Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-23

inc Ilhlbt uffh Nii"ifs Nv hhsh
who heard aim /. TT,
80 the. IN this country people had
-. hi TO believe and entertain what
oph IN hey pleased. II was the boast
Of An.sdcans that conscience was free
and untrammeled In this land. All the
government asked was that the people
should conform their actions TO the re-
quir. 'nts Of the law. This had been
do.N I'D the supremacy Of the law had
been fully recognized by the Nor
mon" people. This fund should not be
inkun from them and diverted to n
Use for which u was never intended,
use for which II was not needcdj be-
cause the school law made ample pro-
vision for the building " school houses,
the employment Of teachers and the
maintenance Of schools, without resort.
ing TO the robbery Of religious hssocin-
tons or churches for that purpose.
SIR. RAwLINs
followed OH the government side, taxi
ing general review of the whole case.
He was Inclined TO think that after the
experience through which the "Mor.
mon" people has passed OF late years
they could net be driven again irto the
condition from which they had eN.
treated themselves. In the applica.
tion Of this fund the government had
no desire 10 place block In the way OF
those desiring 10 do the right thing.
Counsel referred 10 the law n 10 charit.
ALL. uses, and said that N the late cor.
poration Of the Church Of Jesus Chtist
Of I,attcf.day saints mt its dissolution
had no successor, md neither Congress
nor the courts could Interfere. then the
fund must necessarily remain for ever
IN the hands Of the Receiver, or the
court, without application or utility.
hut such would not be-. IL was already
decided that the Church vas not the
owner " this property; the member.
Of the Church were moi the owners and
had no legal or equitable titloto II.
But II was originally dedicated
10 public charity, a charity whose
objects were tainted with Illegal.
ty, 10 which II could not he MP.
piled M II had been, which In that
respect had failed; and now they were
going 20 carry out the Intention Of the
donors 70 far as might be, by dcyoting
this fini 10 objects OF undoubtcd USE
fulness. II was for thl. court 20 asoef-
tain aud report scheme best suited TO
meet the case. IL was not enough 10
say that the property WA TO he devoted
tOa charity corresponding most nearly
10 that ~ the object Tor which II was
originally Intended; because whenever
II happened Ia tue course Of the admin
i-tfntion Of charity that II could not
be nny longer benencially applied 10
Tina, object, IL was made an especial
ground Tor the court n again apply the
property, according 10 the doctrine Of
a. pres, to some useful purpose, chang
Ing the purpose In order that there
might be a beneficial application. The
evidence tended TO show that from
the foundation Of THIS Church
contribution. were made TO u for Its
support, by members Of that Church,
In accordance with certain laws or
rules laid down, by which the amount
aud character VI such contributions
were ~ bo determined. They were To
he made for what purpose? According
TO the declaration, so lay the iounda.
tlon for tile building UP OF the king.
doni,n 10 pay the debt Of the PrcHi-
dency OF the Church, 10 build Tenn.
pies, etc. There was nothing In these
rules which required or exAct.d any
sort of contribution 10 he applied 10 the
benefit of the poor, nor, In terms, 10
the erection or repair Of meeting.
houses. Yet those were the two oh.
jec,s TO which the defendants counsel
ciaimcd this property should be de-
voted, excluding Temples. The evil.
dencc before them showed that each
wari or local community was charged
with the support Of IT, own poor; fur
thefmore, that each ward or
locality was charged primarily
with the erection NJ liz own
meetlnghOuhp; that when the poor were
supported, the account was balanced
up, giving credit 10 the locality 10 the
extent Of the support furnished by the
Church. The evidence tended clearly
u show that the poor were charged on
the local communities. In which they
lived, and met by contributions male
IN kind, and out Of which no surplus
arose. The Church had not pretended
TO support IL poor; there had been no
appropriation OF any part Of tue general
fund In any method that could he
called even the stepping.stone TO the
furnishing OF adequate provision for
the poor, either locally or generally.
Would they set aside this fund la the
way asked by the other side In order
that II might be- dnled out 10 $1,000
people Mt the rate Of So per head per
yeafc The dcfcndant's counsel had
hlnted that education was tho most
foreign 10 the purpose con.
tempiated by those who made
donations TO the Church - that
the pittance given 10 tho poor was
everything, but that education was
nothing. The evidence before them
did not bear out that theory atAll. On
this point counsel quoted from the owl.
denca OF DR.. John Park and other
witnesses on the government Side NJ TO
the educational needs Of the Territory,
The government was not, he sail,
Interested In any petty scheme. II
did not want 10 take this property from
those whose sweat and toll created II;
but the end sought was 10 put that
property back where they would derive
the highest possible benefit from u.
ave do not WANT continued counsel,
'to put II In the hands OF those people
who In tho language VI tho Supreme
cour,) would apply 1t 10 unlawful aud
illigai purposes but In making an ap-
pllcatlon Of II the rights Of the members
OF this Church may be considered II
was urged that the government
wanted 10 wtest this fund from
those who earned II aud give IL
10 those who did not - Ia
take II from the "Mormonsr and give
II TO the nOn."MormOns." II IL could
be lawfully applied exclusively TO the
"Mormon" children he would say let
N un ilpFl. lut fha .n.Itlin.. -.