The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1906-08-09
ZION IN THE HANDS
OF A RECEIVER
Continued on Page Two).


gregated in some years $25O,OOO; that
Dowie had not sought to amass a pri-
waite fortune; but that he engaged in
secular occupation in aid of the pro-
pagation of his religious doctrine, as
Dowie expressed it, For God and HUI
mainly"
The court then said:
1T is well recognized principle of
equity that where a person accepts
money or property to be used by him
for the benefit of some other person or
persons, or for the advancement of
some lawful enterprise, such money or
property constitutes a trust estate.
The inquiry then is. did these offer
ings come to Dowie for his private
purposes or did the contributors intend
that the funds should be devoted to
charitable or religious purposes? If
for any other purpose than the purely
personal benefit of DOwie. the estate
is trust. 1t is the duty of the court
to get at the substance of the thing.
and in ascertaining the purpose of the
gift the court is not limited to an in
spection of documents or other specific
declarations of the parties made at
the time. If their relation is one Of
confidence, or if he who receives the
money is in a position of influence
over him who gives the money, as, for
instance, if the person receiving the
money is the advocate of a religious
faith and by word and attitude and en-
vironment induces a conviction in the
minds of large numbers of people, that
as an instrumentaHty of divine au-
thority he can and does relieve phys
zeal ills and is clothed with power to
exert an influence upon the spiritual
welfare of men and women, who there
upon give him of their lands and goods
surely the motive of such gift ought
not long to remain a matter of doubt
in the minds of rational men
AS to who should be receiver, the de-
cision says:
1T is strongly intimated by Voliva
and his associates that the defendant
Granger be continued in charge. This
appointment, it is asserted, is an abb
solute necessity. I do not concur in
this proposition Waving all ques-
ton as to Changers unfitness from
the standpoint of his ability, some time
ago he took vow, from which l quote
the following:
4 vow in the name of God. my
Father and of Jesus Christ, His son
and my savior, and the Holy Ghost
that I recognize John Alexander Dowie
general oVerseer in his threefold pro-
phetic office as a messenger of the
covenant, the prophet foretold by Mos
es and Elijah, the restorer; and l pro-
mise to obey all rightful orders issued
by him, and that all relations to all
human lives shall be held subordinate
to this vow. This make in the pres
ence of Cod"
The court says of this vow:
1T is not my duty to express my
contempt for the man that could eX-
tract or take this oath. But I am not
obliged to repose my confidence in a
man so constituted that living in this
republic, he would serenely vow his
readiness at all times to abandon his
family and betray his country. 1 VIII
not appoint Alexander Granger. And
in this connection, while / make no
pretense to technical learning in re-
spect to what is good policy for this
church organization, I suggest that
whoever ultimately prevails in the ec-
cleslastical controversy, give prompt
and serious consideration to the ques-
! ton whether or not such an oath tends
to give respectability to the church, and
whether the church may justly expect
court of the United states to long
continue to foster a trust estate for the
use of a religious organization whose
conscience and intelligence does not
cause an unconditional disavowal and
| abandonment of the oblis alton of this
| loyalty.
The court said that hy would pro-