Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-08-31

ucllHu Mnlcu AnN law rec 'NulErI anu
such bs the courts Of the government
w0ul enforce aui protec. IL haI a
flgt OF possession which the court
would have enforced against any one
who disturbed it iu i,s possession. u
hal an interest such NJ 1t could vucum-
Ter ny way OF mortgage, aud the
FCIornl courts would have enforced
the mortgage. 10 had nn Interest such
t8 10 could contract g. soil ami convey,
and specific Performance Oi such con.
tract would have been enforced by the
courts.
scc Strlngiellow Va Gaines United
SinlVs 90.
HuSey vs. Smith, % United States
page 80.
Lamb W.. Davenport, Is Wal, 500.
An examination Of these cases will
show that according 90 the rule rttab'
iishoi IN the Supreme Court of the
United States, II In 1891 the Church
had ontured iuio a contract with ono
then au occupant oi ,hv tithing house
property for the purchase thereof, upon
"a proper tonder being nade, the vendor
had refused 10 convey, hccoufts Of the
United States would have compelled
a conveyance, or had the Church rcius'
ed TO accept n conveyance aud make
payment according 10 contract, the
vendor could have had decree ouiorc.
ing payment. Suppose the Chusch
had acquired the Interest which 10 hal
In the tiihiug house property at tue
time Of the passage " the act ot 1852 In
the manner just suggested, " " clear
that % would have had no better OF
greater Interest or right than 70 Ia fact
had nt that lime. Aud yet " thu con
tcuii0n gi counsel Tor the Government
II correct, the same court which rem
defrd the decree enforcing such con
tract npaiust the Chuch would be
compelled also 10 hold that the Church
had no estate OF interest IN the property
vested or otherwise. In tie case Of
Lamb vo, Davenport, is Wal. 8U1, the
de.vnIant Davenport had acquired
possession uy purchase NJ certain lots
upon public lands OF the United Siaton
Va tho city Of Portland, Oregon. After
the title had been perfected the owner
Of the tit!o undertook 20 recover tbo
property, Davenport defended upon
the gl0uud that lie was the equitable
owner Nj. Justice Miller I'm deliver.
ing the opinion u tho court says. "Ihe
equity which Davenport sets up IN his
CfOts bill arises from transactions au-
tOcUuout 20 the issur Of the patent Ger.
tihcaic ~ LIwnsdnie, aud Indeed an.
iuccicnt IN tho enactment %
the Donation law " Congress,
under which LownsiAlc'B title Utigi.
mated. 10 is not necessary 10 Tccito
in THIS opinion all OF those trans-
actions. II IL sufficient here to cay
that several years before any net Of
Congress existed by which title to the
land could hr acquired, settlement ON
aud oultiyAti0noi large tract Of lands,
which includes the lots in,cOntroveby,
had been made aud u town laid Oh Into
lots and lois sold, and That these arc n
past VI the present city OF Portland. OF
course no legal title vCtted In any one
by these proceedings, tor that remained
Ia the United Statrr, all VI which was
well known and undisputed, but II was
equally we'll known that these posses.
sorry rights and Improvements placed
on the soil were by the policy OF tho
government generally protected, 10 Tar
ut least 40 TO give priority Of the right
TO purchase whenever the land was
offered for sale and where no special
reason existed to the contrary. And
though these rights or claims rested ON
no statute or any positive promise the
general recognition Of them In the cad
ny the government and ~ disposition
10 protect the murlt0fiOuu actual settlers
who were the pioneers OF emigration
In the now territories, gave decided
aud well understood value 10 these
elaine" And no we hnd hero; the
possossOry rights OF the several oocu.
pants, including the Church, OF lots In
the city oil salt Lake, together with
the improvements thereon at the time
Of the passage Of this set Of 1869, had
well understood value. And II was
this valuable estate or interest which
Congress Intended TO preserve unim.
paired by the pgoylso OF section 3 OF
the act " July LIT. IL IL evident that
II was not the Intention OF the govern
mout by its legislation 10 disturb OF Ia
any manner interfere with any inter-
est, Whatever the nature thereof might
be, which mad been acquired prior 10
the passage OF the act. The act looked
to the future only; this much Ia nppa-
rent from the lace Of II. 10 We
look TO the debates inCougreHs upon the
passage Of the law, We find that such
was uuquesliOnubly the general pur-
pose OF the trainers Of this act. Section
3 Oi tho act was an amendment re-
ported by tie judiciary committee OF
the Senate 10 the House bill. In the
Congressional Globe Oi 1852, page 1906,
will DO found the statement Of senator
Baygrd OF that committee, In report
Ing this section without quoting his
language Il II sufficient 10 say that lac
declares clearly the purpose OF Con.
gross 90 to prevent the Church from
acquiring any other or further
property than that II then possessed,
except II be within the Limitation OF
the section. We are aware of the fact
that the arguments OF Legislators In de.
bato on the passage OF a law cannot DO
TCsorted TO for tho purpose VI giving a
meaning 10 the terms found In the
statute, but they may be resOrted TO In
gsCeTtaining the general object OF the
legislative enactment
SEQ opinion OF Justice Field In Ali
kow Va NoOnan, o Sawyer, $50.
Again, this iB penal statute, anu ao-
cOrding tOa fundamental rule Of inter.
probation It In 10 DO strictly construed
against the government, and II IL to be
llDerally construed Ia favor Of the
person or corporation sought 10 be
charged with IT. penalties. AZ was
said la Chase W. n. Y. Central Il. Il,
Co., 20 N. Y. 525: sin statutes giving
penalty, II there ue reasonable doubt OF
the case made upon tho trial or Ia the
plealinga coming within the statutes,
the party OF whom the penalty IL
claimed IL 10 have tho benefit Of such
doubt" Now II this prOviso liz not
Intended TO preserve anu protect lust
.eurh IA RIGHT MS the Church hau In