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

purpose ui ulHilltfEt WuNiD buH ltl ulfs
ri bond has not been Given. Scciiou
1850 g-sl Revised statutes % the
United States. Under sugh statutes 10
has been frequently ue.d that the prJp.
tfty = subject 10 forfeiture on account
OF continued use Of IL, Notwithstanding
the use may have begun moro Ghnn
Eve yoar8 before the commencement
uf the action, In contemplation Ui
law the land itsUlf IL guilty, and 1t Is
the guilt Of the land that makes 70 fot.
ieitable by reason OF ils being employed
To- un unlawful uur.
Wnplul proceedings IN rem section
l75 sayt "Lands ntc forfeited Tor usU
VA coa,ravontlon " law. The viola
ton OF law by tho use Il the land is ia
some Instances 10y the owner, but not
necessarily 20. IL b. not this owuUr'H
guilt but the lanr'a guilthy its use that
renders 1t forfeit. There a. On Offending
person aud an offending thiug, but the
proceedings are against the latter" Al
section ls2, the same author Analysing
section . VI the not Of July Lot, 1862,
above cited, sayt! "rhe thing to be-
seized anu condemned II Territorial
real estate worth more that s5O, 10000.
The Ofiuuso Of tho thing iH being nc
quircd or held by the religious OF cbarl,.
rble association TO the amount forbid.
dun. The jos In ~ arises from the
contfavculiUn OF law.n We believe
this u bg q proper construction % the
statute before uni that the property
either acquired or held lu violation NJ
the law within I've years before the
commencement Of the action h. sub
Jtct 10 forfeiture.
The remaining question which
we deem u necessary 10 consider
10 whether or not tie property iu.
volvcd In this action comes within the
prOvis0 found In section . OF The uot u.
July l., 1862.
The pfoviso l. ne followG "rhat
existing vested rights iu zeal estate
shall not be- impaired by the provisions
Of this section" rhU findings OF fact
In this case show that the land In con.
trovetsy IN thishCiion WAS iirst laid out
In 1875; thou taken possession u by tbu
representatives " the Church known
as the Church OF Jesus Christ ol Lat.
tof.day Saints. THIS Church was %
voluntary sect uutil January, 10, $3.50.
when 70 was incorporated, ami That
the corporation subsequently, pJssrssct
II up to and including July I, 1862;
that buildingsAnd other improvements
Of considerable value were built there.
on by the Chufch,and that the Church
was IN the actual possession ana use oi
the property aud the improvements
thereon until the lst day OF July, 1862.
That In November, 1871, thu land was
entered under the townsitu act by the
mayor OF salt Lake CITY. That
Brigham Young, who was then Peel.
dent VI the Church, claimed the land
under the towneitu law, and u was
conveyed 10 him by tue mayor Of said
city, Us trustee for tho Church atoro-
saiu; that ~ afterwards passed by
meene conveyance n Robert r. Bur
ton, who hold tho title on The 3id day
OF March, 1857, ns ifub,ee Tor the
Church. The question arises whether
or not tnis parcel OF land IL iorio,tablo
10 tho Government Of the United
States, under section 3 NJ the Act OF
Congress Of July let, 1852, which We
have already quoted ne length Ia this
opinion. IL IN claimed by counsel for
tho government that innsmuch NJ tho
tOwnsite law had not been extended
over the Territory OF Utah nj she time
OF the passage VI this act, nor hal
the Iublic surveys been extended
the Church had not nor was II
possible Tor II to have acquired
any vested interest In the lands
la controversy at or prior 10 the time
this act took effect. That Il had no Ia.
terest which the government was
bound 10 respect. We do not deem 10
necessary TO decide whether or not
Congress had authority under the
ffun.flfufinHt "a IHWnH.t a FItHkN att.I. A.
the Church had in these lands In July,
1862. The real question ia whether or
not this act manilusts an intention on
the part Of Congress TO preserve or ig-
more that right such Ms it was. We
seriously doubt whether Congress had
that unlimited control over the
property rights OF persons upon the
public domain, which counsel for the
government ineistn upon. The city
~ Salt Lake wua founded In 1877. In
1860 tho territorial government was
organized. Congress passed tho
Organic act rad thereby extend AN
invitation 10 the citizens 0f tho gov.
eminent 10 establish their homes IN the
Territory. Undet this Invitation
citizens took up their abode here IN
great numbers prior to the passage Of
the act OF 1862. 10 was Of course undis.
putably necessary that these settlers
should found citios and villages at once
and enter into possession Of portions OF
the public domain, cultivate, build
upon ana otherwise improve the same,
Notwithstanding that Mother the
tOwnsite law, nor the public Huryeyd
had yet been extended over the Terfi-
tory. In 1862 Salt Lake CITY was
town Of several thousand families, aud
large sums had already been expended
In Buildings aud other improvements
by the Inhabitants within the corporate
limits OF the city. Now il IL claimed
that Congress had the power In
1862 TO have Withdrawn all land
within the city ffOm sale, ami 10
have driven the inhabitants VI the
city theToirOm, We think Il may
well be questioned whether such action
ON the part OF the government
would not be In violation Of
that provision OF the C1nstitu-
tiOn which ordaius that no one
shall be deprived OF his NE, liberty or
property save by due process Of law,
but II Is not necessary for Va 10 decide
this question. In our view Of this
case, " Il be- conceded that Congress
has the authority under tbs COnstitu.
ton 10 p6rpetrnie such Rn
not Of cruelty and oppression
towards its cllizens as that above
indicated, It Is certainly not 10 be- light.
~ presumed that the government con-
tumplated any such wrong or iuius'
ticu.
This brings us 10 the question OF
what 10 the meaning Of the pTOyiRo