
Cache Valley I did not find tract of
eighty acres of land, decided by Arta d.
Young to John Taylor, as trustee-in-
trust; if you know anything of that
kind we would like to know it; taking
the deed) l did not strike that deed.
| The deed was introduced in evidence.
1t was given in 1879 by Arta D. Young,
conveying 80 42-160 acres near Logan to