The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-11-13
THE RSCHEAT CASES.
The Supreme Court Of Utah
Rules in Them.
PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURE.
Interesting Points and Features of the Deci-
sion Delivered by Hon. c $ Zane, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court

on Saturday, the unanimous decision OF
the justices was delivered in reference to
the suits of the United States Of America
VS.. the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter
day Saints Chief Justice Zane delivered
the opinion, Of which the following is a
synopsis:
After relating the history Of the htiga-
ton his honor quotes from the decisions Of
the Supreme Court Of the United States
and the findings Of the master in chancery,
shows what are tho rival claims Of the
plaintiff and defendants, and says:
The scheme th9t would devote the fund
TO he aid ind assistance of the poor mem
hers of the church and their families and
10 the erection aud repair Of its places OF
worship would limit it TO objects within the
scope OF the Intentions OF its donors.
The other would 6evot5 and appoint II to
use not intended by its donors and to
which Il was not dedicated.
This brings US 10 the question, can the
court appropriate this fund to a charitable
OBJECT not intended by its contributors and
TO which It had not been dedicateds
The legal title and all equitable rights to
she real estate forfeited aud escheated, be-
cause held contrary TO the law OF 1862,
vests in the government to be dealt with
aud disposed Of according 10 law. While
the personal property cannot be so for
feited and escheated and IL must be dis
posed OF according 10 the law Of charities.
White the decree gave the possession and
custody Of the personal property to the re-
ceiver 10 be held subiett to the further or
der Of the court. the use was TO charitable
objects, lawful in their character, within
tbe general intent of the donors. The
opinion does not say that the control over
the personal property is absolute; that 1t
was regardless Of the purposes of its dedi-
cation.
Decisions of courts bearing on the Ques-
tlon are referred to.
a leading and prominent principle pre-
vailing in them ali IS that property devoted
TO worthy and charitable object. promo
tive Of the public good, shall be applied to
the purpose of its dedication, and protected
from spoliation and diversion to other OBJ
iects Though devoted to particular use
IL is considered as given to the public, and
is therefore taken under the guardianship
Of the law. If 1t cannot be applied TO the
particular use for which it was intended.
either because the objects TO be subserved
have failed, or because they have become
unlawful or repugnant to the public policy
of the state il viii be applied TO some OBJ
ject of kindred character so as to fulfill IL
substance if not in manner or form the
purpose Oh us cOUSeCI4LlOu.
1t REQUIRES a careful examination of the
opinion 10 distn gulsn the powers held to
be applicable to TIE forfeited and escheated
property from those applying TO the prop
erty not forfeited and escheated, and also
TO distinguish the powers held TO pertain
to the court in the exercise Of its ordinary
jurisdiction with respect TO property dedi-
Gated 10 charitable uses, from those be-
m no in oYaf
with respect to such property or TO the
law-mRking department in a government
based upon the will of the peopl5-one in
which they are sovereign.
The doctrine of cv pres is only liberal
rule Of construction TO ascertain the inten-
ton Of the donor, and all the rules relating
thereto are intended to aid in ascertaining
and carrying out as nearly as may be the
true intention OF the donor. His intention
should be the aim of the court.
A number of authorities are here cited to
sustain this position, aud the court goes on
TO say:
From these authorities we may deduce
the general rule that courts Of equity in
the exercise OF their ordinary jurisdiction
cannot devote any portion of fund dedi-
Gated TO charitable uses TO any object not
contemplated by the donors; that when
property is given to a class of objects in
general terms and also directed TO be ap-
piled to one of them in special terms, if its
application to that one becomes unlawful
or impracticable the doctrine Of cy pres
authorizes the court to devote it to one or
more Of those embraced in the general in
tent most analogous ID the one specially
named; that the general intent may not be
expressed in explicit terms il the device or
dedication in the light of the circumstances
authorize the court TO infer that such was
the donors wish IN that event. The same
rules apply when the charity is the result
Of contributions by a large number of peo-
pie
1t ia plain from the evidence before us
that the members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints contributed
the fund in dispute, expecting it and wish
ing IL 10 be applied by the first presidency
to church purpOses-to objects promoted by
the church. We cannot find from the
evidence before US that the Mormon people
who contributed this fund intended or ex-
pected the fund or any part of it would be
appropriated 10 the support OF the common
schools Of the territory In common with
non Mormons the Latter Day Saints are
taxed to maintain the public schools, and to
take the money that they contributed for
church purposes end devoted also to their
support would be unequal and unjust.
Were il simply 6 matter Of discretion
sume superior and peculiar wisdom and
say to these people that we will devote the
contributions made by you for church pur-
poses 10 a purpose that you did not intend
ito the support of the common schools.
because we think that q more worthy OBJ
lect. We cannot adopt the scheme pre-
scented by the plaintiff and reported by the
master
We viii now consider the scheme for the
application OF this fund presented by the
defendants. Their plan woul6 vest this
properly In the first presidency of the
churce, now consisting of MILFORD Wood
ruff It's president, and George Q. Cannon
aud Joseph +. Smith, his counselors, and
their successors in Office in trust, to apply
fhe proceeds thereof and to limit its use TO
the rslief SnG assistance Of the poor of the
church, and 10 the building and repair Of
convenient and necessary places of
worship fer its members 1t ap-
pears from the evidence before us that
this fund was very largely applied
20 these two objects by the fret presidency
prior 10 the time it was taken from their
possession and control. But we are also
authorized TO infer that at the time this
case was tried in 1888 and prior thereto the
teachers Of the church and its missionaries
taught by its authority that the prac-
tice OF poiygamy was right, and that the
church il that way propagated it aud that
O portion Of the property In dispute was
used to aid and support such teachers and
missionaries and In that way was applied
70 an immoral and unlawful end The
scheme under consideration, however
would forbid the use Of this fund for any
ouch purpose; it requires it to be used for
the benefit of needy members and to be
applied TO the erection of houses of wor-
ship for the Latter-day Saints The relief
OF the needy and distressed Of whatever
faith cannot be immoral or unlawful.