Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-23
The END REACHED.
Close Of The Investigation Before
Examiner L1Olbourow.
THE CASE SUBMITTED.
Addresses by Attorneys Franklin =,
Richards, J. d. Rawllns, and ,.c
Grand Young.

''N'H'NhA' ~ NhAN - NV huWNh NJ
the "Chnrch case" were concluded,
the final argument being made by
Attorney LcGnnd Young on behalf
Of the defendants.
When tho court rc.ass embed at Q
p. M, tho
Hon. $. Richards took up the argu-
mont on the slide Of the Church. Coun-
sci said no should endcavOr TO conflne
himself 10 the points which he believed
10 be material In the determination Of
ofthls important matter. 1t seemed 10
him that the first question TO be de.
termlnod, and the one upon which the
whole matter hinged, was whether or
not the master In ohAnccTy had the
power 10 grant the scheme proposed by
the defendants; In other words, whether
the objection was well taken by the
government, that the members Of tho
Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter.day
Saints were By the decree procluded
from having this fund sot apart for
any Of the charitable USES TO which IL
was devoted prior 10 the dissolution Of
the Church corporation. This had
been quite fully discussed already, aud
therefore Instead Of giving his own
vlcws, counsel preferred 10 quote from
those OF tho Uultod States supreme
Court ON this subject; because it con.
clusively appeared from the opinion OF
that court that Il did not intend TO
preclude the Church members from
asking 10 have the fund devoted 10 the
purposes for which It had been con-
tributed. Counsel read extracts from
the decision OF tho Supreme Court Of
tho United States ia this regard, In
one OF which the court said that "thc
rights Of the Church members will
necessarily be taken Into consideration
In the ilnal disposition Of tho case"
and nsked, was II possible for the
Court Ia have expressed in any
palmer language the sact that some.
time, somewhere before this property
was finally distributed the members OF
the Church should he heard aud their
righis aud claims considered? lfthose
members ever were Ia have n hearing,
u must he hofo aud now. Counsel for
the government would hardly say they
would ever have another opportunity
" coming forward and showing any
right or claim that they might have 10
the disposition Of this property. Yet
this couft said the right VI the Church
members would be taken Into consider
alton In the final disposition Of the
ease. Coming 10 the question raised
by counsel on the other side that II
was not within the province Of
this court 20 devise scheme
10 devote this property to the Identical
charitable uses 20 which II was con.
tributed-that In order to cnrry out the
direction Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States and that OF the Terri
torial supreme Court appointing tho
Master In Chancery. the Mater must,
Ia applying tho doctrine Of cy prcs,
find some other aud different use rom
that TO which tubs property was in-
tended by the donors 10 be devoted.
The charitable uses and purposes Tor
which the property had been contrib
uted were nowhere defined. There
was nothing In the findings Of the
court 10 tell how much Of this property
was 10 DO devoted 10 religious purposes
aud how much 10 charitable uses, nor
what those uses should he. 10 simply
appeared In general way that Il whs
contributed for religious aud charitable
purposes. Having read from the lind
ings OF the court and the decree in
proof Of his Insertion, Mr.. Richards
argued that there was no evidence be.
fore the court when H. decree was
rendered In lsss, upon which II could
determine whether or not there were
any charitable uFes other than the
general uses OF tho Church. Ii was
conceded all the way through that
this doctrine OF oy pres amounted 10
this: that tho property should be de-.
voted, as nearly ~ possible, TO the pur.
poses for which II had been intended
by the donors. That was the rule, aud
Il had been judicially declared, over
and over again, that there was no
power In court 10 change the pur-
poses II the intention Of the donors
could he legally carried Into effect.
II appeared all the way through this
opinion and decree In this case that
the whole objection Of the Supreme
Court OF the United 5tates--the ground
upon which II based its decision Hus.
taining that Of the lower court-was
because OF the existence OF the doc.
trine and practice Of polygamy In the
| Church. II was that doctrine and
| practice which was unlawful. IL was
admitted In one breath by counsel for
the government that the power OF
Congress did not Include opinion or
belief; and yet In the next breath Il
was contended by the same counsel
that the property Of the Church should
be taken from II and applied to tho
public schools because OF the religious
belief Of members Of the Church. Coun-
hcl for the defendants did not claim, az
was suggested by the other slide, that
Congress would not have had the
power 10 dispose OF this property. lie
conceded that CongresH would have
the power rs intimated by tho very
decree Of the supreme Court under
which this reference had been made. He
| did not deny anything the Supreme
| Court had decided In this case, on the
contrary, he relied on that decision 10
sustain the Defendants claim, but he
did say that IN theabsonce OF the action
| OF C0ngrusi this court had not the
right 10 take this property and devote
| II 10 other uses than those 10 which Ii
was intended by the donors 10 be
donated. This was not property for.
felted TO the United States. II was a
trust fund and the duty Of the court
was 20 keep watch over It aud appoint
trustees 10 manage the fund, under
the direction Of the courts, according
10 tho desiyns Of tha donors. But the
government now sought 10 divert this
| fund to another AID different purpose
| from that intended by tue donOrs-this
cannot legally be- done, while
there are legal purposes within their
intention to which II can be- applied.
la this aud every community Ia this