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

nll its unineorporated members ~ they
asked 10 he appropriated amt ed
without Hniitnti ~, would be in effect
10 sanction such unlawful usc nf the
fund for tho same unlawful purpo.c-
the propagation OF polygemy.
ID understood that this fund wa-
used IN prOpagnte and spfoad the doc
irlnca aud usages Of tho church aud
that polyRamy was one Of those doc.
trines and its practice was one Of its
usagos; the court did not undertake 10
Distinguish the lawful purposes Of the
church from the one that was unlaW-
ful. Il was not nalIed by tue parties, or
either Of them, 10 do that
Referring 10 the law OF March Srd,
1887, the court enid: "rhe only queation
we have TO consider In this regard is
as to the constitutional power Of con.
greas to pass ". Nor are we now callei
upon To declare what disposition
ought to be made OF the property VI
the Church OF Jesus Christ Of Latter.
dav Saints
This -ult Il I'm some respects q auxil-
llary ouv, Instituted TOT the purpose Of
taking possession OF AMI holding Tor
hnni dlspJsliion the property OF the
deiunct corporation In tue hands NJ
receiver aud winding up III ailiiits.
To that exto { aud TO that only the de.
cree uftho supreme Court VI the Ter.
ritofy has gone"
The opinion conclude; "Thu appli.
cation Of Romuey aul othurs re-.
presenting the unincorpofatci mem.
bcrs Of the Church % Jesus
Christ ~ Lattet.day Saints, he
fully disposed OF by the considera.
tions already adduced. The prb,olpa,
question discussed has been, whether
tho property Of the Church was In such
a condition ne to authorize the govern.
ment and the court 10 take possession
Of II and hold II until II shall bu seen
what flnnl disposition oi II should be
made; and we think 10 was Ia such
condition, aud that 1t Ia properly held
IN the custody OF the receiver.
The rights Of the Church members
will necessarily be taken into consider.
alton Ia this final dlspO'ltion Of the
case. There a no ground for granting
their present application. Tho proper
" IL Ia the custody Of the law, await.
ing the judgment OF the court ~ 70 ~
final disposition In view ui the illigal
uses 10 which II IL subject in the hands
OF the Church Of Lattor.day Saints,
hotherincOrporated acknowledgements
The conditions for claiming possession
VI 1t by members OF the sect or COM
munity rnder the act do not at present
exist"
Tie court held that II was not then
called lyon to declare what deposition
ought g. be made Of the iund; that the
principal question considered ~ IL was
whether the property Of tho church
was Ia such condition as 70 authorize
the court 10 take possession o.! - by ~
receiver and hold 1t until u should be
seen what linal disposition should be
made Of u; that the property was In
the custody vi the law awaiting final
disposition by the court IN view OF the
Illegal uses tO which u WAS sub.
Jcct In the hands OF the church
authorities whether incorporated
or uuiucorpotatel that tho
conditions Tor claiming possession OF II
by the members OF the MnfmOn sect or
community di1 not then exist; That
their rights would necessarily Do taken
into consideration In the final dispo-
sition Of tho ease; and that there was
no ground for granting ,heirappliCati0n
rs then made and at that time.
Ia this there Is nothing 10 indicate
that the court understood that the
rights OF the unincOrpoialed members
OF the Church were barred by its deciec.
Ia fact the court expressly said that
their rights would necessarily be taken
into consideration Ia the hnal dis
position OF the case-fighls deter
mined 10y the decree could not DO
taken into consideration afterwards.
The case was rOmanded and the
Territorial court was directed ~ refer
the questions ne 10 The rights Of the
Church and its members nnd all Others
20 the fund 10 IA Master fOr examination
aud inquiry ~ 20 their rights under the
conditions existing at the time Of the
inquiry anu Tor this suggestion " a
scheme or mode by which IL could DO
'limiled and appointed 20 such
charitable uses, lawful In their chnTac-
ter, M might most nearly correspond 10
those 10 which 1t was originally
destined"
We cannot concur In the conclusion
OF the Master that tho Supreme court
In It's decree condemned all tho uses to
which the fund had been dedicated,
and that It torhlds the application Of
any paIt Of It to any OF them. II APP
pears from the opinion that polygsmy
was the only object that the
court found ~ be unlawful,
and we. cannot believe that 10
intended TO cOndemn all the worthy
PURPOSES OF the Church BECAUSE OF
this unlawful one. Did the virus Of
this permeate every charitable purpose
OF the Mormon peDple2 One Of the
charities 10 which this fund was appro.
priated was the assistance and relief OF
the poor OF the Church, another WINS
the erection and repsir of houses Of
worship. The decree cannot be- con.
struod TO condemn those purposes--to
condemn those qualities as vicious In
the IIatter-day Saints that we regard
as virtues IN other people.
We are Of the opinion that the decree
OF the Supreme court OF the United
States IN this cause does not forbid US
from limiting and appointing this fund
TO aly charitable use that n lawful
within the scope OF the purpose to
which 1t was originally dedicated.
We VIII now consider the two
schemes presented for our considnrs.
ton and adoption. Neither OF them
In unlawful or opposed TO public policy
or morality.
The scheme that would devote tho
iunu 10 the aid aud assistauce OF the
poor members OF the Church AMI their
iamilles aud to the erection and repair
OF its PLACES vi worship would limit It
TO objects within the scope OF the in
tentions OF its donors.
The other would devote and appoint
It to use not intended by Its donors
ami TO which II was not dedicated.
This brings M TO the question, can
the court appropriate this fund to a
charitable Object not Intended by ils
contributors aud 10 which II had not