The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-06-15
MORMON CHURCH PoPERTY.

IL was not expected that the Denver
ifsb'fnc would ever say that the Mormons
mad any rights which the government or
anybody else should respect. That paper
has been VIGOROUSLY unreasonable and bit
ter In its expressions of hatred of the Nor
mons, and in advocacy Of harsh treatment
Oh the Saints, hence the establishment
winch was occasioned by the finding of the
lolloWlng in its editorial columns last week.
Inc steal which the government proposes
IS 100 outrageous and bare-faced to receive
the sanction and approval of our Denver
contemporary:
is the handful of Mormons in Utah and other
parts Of the country such a menace to our insti-
'utlons that il is necessary for the government
oil the United States to resort to coniscation in
order to hold the Mormon church in check?
There is such a thing as honesty in dealing
With ones enemies. There is such a thing as
Justice TO criminals. There is such a thing as
doing right for rights sake, and in the face of
popular prejudice. But the bill which Senator
EDMuNDs introduced, TO turn the property of
the Mormon church over 10 the public schools of
Utah, fails to recognize any of these general
propositions
The supreme court has held that Congress
had the power to declare the Mormon
church corporation dissolved. Under the
ola rule OF the common law-which was far
from the perfection of either human wisdom
or human iustice-the property of a dis
solved corporation escheated to the crown,
Neither The creditors nor the stockholders could
claim anything as against the crown. But the
harshness OF this rule was removed by the
courts OF equity when they iuterfered and de-
creed that the assets of such corporations
should be distributed among those equitably en-
titled TO them
The corporation OF the Mormon church being
dissolved, the property is, according 10 the old
common law rule, subject tc the disposition of
the government. Rut the supreme court hest
lated 10 enforce so harsh and unjust rule 1t
sought some equitable way for the distribution
oil the property. While the court was deliber-
ating, Senator EDMUNDs stepped forward and,
oy the introduction of tie bill referred to, pro-
posed to relieve the court of its embarrassment
and cause Congress to confiscate the Mormon
church property. But whether Congress or the
supreme court be Immediately responsible, the
people will be ultimately so, if the property OF
the Mormon church shall be turned over TO the
public schools of Utah.
The fact that some of the Mormons are
polygamists and that the church teaches the
| doctrine of polygamy will not justify the pro
| posed confiscation. The constitution of the
/ United States declares that private property
shall not be taken for public use without Just
compensation. We do not mean to say that the
transfer OF the property of this dissolved cor
I poration TO the public schools of Utah would bt
a violation of this provision of the constitution
| But we do mean 10 say that it would be in VIC
lation OF its spirit.
Why should not Congress be just, even to the
Mormons: Thousands of the members of the
Mormon church have never lived in polygamy
Ought they to be made to suffer because of the
crimes OF others, or because their church
| teaches polygamy: The proposed conflscatior
is unnecessary. 1t would be unjust and unfair