Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-22

Jesus Christ Of Lntier.uay Saints by Ia
niemhrrs FROM time 10 time, extending
over many year, aud pointed cut the
real design 0l the donora 10 ila applica.
ton religious aud Nharilahie uses
counsel remarked Il was snid by Mt.
Marshall, counsel Tot the government.
in the course Of his argument this
morning, that the fund was nc. IN any
way limlted--thst IL was devoted 10
religion aud charity generally. II oc.
CURED 10 him (Mf. Dicksonl that this
was a singular statement, In view Of
the EVIDENCE In this case. His mean.
ing no doubt WIS that those who had
contributed 20 this fund designed aud
intended that II should be- used
Presidency Of the Church In
that Church. Through all these years
II had been applied not to religious
purposes generally, but to those or the
"MormOn" faith. 10 had been APP
plicd.-so far ~ Il had been usel--tu the
relief u the poor not g. the poor gem
orally, but to tho "Aiofmon" pOnr, cx-
Copt small sum devoted TO a little
band Of Indians for n few years, In
teaching them agriculture and some
of the smaller mechanical arts. IL
seemed 10 him that u would be unfair
aud dlsingeni0us to ray there was any
doubt here but that this fund was in
tended TO lbs applied 70 the relief Of
the poor Of that mitb, md for The w.
ligious purposes Of that sect. Counsel
cited the case Of the attorney general
OF England vs.. Chaplain, and replied
10 the position taken By counsel Tot tho
government, that the decree Of the
Supreme court Of the Territory In this
case had conclusively settled the ques-
ton adversely 10 the defcndanis-tbat
this fund could not be vested Ia trustees
for the benefit Of the members Of the
Church VI Jesus Christ VI Latter day
Saints IN any way, either Tor the relief
OF the poor nor iUf any lawful religious
work, oven though the court might see
IT, way clear hy whi,si 10 limit u 10
such uscs a. would be strictly lawful In
their nature not opposed 10 public
policy bat euilnently pfaiseworlhy.
but Mr.. Dickson held that the court
had the power TO apply this property
10 any chari,ableuse lawful In It's char.
actor, although that use might he one
aud the samr 10 which Il was originally
appropriated; aud there was nothing
In the decree which denied IL. III,
WAS not, ON tho part Of the defendants,
demanding that that fund he set apart
Internationally and generally In
trust for this Church association; they
were asking the court simply to lay Ia
hand upon the fund and keep control
OF Ito appoint trustees, requiring
them 10 report 90 least annually ~ to
their trust, aud as much oflcuUr "a
called upon;sD that the court might oil
the time have supervision OF the
trustees, correct abuses III any existed
-and tomove the trustees first chosen,
should they prove unfaithfll at nLy
time. They were asking that thii
fund be applied simply 10 rtain sreci.
iic purposta pointed out, each Of which
was recognized a. lawful on
all sides - purposes within the
scope " the. donor. at the time
they contributed. Counsel quoted
IA large number Of cases Ia support Of
his argument, mainly In reply 10 coun.
sol for the government. lie referred
TO an English case, that Of tho Bi,hor
OF Hereford vs.. Adams. In that
instance tho fund was found IA
be considerably more than was neces.
sary for tine relief Of the pari-hes
named In the will In the way directed
by the iestator, after supplying IA,
needy with food, fuel, clothing, medi'
cal attendance, utc., and the rurplul