Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1890-05-22
DEATH OF GEO. Il. PAUL
He Passes Away in Kansas CITY Sun.
day Morning.
A Long and Busy Life Brought to &
Sudden Close.
Arrangements for the Funeral-List
of Pail Bearers.

MILWAUKEE, May 19.-SurrOunded by
relatives Geo. II. Paul. ex-postmaster of
Milwaukee, died at Kansas City early
Sunday morning. The remains Will reach
Milwaukee tomorrow afternoon and the
funeral will occur on Wednesday afternoon
at o clock, from the residence, the SER
vices being at St. John Episcopal church
The remains will be brought to Milwau-
kee over the st. Paul road at $50 to-mor-
row afternoon. They will be taken off the
train at Elizabeth street and i'm
mediately conveyed to the late residence
of the deceased, at 321 Hanover street,
where they will remain until 2 o'clock
on the following afternoon. when they
will be conveyed to st. Johns church.
where the funeral services will be held
lnterment will be made at Forest Home
The honorary pall-bearers will be: 0. L.
Rosenrans, Jas. kneeland, Judge NAL
lory, Judge Jenkins, Elias Friend, H. J.
Hilbert, Z. w. Barnes, Emil DUR, D. J.
Whittemore, George Keppen and Judge
Noyes. The gentlemen selected as active
pall-bearers. are: Chas. Durham, S. H.
Chase, Ed. Dodmin, Aug. Vogel, Thos.
Bentley. S. A. Hooper, J. F. Burke, and
H. P. Richardson
1t Is likely that there will be large at
tendance at the funeral, as Mr. Paul was
we'll known throughout the state. He
took very prominent part in politics in
the time OF Taylor, and many Of his old
friends will doubtless be present.
WASHINGTON, March 19.-The supreme
court today rendered an opinion of vital
interest to the Mormon church in the suit
OF the church of Latter Day Saints against
the United States, which comes here on an
appeal from decision of the supreme
court of Utah in favor of the United
States. The case grows out of the passage
of Edmunds' anti-polygamy law by the
5Oth congress. This law dissolved the
Mormon church, annulled its charter. di-
rected the appointment of a receiver to
wind up its affairs and escheated to the
United States all the real estate owned by
the chdrch in excess of $50, 900, which was
not on the date of the passage of the act
held for purposes of worship or burial
When the United States under the terms
of. this act, began proceedings, the Nor
mons Immediately entered suit to have the
Edmunds law declared unconstitutional.
In its opinion the court says: The dis
tinguishing feature of Mormonism is wei
know to bespolygamy and absolute eccles-
iastical control of its church members.
Notwithstanding all efforts to suppress
this barbarious practice of polygamy,
the sect preserves in defiance of the law in
propagating and promoting this nefarious
doctrine. The question therefore is
whether the promotion of such an unlaw.
ful SYSTEM repugnant to our laws, is to be
allowed to continue, and whether the enOr-
nous funds which have been accumulated,
will be welded for the propagation of an
obnoxious practce-for the promotion of
organized rebellion against the laws of the
United States. The con-
tention that poIygamy is a part of the
Mormon's religious belief is a
sophistical idea No doubt the thugs
of India imagined that their belief in
assassination was belief, but that did
not make it so. After an elaborate his
toric review the common law, in conclu-
sion says: Congress had before it
contumacious organization welded by
Its resources an Immense power IN the ter
ritory of Utah, and employing those re-
sources is constantly attempting to OPP
pose, subvert and thwart the legislation of
congress and the will of the government of
the United States Under the circum-
stances we have no doubt of the right of
congress to do as it did" The decree of
the low er court is affirmed. Justice Brad
ley delivered the opinion
Chief Justice Fuller said that he and
Justices Field and Lamar were constrained
to dissent from this decision. The power
of congress to legislate over territories was
not incident to the treaty-making power,
and its power is restricted directly to that
expressed or implied in the
constitution. There is no such power as
that involved in the act under considera-
ton. Congress unquestionably has power
to suppress polygamy, and it is immaterial
whether crime committed is in the name
of relation. But congress has not the
power to seize and confscate the property
of corporations because they have been
guilty of crime.