Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-06-10
THE SUPREME CoURTDECIsTON


property Of the Church Of Jesul
Christ Of Latter-day Saints will b,
found in another part Of this paper
with the uxctp tiou OF the statement
Of the case, which it is unnecessary
to reproduce, because all the particu.
lars have been previously published
The disquisit:on as to the pOwer
q Congress over tine Territories is 8
summary ofopini0ns previously en-
uuciated by the court, aud an affir.
nation OF the doctrine that in these
acquired parcels Of the public DO.
main the authority Of the national
Government is absolute, subject
oniyto such restrictions are ex.
pressed in the Constitution or are
necessarily implied in its terms. -
This Is an important limita,
ton to which We call the
& teution Of those advOcates Of i'm
EeriaIisnI who contend that Congress
is not bound Ivy the Constitution in
It's supreme sway over tie Terri
tories.
Tine general power ol Congress &c
apuuI sn act If a Territorial Legis-
Iaiure, when submitted fer it's con
slderstiou, has not in this case been
questioned. The cOutentiOn-on thu
part Of Church counsel was, that the
act Of incorporation Of the Church
WIS in the nature Of a contract he
t~Dcn the Legislature aud, by To,
tacit consent Of Congress, between
the Government and the corporation:
and that the obligations Of that con-
tract could not be oOustitutiOnally
impaired. This important point the
court appears not to have considered.
But the corporation icing dis
solved by congressional Legislative,
act the question Of succession to OF
legal possession Of its property be-
comes the great question. The
cont lxllliGs ~ great length the
doctrine OF the administration anu
application of charitable estates.
AaG reliance is chief laced by the
court upon the English law ana
procedure. In the cases cited in
American practice there is no par
aiirl 90 the present. issue. InLeed,
when the whole argument Of the
court upon charitable uses and the
powers Of courts and the sovereign
IN relation 10 them is simmered
down, It viii be found TO have no
direct application to the case under
adjudication. because it is essentially
d.T.reu. 20 all the preceien!s cited
iu very important particular.
lit he conceded tina. where prop
cc.y Of a charitable corporation has
b,uu the Ttsu!. UC ..ten thousand
petty contributions cx.eud-n
through a Dong period Of time, the
EDvernmeat orj1e court OF chancery
may. in the dissolution Of tie cor
pg-aIou, ASSUME c0nu1l Of the fund
because It could mot be returned 10
tly tgu..s /. must, 30 the court ad-
aits, be- devoted 10 s.the lawful
objects o. charity most nearly cor
responding 10 those to which it was
originally destined
N.w then. The CHARITIES referred
ta shrouEhoutthe argument are those
clarifies which were orr ,inallv in
tended Ter the benefit ofthe general
puddle, or certain Glasses thereof. If
respective ofany particular denom-
lG--ion. In this case the charitable
uses u the property were for the
purposes OF the Church Of Jesus
Christ OF Latter day Saints.
The donations given we're not |
for any other turppse. The |
lower court 80 found and the higher |
court sustained the finding. The
corporation Is declared 10 have been
"a religious and charitable corpor- |
alton for the purpose OF promulgat-
ing, spreading and unfolding the
principles, practices. teachings AMI |
teTvts o! aid Church, and for the
of dispensing charity subject
aud according 10 said principles.
practices, teachings and tcHsss.
The propositions then, to devote
improperly Of the dissolved c2rpor-
alton 10 the general public use of
common schools, would be foreign |
10 the objects Of charity for which
It WAS originally destined. - They
were, 50 the court finds, for the pur-
np-eof dispensing charity. subject
'ud Sc criiu- 90 the principles.
pa tees and teachings Of the
-hurch." To devote them to secu-
ar schools for the benefit Of people
outside Of and hostile 10 the Church
and its teueis, aud who never
ipaatei cent to the fund.
you'd not only lie unjust but {
-out-aEy 10 he principle which,the
'ourt says, must govern both the /
JUDICIAL am sovereign power in the
..-tFiHuti0u u such accumulated {
Surprising that one Of the uses to
'hith such funds has in the :
as been applied was the unfolding d
r PRONUNCIATION OF Practice Of poIy.- 7
my. it dOes not appear, nor is it So :
."ted, thar this was the exclusive il
urIose Of these funds. Polygamv b
only alleged to be one Of the L
lneis for the PRONUNCIATION Of which I
'g funds were used or intended 10 q
e used. That practice being De. n
.aroa unlawful, there are scores of =:
her uses within the Church to :,
hieh tine property may be put u
AIch would Lave no relation 10 bt
5lygamy, it practice or prJmuIga- Ct
Oh.
And granting all that is alleged b
ncerning the present atti- = =
dc Of the. ministers Of the d,
nurch on tina. question, and Il
rther thai the property may Sc
legally devoted to the cause Of =
ucation, would it Lot be contrary m
the doctrine Of CHARITIES advocat- h;
by the c art, TO devote that at
1perty to the general public use, ~ q,
Iich was ''destined'' for the bene- ds
Of the particular denomination of
which ami in which i. was orig. ia
lily bestowed? GO