Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-09-03
Arthur BroWa's Sweeping Objee.
tion 10 the Whole PrOseeiln..

. % A-N NNAA4A-A4A1 AAANA WHICH NCl
tain properties were turned ovel
that 4 final decree should be entered
in eileciing the com promise regard
ing the personal property in lieu o
which SIS, OlJ was paid, the Churcl
attorneys dealt with Mr.. Peters an,
MT villa the receiver.
Tn. witness cJrrJboratei Mr.
Richards statement Of the negotia
tiCEs which eliminated in tn,
statement o. facts aui final decree
my view was that the final deere,
ended the suit, and disposed Of tn,
whole question; am not familiar
with properties used for Church oil
tithing purposes throughout the
Z Territory; there arr tithing proper.
ties az various points; my view
Is that while the general Church
authUritiss exercised a degree OF
. control over tithing properties, they
always were held 10 belong TO the
] people locally; this question had
often arisen before this litigation be-
gan, and the people locally always
Z claimed the timing yaris, ETC.;
There i but one Church, bat there
are many bIauches, which are indie
Z zen lent In respect 10 the ownership
I Ji property; ! think the title 10 the
I Mann Temple never vested in the
Church: I de- not know who ap-
] points the persons who have charge
. u the Temple; think the Church
authorities recommend certain men,
hut the people receive OF reject the
nominees.
To Mr.. wiliiams-Prior to the
Z ayncemeut upon the statement Of
7 iac,E, several suits had been planted
| 10y the receiver to recover disputed
, yrUpegiics, which were surrendered
tor the purpose Of obtaining a hual
decree, u vas ayrce 1 by The govern
HleuI that the Ogden suits should he
dismissed; there were three; asked
hIr. Peters t. dismiss the suits, but
lac claimed he hal not been directed
by his superior officer 10 do 50, but
I understood he haii my under
Standing wis that the 1ual decree
-uIei further pur-ui: u Church
property; thought lus government
attorneys hat the same understand
ius; dit not suppose the powers Of
the receiver exceeded the scope Ui
this suit. bat ulat when the -siit
ended his power 10 pur>Te Property
did thglc vas rot a lengthy
discussion BETWEEN the attorney :
for the rUveruuient aud Clutch n
spg-.ivviy about pursuing property
iiIer the final decree, but 1 had a
conversation 20 tht ELECT With Mr..
i'e;eTs. and stipulated with him,
tsiat the statement o! facts and final
decree were o. bJ deemed au end 10
tie Frucgyuil -. 10 which hc assent
81.
10 Judge Judd II believe the
Char % turut-I over all the property
it Ea!. and some 81 dId not own, /
tuu't believe the Church has any
ETuI guy nov; i j. lOcr.
To Mr.. Naulu-The reason why
we gave up the proper,ie. NC uid
y - az 49," We ANaAAAHA HaA A~AHAAN
against IA ia the lower courts, u6-
ct-siiaiing appeals a. a higher, anu
We preicTrei u get a final decree
and carry the whole csse 10 the
United states Supreme Court; all
it, property was IN the hands u
receiver, o. In jeopardy, aud the
situation the Church was in. for
many reasons. made II desirable 10
nave the ii. CATION ended - soon a
l,us,ille: t'ie~e are among the rea-
sons why the Church gave up the
property it did, much Of which |
have always held the government
could not have recovered.
To lir. Richauis-One great rea-
sJn why the Church turned over the
doubtful property was because II IT.
lied greatly on the uncOnsti;uiiOn-
atty Of the law, aud would be
turned bach again.
To Mr.. Narian-I presume the
Church obtained 10y donation from
iIs members tine money with which
it bought the properties II turned
over, aud which Il did not own; ]
lon't know who would be more
likely TO be able b tell all about these
matters than Mr. Winder; don't
know whether or not the President
II the Church could tell about them;
don't know definitely who had
charge or n full knowledge Of that
business; John TaylCr was trustee
u the Church, but since his death
aud the dissolution Of the Church,
there has htcu no such officer;
wiifOni Woodruff did not succeed
10 il: there j. NJ officer now 10 sign
a deed in behalf Of the Church; the
business affair Of the Church are in
an uncertain condition.
To the COmmissiOner-It was the
agreement that the property named
in the statement Of facts, or the
price for which the Church hal sold
it,shOuld lie turned over 10 the receiv-
er aui deemed all the property the
Church had; the titles 70 the tithing
properties in various parts Of the
Territory were talked Of between
the Church attorneys and Mr.. Pc
ter, aud Il was understood that
they, and the Temples, should not
be deemed Church properties; the
government attorneys were fully ad-
vised in relation 10 the tithing prop
critics Ia the various Stakes, and the
Temples, before the statement Of
facts was agreed b.. after the final
decree. Mr.. Peter said he would not
!ismiss the Ogden eases because lie
had not been instructed in writing
b do 80, though lac said he under
stood they were b he dismissed.
Judge Judd remarked: a statute
Of the United States fOrbids a dis
lrict attorney 10 dismiss a civil suit
planted in tile name Of the United
states without written authority.
In answer 10 questions by the
commissioner, the witness stated
emphatically that the government
attorney understood that the pursuit
Of properties wOulI cease, and that
neither the receiver nor his attorney
hal anything 10 DO with the prepa-
ration Of the statement Of facts and
final decree; neither had they any
thing 10 do with the $50. 900 comprC-
miss; the Ogden cases are still pend
ing; II was stipulated that they
should re main ~ s,atu quo until the
United states Supreme Court should
determine the main suit; | think
one al the suits involves the title TO
tithing property, on one occasion
when asked Mr.. Peters TO
dismiss the cases, he said he would
first like % confer with the ait lrney
fjT the receiver, Mr.. Williams, who
objected; the suits regarding the
disputed propeIties in this city have
rested on stipulation 10 remain "a
.tItE quo until the fiual decision OF
the Unitel states Supreme Court;
they are pending on motions to dis
mis-.