St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-20
MORMONS' MILLIONS.
In Eseheating Them to the
United States Congress
Did Right.
Society Has the Right to Blot
Out at Unlawful Sys-
tenn.
Such Is the Ruling Of the
United States Supreme T
Court.
Chief Justice Fuller and JUS
tees Field and Lamar
Dissent.

WASHINGTON, May 19.-The supreme
court of the United States to-day rem
dered an opinion of vital interest to the
Mormon church in the suit Of the
Church of the Latter Day Saints against
the United States, which comes here on
appeal from the decision of the supreme
court of Utah in favor Of the United
States. The case grows out of the
passage of the EdmundS anti-polygamy
law by the Forty-ninth congress. This
law, among other things, dissolved the
Mormon church corporation, annulled
its charter, directed the appointment OF
receiver to wind up its affairs, and
escheated to the United States all the
real estate owned by the church IN
excess of $4,000, which was not on the
date of the passage of the act held
for purposes of worship or burial.
When they under the terms of this act
began to confScate about $4,000 worth
of property belonging to the church,
the Mormons Immediately entered suit
to have the Edmunds law declared I'M
constitutional. 1t was argued before
the supreme court in their behalf that
congress by the dissolution of the
church cooperation had assumed judicial
powers, and that the act of the assembly
of Utah in consolidating the church
constituted a contract which could not
be impaired by congress under its
authority to repeal territorial enact
mentS. 1t was also held that
The Doctrine of Escheat
was alien to the spirit Of free institG-
lions. and that it had never been APP
piled in this country to church or
charitable corporation. On the part of
the United States it was commended that
congress had authority to repeal all
territorial enactmentS; that the act in
cooperating the church was invalid, as
an attempt to establish a religion con-
trary to the provisions OF the conStitu-
ton, and that. moreover, the charter
should be annulled for abuse OF the
granted rights, as, when the church
corporation was dissolved, there was no
one to whom to turn over the property.
it was promptly eScheated to the United
States. In its opinion, the court SAYS:
A distinguishing feature of Mormonlsm
is well known to be polygamy, and
an absolute ecclesiastical control
standing all the efforts made
to suppress this barbarous practice Of
polygamy, the sect persevereS in def
ance of law in propagating and promot-
ing this nefariouS doctrine. The exist
ence of sncn propaganda is blot on
our civilization. The organization ola
community for the spread of polygamy
is return to barbarism. The question,
therefore, is whether the promotion of
such an unlawful system, SO repuguant
to our laws, is to be allowed to continue,
and whether the enormous funds which
have been accumulated shall be welded
for the propagation OF the obnoxious
practice-for the promotion OF an organ
lied rebellion against the laws Of the
United States. The history of the gov
ernment's dealings with the Mormons
is one of patience on the part of the
American government, and OF resistance
to law and
PitiIess Atrocities
on the part of the Mormons. The con-
tention that polygamy is part of the
Mormons' religious belief is a sophisti-
cal plea. No doubt the thugs of India
imagined that their belief in aSSaSsina-
ton was religious belief, but that did
not make it so. Society has a perfect
right to prohibit offenses against the
enlightened sentiment of mankind.
Since the church persists in claiming
the right to use the funds with which
it has been endowed for the purpose of
promoting these unlawful practices,
the question arises, has the government
the right to seize these funds which the
Mormon leaders are misusing and
%Ix 70 ND n
liable purposes, as nearly akin
as possible to those to
which the funds were dedicated.
After an elaborate historical review of
the common law, the court comes to the
conclusion that congress had the right
to seize the property, and says: Con
yress had before it contumaciouS Or
ganization, welding by its resources an
immense power in the territory of Utah
and employing these resources in con-
stantly attempting to oppose, subvert
and thwart the legislation of congress
and the will of the government of the
United States. Under such circum-
stances, we have no doubt of the right
of congress to do as it did," The decree
of the lower court is affirmed. Justice
Bradley delivered the opinion. Chief
Justice Fuller said that he and Justices
Field and Lamar were
Constrained to Dissent
from this decision. The power of con-
gress to legislate over the territories
was not incident to the treaty-making
power, and its power IS restricted di-
rectlv to that expressed or implied in
the constitution. There is no such
mower granted as that involved in the
act under consideration. Congress un-
questionably has power to suppress
polygamy, and it is immaterial whether
the crime was committed in the name
of religion. But congress has not
power to seize and cOnfiScate the prop.
erty OF corporations because they may
have been guilty of crime. The court
also rendered an opinion in favor of the
coupon holders on all points in the sew
eral suits of Cooper, Bryan, NcGahey,
EIlet, Brown and Cuthbert against
ing out of laws passed by
Virginia to prevent coupon-holders from
compelling the state to accept coupons
in payment of taxes. The decision of the
supreme court of appeals of Virginia
is reversed in each case. In decision
in two other Virginia tax coupon cases
the court decides in favor of the state
on special grounds. In Vashon against
Greenhow, it holds that coupons are moi
receivable for the special school tax OF
the state, for the reason that this special
tax was set apart prior to the passage Of
the law OF 1871, establishing contract
between the state and the bondholders
Ii also holds that coupons are not re
ceivable for liquor license tax upon the
ground that the state may =
Regulate the Liquor Traffic I
by requiring the tax to be paid in any
manner it sees fit. In the suit between
the states of Kentucky and Indiana
over Green river island, situated in the
northtsidn of the Ohio river very npa]