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

thereof and TO limit Its use 10 the relief
and assistance OF the poor Of the
Church, and 10 the building and re-
pair OF convenient and necessary
places Of worship for its members. II
appears from the evidence before us
that this fund wins very largely applied
TO these two objects by the First Presi-
dency prior TO the time II was taken
from their possession and control. But
We are also authorized 10 infer that at
the time this case was tried In 1883
and prior thereto the teachers OF the
Church and Its missionaries taught
OF by It's authority that the practice
polygamy was right, anu that
the Church In that way propagateI II
and that n portion OF the property In
dispute was used TO aid and support
such teachers and missionaries and In
that way was applied ~ AN immoral
and unlawful end. The scheme under
confederation, however, would forbid
tho use Of this fund for auy such pur-
pose; II requires II 10 be- used for the
benefit OF needy members and to be
applied to the erection OF houses OF
worship for the Latter.day Saints. Tho
relief OF the needy anu distressed OF
whatever faith cannot be immoral or
unlawful.
Nor can wo say that the expenditure OF
money tor the erection aud repair OF con-
ycnient aud necessary houses OF worship
for tho Mormon people IL devoted TO an
immoral or unlawful purpose.
In tho legislation OF Congress with 70.
spoct TO polygamy, houses Of worship,
parsonagos aud burial grounds arc re-.
served to tho Church and the decision
10
tho decree OF the trial court as set such
property apart TO the Church.
We now come to another question
Can this court In the exercise Of lis
ordinary chancery Jurisdiction vost this
fund In tho First Presidency to DO applied
20 the two purposes that we have seen ara
lawinly This property as tho evidence
shows was giVon TO tho church authori-
ties named, To he applied To church pur-
poses IN their discretion. Assuming that
portion OF II was so expended by such
authorities "a TO propagate polygnmy can
tho court now limit the proceeds Of tho
ontiro fund To the relief OF tho poor ana
to tho erection aud repair of houses of
worship-two lawful objects, and thu
| ones 10 which the larger portion OF tho
fund had always been devoted.
We may presume that the contributors
expected and intended that tho First
Presidency would apply their gifts to
such purposes rs they might deem
! practicable aud right, and II thoy should
| deem any object impracticablen wrong
that thoy would devote the whole OF Ii
| To such OF the objects deemed practicable
and right. Tho church authorities now
| propose TO apply the entire fund TO the
| two purposes named which must DO con.
! ooded practicable and lawful, and thoy ON
behalf of the entire sect pray tho court Ia
| dccros that thoy shall devote 1t 20 these
| two lawful purposes and that they may
he prohibited from applying 1t TO any
other.
| In tho case Of Jackson vs.. Phlllips and
others, III thocourt said" Whenac harltnble
| iniont appears on the face of the will but
the terms used arc broad enough to allow
| OF tho fund being applied either In a law.
| iul or an unlawful manner tho gilt will
be supported and its application restrain.
od within the bounds OF the law"
| Whom the dedication IL bread enough
to allow tho trustee to apply tho fund "a
unlawful as well Az lawful purposes tn,
/ court Will limit Its application to tho law.
| ful ones. When tho terms OF tho gift
| authorize tho trustees TO devote III,
/ fund 10 either OF tho two subjects, on,
/ legal aud the other Illegal, Its application
| viii be confined to tho legal purpose ant
| the Illegal one will be rejected "l'h,
principle OF these cases seems "a DO ia,
same that although a valid charitable u.i
should happen 10 be joined by way O
alternative with one which Is invalid, II,