Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-19
THE CHURCH Personal PROF.
ERTy.

Ing to make inquiry and report there
on M 10 what charitable uses lawful In
character aud most nearly correspond.
ing 10 those originally designed, the
personal property Of the late corporn-
tion Of the Church Of Jcsus Christ Of
Latter-day Saints can be limited and
appointed. Particulars Of the examin-
alton will he found In an other part Of
this paper, and will be given from day
to day until Completed.
The case, In brief, IL this: By act Of
Congress the Church corporation was
dissolved and IL real property, In
excess Of the value OF $4,000,
was declared forfeited TO tho Govern
mcnt, TO be used for the benefit Of the
common schools OF the Territory, with
the exception Of such real property as
WIS necessary for houses Of worship or
paronsges or burial grounds. The
corporation being dissolved, IL personal
property was declared to DO without
any natural per,ons or any body or
association legally entitled to hold It,
md th,re,or. n ,leyolyedt 10 the JniteI
States.
Amer con.lderabl. litigation and 40.
neal. 10 th, court OF last resort. n was
ordered by the Supreme Court Of the
United States that the Supreme Court
of Utah should appoint n Master Ia
Chancery for tho purpose described
above.
Counsel for the Government will
claim tho personal property for
the u.o aud bcnofit OF In. District
Schools. Counsel for the Church
ask that IL sball be devoted
10 the relief and support of moor and dis.
tresied members OF IN. Church. and for
tho building and maintenance of
houses Of worship Of III, Church, The
latter application was filed this morn.
ing and app,.n. I'm full iu our t,pott Of
the chancery proceedInps. The claim
Of counsel for the Goyernmont h.. no,
been formally filed, but will be. no
doubt, at n later stage oftbe examlna.
ton.
There are some poInt. I'm the scheme
pre.en,ed by the Church counsel
which we desire 10 emphasize. They
show that Among the nae. In which
the property ia question has been mt
In tn. pas, are those W, hay, p.med.
That while polygamy wa, form.
erly practiced by some members Of
the Church, by the manifesto
OF President Woodruff and the declara.
tlon OF the Church In Conference AS
-embled, that practice has been formally
discontinued. That m a matter Of fact
there have been no such marriages
since the date Of that manifesto and IL
public acceptance. That the property
In dispute would not DO put TO any un.
lawful use In the future, II placed In
the hands OF the President Of the
Church rs trustee for the purposes
mentioned. And that these are lawful
uses which most nearly correspond to
phe purposes originally designed.
We think these statements and argu.
men,s viii strike the pub lie M emf.
nentiy fair and Just, and In accordance
both with the ruling Of the Supreme
Court and the doctrine OF charitable
uses which has been set forth In Judi.
ciai rulings Tor centuries. What tho
Master In chancery may think Of the
matter, OF course, Is another thing.
The District Schools Of the Territory
are worthy Of all proper public support,
Al first sight, the proposition 10 divert
thl. property to that purpose appear.
an easy and legal method OF its dl.trI.
button. But on closer examination 1t
seems clear that It would DO foreign TO
the original purpose In the donation
Of tho funds. Also that people would
obtain benefits from which they are
not legally or equltably entitled, The
property was donated by members of n
particular Church for Church purposes,
and 1t would seem that those purposes,
II not unlawful, and that Church with.
In lawful limits, should receive the
sole benefit OF the funds. And this
not only on the principle Of common
highland reason, but also by tho terms
d the law aud OF the rulings OF the
highest judicial tribunal.
The case will 10 watched with I'm.
tense Interest, not only by the people