Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-11-12

! though ulrincofp1futod aa having the
/ right through trustees selected by Ia
authorities to own houses in which Ia
wonhip God and Tor lhei- mjnistera 10
live IN. Ia the second section Of Tho
act Of 1869 II So declared thai il ehall
lie 40 c0nslrtci as not 10 affect or M.
ter'eio with "the right to worship God
according to tho dictates Of con.
/ scipuce.N
Upon q heating OF this case on the
| bill, answer, evidence aud stimulation
Of the parties, this court held lie vari.
Gus sections above mentioned, and the
acts referred 10, valid az d appointed
receiver 20 lake possession VI All real
nnd personal property VI the deflnct
corporation and to hold the same TO
be disposed OF according 10 law, and
| upon iurther hnd substquent
hearing the court made n
| further decree by which 1t set apart TO
the disincorporated BODY of psIjyions
wofshipprs, block eirh,y.seven in
plat IA" Salt Lake CIV. known ne
the "remple Block" ami held the
remainder VI real estate acquired in
| violation OF the Std section OF Inc net
| of 1862 subject 10 forfeiture ana escbeat
TO the United States. That the Der.
sonnl property Of the Church, by
reason OF the dissolution of its corpora-
] ton because OF tne failure or illegnlity
| Of tho trust TO which 1t had been dedi.
Gated nj its acquisition and In conse-
/ quence OF itH use by the corporation by
operation OF law became forfeited and
eschcated 10 the United Stntef. From
| this decree the Defendant ard
| the intervenors, George Rnmney
aud others on behalf Of Themselves and
all other members Of thu late corpora.
| lion appealed 10 the Supreme Court Of
the United states. The latter court
affirmed the decree appealed from cX.
/ cept the part relating 90 the potsonnl
property; and held that the rersonul
/ property COuli not be Appropriated to
the purpose 10 which II had been dedi.
| Gated because the same was, In whole,
| or In part, contrary 10 law or opposed
| 70 public policy; that there did not *.
| ist any person or persona, natural or
| legal, legally entitled 10 any portion Of
| " M successors In Interest 10 the
| Church, gni that IL had dovolved on
! the United States, and not being lawfully
applicable 10 the purposes to which II
was originally dedicated or for which
II had been acquired, and u
/ which at the commencement Of
this suit II was hcing devoted
| by the corporation aud IT. controlling
authorities, the same ought 10 be Inn
/ ted and appointed 70 such choTitabiG
/ uses, iugTm ~ McH characieF, ~
should moa nearly oDfrtapyHd 10 those
70 which it gcs originally uCstMcd to
| be- afcettninod nnd defined by
| rCferCncC b. master for due cJ0minu.
| tiIG, snquaH and report thereon, sub.
| jact 10 tue approval Of the court, and to
| be established, Administered aud eat
! ficd out Ia such manner aud according
70 such scheme as moy be approved by
/ the court.n
The case was reminded b. this court
| with directions 70 modify H. decree as
above directed "Rnl 10 take sucn
further proceedings ~ 20 law aud JUS
tice may npptTtain In conformity with
/ the opinion"
In conformity with this opinion Of
the Supreme Court OF the United
| States aud tia decree, this case was re-
ierred 10 the Master. And two
Schemes were presented 10 him. One
by the Defendants solicitor. proposing
! 10 wet such PERSONAL property in the
| FliBt Presidency Of the Church, in
| trust FOR the relief and assistance OF it,
and for the erection, repair anc main
| tenhuce Of houses ~ worship OF people
Of that iEith and limiting the uso 10
these two purposes.
The other scheme propoeed by the
solicitors Of the United States would
yett tliis property Ia n Commissioner
appointed by tho court 20 be used by
him Tor the benefit OF the public
schools Of the Territory.
The Master hs reported this last
plan and recommends its approval by
the court. 70 which the dcfendRut's
solicitors object anu ask us to approve
their scheme, and plalntiti's solicitors
insist upon the one recommended by
| the Master.
Behind the legal title 20 tho funds In
| controversy In the late corporation, lie
/ beneficial rights belonging 10 natural
persons. Out Of the confidence re-
| posed in tho church officials who con-
| trolled them, an obligation that they
would faithfulln apply those funds
| according u Thc general under
sihnding OF their contributors. The
supreme Court o. the Uuitei States In
its opinion directing these proceedings
sid; "rhe properly IN question has
| been dedicated 10 public aud charlt.
nblo uses, II matters not whether
| II h tho product Of private couttibu.
tious made during the course OF half u
/ century, or OF taxes impOsst upon the
/ people or Of gains arising from fortunate
/ operations IN business Or appreciation
In values; the charitable uses for which
% Ia held are stamped upon II by
charter, by ordinance, by regulation
and by usage In ouch mn iudolible
manner that there can be no mistake a.
10 their character, purpose or object"
Mormon Church VI, United SlEtos,
1855 y. =. p. 80.
In It's opinion the court does not
| distinguish and consider singly and
separately the various charitable oh.
iecte 10 which the property In con-
iroversy was dedicated. In fact the
inquiry by tho trial court had
moi gone that iarj they were
considered Ia IA lump leo 10
appears TO have been regarded as faint
appeal, could not look nj the merits Of
each object OF charity separately, be.
cause the findings OF the evidence did
not disclose the object slngly or their
peculigr merlls.
la his inquiry the Master advanced,
and we are permitted to SEQ tho Oh
jects 10 whichl the fluid had been de-
voted. In the light II the evidence
reported by him we can distinguish the
good from the bad, the worthy from
the unworthy, and understand to
which, aud IN what proportions the
Church authorities had applied the
fund before IL was ,ahtn out OF their
! hands.
ID nnneATa from lle evlhence Tennrled