Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-05-26

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO Dc
TAKEN by THE UTAH COURT.
Unlawful Revenue Assessments, he.
mo,al OF Judges aud Other
Business Transacted.
ny telegraph to tho SEws.l
TuE a. y. SUPREME COURT.
Decisions Ia tile chnrch sui, aud
Other tnaea.


Supreme court last term upheld the
c0nstituilOnaiity of the Eimunds law,
~ which the property Of the late cor
pUrniiUn of the Church Of Jesus Christ
81 Latter. day Saints, otherwise known
nv tue Mormon Church, was Uschented
10 the United States, u found itself IN
somewhat embarrassing position.
The doctrine Of oschcato was quite un-
known In this country and no purpose
considered lnudahle and proper OF
similar nature 10 TINT for which tile
property was formerly used wins known
IN which the property could he dc.
voted. The court, Therefore, Instead
81 sending the decree down, withheld
u, u strong iutlmatlon being conveyed
OF a desire Of the court that Congress
should by law direct the diepOBltiUn TO
he made Of the property.
Congress having failed TO ndopt tho
suggestion, the court through Justice
bradley, today mnde final order IN
the casr, and modified In some respects
the decree Il entered ut the last term.
The mobilization made recitcr that the
Mormon corporation having been
dissolved, there does not exist now
any trusts or purposes, within the
objects and purposes for which the per-
tonal property was originally acquired,
for which any part OF the personal
property could be used or dedicated
ihat are not In whole or part opposed to
public policy mud good morals, and,
furthermore, there does not exist any
person or corporation legally entitled
10 any OF the personality rs the success.
s0rs OF the late church.
fph.. "A. Nh.tf thA n.Fannul
property having devolved 10 the Unit.
cd States, II should lie devoted TO such
charitable uses, lawful In character, as
may most nearly correspond 10 its
former destiny, unless la tho mean.
time Congress shall otherwise ,prcct,
or the Master shall report some scheme
which shall meet the approval OF the
court for the disposition OF the prop
erty.
The decree finally directs that the
property and Accommodations remain In
the custody Of the receiver until other.
wise ordered, and out VI II the costs OF
the suit and Tecelvership be paid. The
Utah Supreme court In directed to take
the necessary proceedings.
AGAINST KENTUCKY.
The united States Supreme court to-
day rendered Judgments against the
state Of Kentucky on n suit by the
agent OF the United States Express
Company, who claimed the law OF the
State imposing license tax on the
company was a violation OF the inter.
state commerce clause Of the Federal
Constitution.
THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE LAW.
The United States Supreme court TO.
day upheld the constitutionality OF
tho original package law passed by
Congress and also held that IL was not
necessary for Kansas to re.enact its
prohibitory law after the passage Of the
Congressional act In order 10 shut Out
liquors In original packages.
The case came up on M appeal OF
Wilkinson, sheriff, against Raherer,
the lower court having decided against
the State. This court rcverscs the de-
CislOu Of the lower court. Chief Jus
tico Fuller rendered the decision, til,
entire court being with him.
~ FAVOR OF THE DIsTILLERy.
In the case OF the Chicago Dlstlllinp
company against stone, internal
itNtHht ~
livered All opinion in favor OF tho dis
tillery company, holding unlawful th'
government method OF assessing nj thu
end Ol each month what is callet
"mulct money" 10 mike up any dis
tillhtlnn by distillerles In excess Of Tn,
capacity estimated from day TO day
Justice Gray announced, however
that Justices Hafland, Brewer ant
Al. Ia. fla. fl.ataiAEt IiIl
did NOT concur la all tha reasoning o
the opinion ofthe court. Rahrer wa
the original package agent mt Topeki
ola kausas CITY liquor htm anu wa
arrested tho day after the Origina
package law went Into effect. He
claimed That tho law was uncOnstltu
tional aud also that IL could not 20 int
operatiOn until the State re.enactcd III
prohibitory laws. The Circuit couf
decided against the State aud the Gus,
was brought here on, appeal
The Supreme court says the pOwe
OF State 10 impose restraint
and burdens upon persons AM
property. In the promotion OF publl'
health, good ortier aud prosperity y
power belonging TO the state. TIT
power OF Congress TO regulate com
uettt ufhOng NllN rtN'lNi t'NA''' W"
lon free by the Constitution, except n
Congress might undertake. 10 regulat
IT, Intoxicating liquors are undoubi
eddy subjects of commerce likn an,
other commodity, but nevertheless
soften held that law prohibiting IN
manufacture and sale OF liquor within
a States limits does not nccossaril.
infringe any Constitutional privileg
or immunity. This right rests upoi
tho acknowledged right OF tho State I
control their purely Internal nllilf'
The Iowa laws, held unconatltullonn
IN the Leisy original package case
Wora created on the exercise 81 IN
State police power, but AZ II amounte
toa regulation Of Interstate commerce
II was held that 20 long ~ congte'
did not pass any law 10 regulate spec
fcally tie traffic between States OF u
toxicating liquorp, 0ract In such u wa
rs to allow the state laws TO operal
upon II, Congress thereby iniicalel \
Will that such commerce shNuii u
ifee and untrammeled aud therefor
the lawso Of Iowa were imperative,
so far ~ they amounted to rognlAno1
OF foreign or iuterslate commerce
inhabltlng the reception Of such article
within the State, OF their sale upon n
rival In the form in which impor'e