Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-06-03
FURTHER EDITORIAL CON-
MENTS.

2 AS WE believe that the senti
D ments of influential newspapers II
: opposition TO the ruling Of the Su
F.. preme Court Of the United States
on the confiscation question, vii
prove interesting TO the large majori
, ~ Of our readers, We reproduce 1
: number OF editorials in addition Il
: those aIready published ia these col
: umns.
. The Denver Republican, after in
Producing the subject, remarks:
c There is no doubt that Congress
= had the power to declare the Mormon
] Church corporation dissolved. II
/ order to reach this conclusion one mex
not consider the question Of wheihel
the Church as corporation had NO
lated its charter or had done anything
|. else contrary TO the laws Of the land
Congress had power to annul any Ter,
ritorial enactment; and it might have
done this in the case Of the Mormon
Church corporation on the ground Of
public policy, without giving any
reason for lis action.
at would seem that II there is any
fault to be found with the decision II
is in this, that it fails to provide for a
distribution OF the assets Of the cor
porati0n among the members Of the
Mormon Church. The conclusion was
long ago reached that the common
law rule by which the prrperty Of a
dissolved corporation escheaied TO the
crown or the state. was too harsh. II
has long been recognized that it is the
province OF court of equity to step
in and distribute the assets Of a dis
solved corporation among its creditors
and stockholders or members. To
take the property Of the Mormon
Church and give it to the public
schools Of Utah is to conhscate that
property-viewed in the Light Of the
practice in courts Of equity; and or
dinarily confscation IS considered
nothing less than injustice"
The Republican cites decisions Of
the Supreme Court which have been
reversed, thinks public opinion will
endorse this decision though law
yers may dissent from it, and seems
to think "publio opinion" ought to
rule This would be very dangerous
to the public welfare. For public
opinion ia not often based on sound
law, and il is as variable and unsta-
Die as the wind. A judicial tribunal
ought MOTTO be influenced by public
opinion however widespread, but
by law as limited by constitutional
principles.
The ALBANY, n. Y, Times makes
these pertinent comments:
This is probably the largest confis-
cation OF church property that has
ever taken place under any govern
meut on this continent, and il is the |
only instance within our recollection,
where our government has taken pos
session for itself Of any lands or chat
tells devoted to pious purposes. It is a
bad act, and bad precedent, and it is
to be very much regretted that the
highes' Judicial tribunal in the land
has given it its approval. Congress-
says the Constitution, shall make no |
law respecting an establishment Of re-
ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof and. If the trainers of that
great charter had been able to look |
into fuiurity, and anticipate the acts Of |
their successors in Iaw-making, We |
cannot doubt that they would have
added, nor interfere with or control |
property devoted to religious uses
But who can forsee the future, and |
who, IN The days Of Thomas jefferson,
would have expected the spoliation Of |
an unpopular and absurd religion in |
the days Of Benjamin Harrison? This |
IS tho first seizure Of church property
by the civil power, here IN the United
States, but what guaranty have we
that others are not 10 follow7 Who /
knows that the church property Of
the Quakers, Of the Meihodists, of the
Jews, or Of the Roman Catholics will
not be treated in the same way some
day? Men and brethren, have we not
entered upon path OF dangerH
Chief Justice Fuller thinks we have,
and his brave and distinct dissent
from this unhappy policy will make
him remembered in The future. Our
chief justice appears TO be more than
a mere lawyer, more than a mere par
tisan. He is statesman"
The Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph
devotes considerable space TO lucid
explanation Of the case and the de-
cision, and adds: |
Objectionable thosgh polygamy be.
and necessary as it is that it should De
destroyed, those who regard the ques-
lion from th standpoint OF equity will
be more disposed to coincide with the
minority than with the majority Of
the court. The latter defends its ap-
prevail Of the confscation on the
ground that the enormous proceeds of
The eschesied property were employed
% propagate Polygamy and to
an Organized rebellion
against the laws of lthe United States.
As to the first Of these grounds, it is q
new principle Of Jurisprudence that /
because a man is guilty OF a criminal {
Of the law his goods are con-
iscate to the state. He may be de-
'rived Of his liberty, but it is an en- ,
rely novel proposition that he can be
lso deprived of his property. And q
his is what the decision practically {
firms; for II a corporation may be c
OF its possessions for Grim
nal act, according to the same princi-
lie, and by parity Of reasoning, an
Individual may be. Regarding the {
econd ground, ii may be said, with
il due respect for the court, that the {
sbellion in which the Mormons were
ngaged was no. OF a character 10
-arrani the cOnfscation Of their prop /,
ny. Il is true that they defied the I
wv, hut as they did not take up arms a
stinst the United States nor levy war e
sainst them, they were not guilty of
'eascn, and treason is the only crime
" which government can rightfuIIy .
onfiscste property. Il
However, ansOund though 1t ap- =
ears to be, the decision viii stand as 4
n authoritative and final definition n
the power Of congress to deal with .
ases This character. It establishes :
precedent which may yet prove to a
far-reaehing and of vital import a
nee- Certain churches are rapidly 7