The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-03-07

piScS VI property nelu Dy the former,
but claimed by the later. In award
ing the land to the plaintiff. the Judge,
as will be perceived, has gone a long
way out of the straight line of the
case, and has virtually made his decis-
ion relate more to the Mormon Church
in Utah, which was not in the litiga-
ton, than TO the Hedrickite body,which
was the party defendant.
1t is singular, too, that the Judge
makes no reference to the property
rights of the Hedriclkites in the land,
seeing that they had bought and paid
for it and had held possession for over
ten years. The decision, too, that the
Josephite church was the original
Church established by Joseph Smith
is most remarkable, when it is consid-
cred that the Reorganized church as
it calls itself. had no existence prev-
Gus to 1860
The Judge refers to the assumption
of the Presidency of the Church by
Brigham Young on the death of its
founder, ignorant OF the potent fact
that the very book he cites-the Doc
trine and Covenants-provides for the
succession of the body called the Coun-
ell of the Twelve Apostles, and equal
ly ignorant of the historical fact that
it was that body, as provid-
ed. that took charge of the
Church and not Brigham Young
wnen its first President
died. Brigham Young was appointed
about three years after by vote of the
body, as provided for in the book re-
ferred to.
The statement, too, that the Doc
trine and Covenants provides for lin
cal succession in the Presidency of the
Church, sho.ys that the Judge has
merely adopted the views of the plain
tiff and has not read the book, be-
cause it contains no such provision.
The idea is utterly at variance with
the constitution of the Church there
set forth.
We mention these points to show
how the matter is regarded here by
the Mormon people, and what any
body may learn by a careful reading
of the book which the Judge cites as
his authority. We learn that is is not
the present intention of the Church
in Utah to take any steps
in relation to the property involved in
the suit. But the Kansas City Star
states that the defendants that is,
the Hedrickite church-win carry the
case to higher court
The Utah Mormon Church. which
has an unbroken line of continuance
since April 6, 1880, has not been in any
way party to the suit and has had
no opportunity to present its claims
which Judge Phillips has taken occa-
sion to attack and decide upon. 1t is
therefore a most extraordinary deci-
sion, contrary to well known historical
facts, and unjust in that it renders a
judicial opinion on a matter intended
to affect the status of an important
body upon a one-sided state
ment and without any opportunity
given to that body 10 present its
claims.
Following is the opinion of Judge
Phillips as it appears in the Times:
''The theory of the complainant is
that this property was acquired ORR
ginally with church funds, and was
ana is held in trust for the use of the
church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints. which later took the name of
the 'Reorganized Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints This
according to its ecclesiastical
policy, rules and system of govern
ment, at its annual general conference
April s, 1891, directed and authorized
the articles of association and incor-
poration. This conference represented
the ecclesiastical body in its entirety.
And as stated in the deposition of
Bishop Kelly, the church Ct Lamont.
Ia, effected the articles of incorpora-
ton, because that is the central
church, and all others are sinplv
branches of that church.
THE property in question was ori-
ginally acquired by an agent of this
church for the purpose of erecting
thereon a temple designed to be the
New Jerusalem of this religious order.
from which the eyes and yearning de-
sires of this people, through sixty
years OF exile and wandering, have
never been turned nor diverted. To
them it has been as The New Jerusa-
the Moslem.
For sixty-two years it has been
known to this sect and the people of
western Missouri as the Temple lot
on which, in the fullness of time and
the fulfillment of prophecy, was TO be
erected splendid temple for the
gathering Of the believers for religious
and eXaltation.
Whether the two and a half acres
contained in this lot be more than is
necessary for the erection Of such a
temple is a question the court would
not undertake to determine on this
collateral proceeding Such question
belongs to the state.
Was this property in its acquisition
impressed with a trust IN favor of
said church? AS both PARTIES claim
lnder EDWARD Partridge, both are pre-
Guided from making any ether source
Of title, and it is only necessary to in
1uire into the character of this tenure.
Although the deed to Partridge did not
on its face express any trust estate.
the legal title may be impressed with
I use for third person by evidence
aliunde.' That he bought this pro-
oerty with funds contributed by the
members of the church, and held the
title in recognition of the trust is too
clear to my mind to admit Of debate.
IN the first place it's acquisition by him
was in fuIfllment Of the revealed vii!
If God, as accepted by him as a mem
Der of the church, in the Book of Doc
.rine and Covenants
HE was a, bishop of the central
,hurch. then at Kirkland Q. AS such