Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-12

"ihe Church Of Jesus Christ Of Lat e
lef.day Saints held possession Of the
Iot for years until recently when the
tit.e'wus wfcstei from Il boy decision
OF Judge Philips" which is huge
error la that tho possession re-.
iorfed 10 has been held by the
pre.cnt appellants, the so-Called
| Hedrckitep, who, the dispatch again a.
sumcs 10 state, are supported ly the
M0fmous Of salt Lake CITY, "who
hope She higher court viii reverse the
decision OF Judge Philip"
The News has formerly had occa.
sion to slate that the members Of TIC
Church OF Jeaus Christ OF Lat,vr-iay
Saints, beyond desire 10 zee the laws
Of the country administered with i'm.
partialiiy and justice, have no piflic.
ular interest IN the sult referred to.
the Church is no party thereto Ia any
sense whatever auI its status can IN
no way DO affected by The cJurl's de-
cision.
The lot IN controversy was Ia 1882
acquired by Bishop Edward Partridge
fut uads furnished by members
Of tho Church, 10 DO held as
the property u the Church. Whom
the lperstoutions thickcnod AMI
the Saints were threatened with cz.
rulaion, Edward Partridge decided the
properly, 10 Is claimed, 10 three chill
dron OF oliver Cowdery. This was In
1850. The "Josephltcs0 baso their
claim ou deed Of quit claim cxccut.
ol iu 1857 by one Chnfles johnson and
bic wife, sister Of tue Cowdefy
children, while the " tlcdfickitos" claim
title hrst through a deed OF conveyance
from three Of the heir' Of T. lwati Part.
ridge and second, by ADVERSE possession.
BY a process Of logic which does not ap-
pear 10 ho distinguished for cIoafncss,
Judge Philips arrived ut the con.
clusion that the "HoIriokitez"
could not claim possession Of
the ground, while tho "JJssphltcs"
were entitled thereto bath by virtue Of
tho alleged Partridge decd 70 the
Cowdery children and as the real
successors" OF the oxiled Church and
consequently the true benoilclaries Of
the trust.
IL ia tho frat question, we suppose,
which the superior court will be asked
10 decide, tho question Of the merits Of
the legal documents on which the lill-
giants base their claim. The second Is
side issue, not Ia tho suit and Ger.
tAinly not depending on the decislo
Of n Missouri court. The question Of
true "suoceasion" h mainly one
Of history, not Of law, but to
speak Of succession 10 a church tina,
never was dissolved Ia unreasonable.
True, the Church was la early days
hatrassoi on all sides by enemies ON
tho outside aud traitors within, oil Of
whom longcd Tor an opportunity 10
crush the young organization out Of
existence. Hut II weathsrcd the
storms, growing stronger AMI stronger
a. the aiverHarlos multiplied. The
Church itself by almost unanimous
voice settled the matter Of success.
sor to tho marlyrsI Prophet long be-
fore tho "Josephite" movement was
ever ngitaied. Thi8 oimo too late
by many years to solve tho problem OF
a successor to Joseph the Prophet, and
"a 10 the idea Of succeeding tho
Church, the necessity has not yet
arisen, aud never can. Tho Church
has had an uninterrupted historical
existence since the day Of ils founda.
ton Ia 1880 and up to the present time
and will NO exist until It's glorious
mission IL fulfilled.