Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-22
Before Examiner In ChaucsTy LOOi.
borrow Yesterday.
AN IMPAssIOSED APPEAL


counsel representing the respective
parties being present. Judge j. A..
Marshall, on the part Of the govern
ment, having concluded his address
before the noon recess,
Attorney w. IL. Dickson opened the
arguments ON behalf Of the defendants.
He commenced by referring 10 the dis
solution Of the corporation Of tho
Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day
Saints, by net Of Congress Of March,
1857, and remarked that there being no
onc entitled 10 hold or manage it,
property, this suit was brought to as
certain what property, real aud per-
sonal, there was which belonged to Il
at IL dissolution, aud 10 take possession
Of and hold the sane Tor final dispo-
eitlou. To that extent only did the
decree Ia the case 10, Il being left
thereby for future proceedings to de-
ternine what disposition should ulti-
mately DO made Of the property. The
real estate which was acquired and
held In violation Of the act Of 1902 was
forfeited to the United States, aud the
dispoaltlon Of all such property, OF IL
proceeds, was fixed by tho act
VI 1857; that was TO say, It was
TO 10 applied 10 the use and benefit OF
common schools In the Territory. The
personal property, however, was not
forfeited, but escheated 10 the govern.
ment ny force of the dissolution Of the
| corporation aud being property which
| was acquired and held by the c0orpora.
| ton for religious aud charitable pur.
/ poses, was 10 be disposed Of under the
law of charities as applied In such
cases. Tho case was now referred TO n
Master 10 suggest and report scheme
limiting aud appointing tue personally
10 such charitable uses, lawful In their
character, ~ might most nearly cor
| respond TO those purposes TO which II
was originally destined.
In view OF the magnitude Of Interest
/ Involved here, no far as his clicnts
were concerned he could truly say that
| he approached the discussion OF this
question with much misgiving AMI
| trupldatlon. This he believed was the
fifst time IN the history Of this country
where either the Federal or any Of the
States governments had undertaken to
dissolve religious or charitable cor.
porntlon. and, having dissolved u, had
ATTEMPTED through ~ officers or other.
wise to wrcst from the members Of u
late corporation, that properly which
was the irult Of thrir own Industry and
lawfully acquired by the late corpor.
i .tta.. uea auftlt Ia thu a. faI
benefit OF others who had nothing 10
do with the contributions, and for
whose benefit the fund was never
designed. Il might be- said
that this was the fret time In the his,o.
~ OF this nation that any such thing
had been attempted. He believed II
had never been attempted In England
since the dissolution OF tie mnns-te.
rios, when the property OF the Rom au
church was seized.
He would now state broadly and h,
would state confidently, because h,
believed ho was right - that Their,
could not be found In the law book
Of this country or Of England amy cas-,
la which "A court, exercising merely II,
judicial power, had aver sought TO dC
what this court was now asked 10 dc
I ny lilt nlllffAN lfNAaH'HNNNk WV khNNNil
ment. lie did not believe there could
be found case from the earliest 70.
ports that we had Of the admin
lstratlon OF charities In England
through the courts OF chancery OF thai
country, or case wherein the court,
OF this country, In any StAte Of Tia,
Union, any such thing had been at
tempted. Council insisted that II wa,
! a - Il 10
even though u had the INCLINATION
Cases In England had arisen In NJ
early day where some such thing al
was now contemplated was done by
the Lord Chancellor, not, however, by
the power Inherent In the chaucerJ
courts but by virtue Of his power un
der the sign manual Of tho Crown, OK
erclsed by the Lord Chancellor.
Tho questions now presented wer,
somewhat novel Ia this country; the,
were interesting; they were sure o
} great importance. They were not Il
be determined by prejudice or favor.
They were not TO In controlled In Tia,
consideration Ofthesc questions by con
siderntiOns VI finance or expedlency
but determined by the law, by well
established precedentH, II there ker
| hlllf Wy AHN tAtNHAt INlutlIltH VI IlIn
anu Justice. This court was callet
, upon to report TO tho Supreme Court o
, the Territory scheme limiting ant
, appropriating this fund TO such Lawful
purposes rs should most nearly cor
: respond with those 10 which II wa
originally destined by those whose In
dustry created II. IL would be con
coded, no took IL, that the Master IL
, Chancery, In dcvislng q scheme, M,
the court In passing upon the same
were TO be guided and controlled bl
, the principle or doctrine OF cy pres, "A
, applied to charities, aud as exercise,
by a court Of equity Judiclally-bJ
virtue Of the power inherent Ia Court
OF Chaueery NJ distinguished from
extra judicial power or prer0gativl
, sometimes exercised by the Chancelln
OF England under the sign
manual. SO far as the court
: Of equity Ia this country, a
1 least, were concerted, II had boei
proved that none Of them POSSESSED III,
power which was possessed by Ia,
Lord Chancellor OF England whei
acting under tho sign manual.
when the Supreme Count OF tn,
: United States required the rerrltOria
I Supreme Court 10 refer this matter 4
. "a Master, II must be clear that the nm
derstAndlng anu intention OF the cOur
was that this Master being but n bmncl
Of the court, should be bound by th
limits which marked tho jurisdiction
! and power Of court Of equity. II wa
/ a IA.