Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-07-09

statute and must keep within the linz
It's OF the laws under which they are
created This rule has no application
10 unlucorporated societies or assOcia-
tons, whether religious or otherwise.
They can lawfully do things that cor
porations cannot do, because they are
not restricted by articles Of lncUrpor-
alton and the statutes governing them.
NOT UNLAWFUL.
There is no law In this state that
makes II unlawful for an unincorporat-
ed Church or other voluntary associa-
ton 10 invest In the stocks OF leglu-
maize secular business enterprises. and
50 long as the business ~ not contrary
to good morals or suhyerslye OF good
government a Is not contrary TO public
policy There is no allegation IN The
complaint that any 81 the enterprises
In which the defendants have invested
Church funds are not legitimate con-
Germs The question Is one of law-the
legal right Of the Church 10 invest rs
surplus funds in tlf stocks Of COM
mercial and Industrial enterprises IN
the opinion OF counsel for the plaintiffs
ID may b. iu bad taste and poor policy
FOR the Church 10 make such invest
ments bat he court has no jurisdiction
tp consider whether "a is good or bad
taste The Church officials themselves
are tho sole judges Of that and their
action cannot be reviewed by the court
so long as Il is within the scope Of the
law ANA iEcIr duties as trustees. Be-
fore they can be called 20 account. the
terms Of their trust must be shown,
and 10 must appear that they have act
ca iu violation Of H. The complaint does
not show anything Of this kind. and
Therefore 10 does not state a cause Of
action
WHEN DIsINCORPORATED.
Counsel for the plaintiffs insist that
the property ~ a church. when dis
Incorporated, becomes the property OF
the members n the church. and refers
40 length to the case Of the United
States W.. the Late Corporation o. the
Church II Jesus Christ OF Lattcr-day
Saints But he seems 10 overlook the
fact that, IN that very case. although
certain members " the Church inter-
venod FOR themselves and other men,
bers II the Church. claiming that they
We're entitled 20 the properly IN case
hi corporation was dissolved. It was
held by the supreme court Of this state
that they had NO legal claim or title
IN and % the property. and their
application was denied. subsequently,
Congress passed a resolution giving
the property back O. the Church and
placing u IN the hands Of trustees. and
II was this act u Congress that limited
the use OF the property 90 the pur-
poses therein stated. and not the terms
OF the original trust Congress claim
ed and exercised the right as the do
nor Of this fund. 10 impose these limi-
tatlons and restrictions upon H.
WHAT CHURCH WAS For.
The briefs Of counsel for The Church
NJ that ease arc referred 10 and cited
Tor The purpose Of showing that they
claimed that tho church was an as
ISOLATION FOR religious and charitable
uses There has never been any dis
pute on that point so FAR as the defend
ants are concerned. u is and always
has been asserted that the Church Is
"a religious ami charitable institution.
but Il IS also commended that Il has
Tho legal right 10 invest IT'S surplus
funds IN any lawful, legitimate manner.
including the purchase ~ the stocks OF
commercial or industrial enterprises.
ana mat ny 80 long II does not violate
any law or principle Of public policy
As The plaintiffs case now stands II
rests solely upon tho contention of
counsel that the trust has been violated
by reason 81 The investments which
the church has made I'm such enter
prises. and II being apparent that
there il no justification IN law Tor This
contention, his whole theory falls "a
he ground, and the case stands as II
did on the former demurrer. with a
complaint before the court that does
moi state a cause ~ action.
In conclusion counsel asked the
court 20 consider the brief which he
had filed on the former hearing. and
said that he relied upon an the points
and authortties presented therein.
Judge Morse took the case under adj
yisemcnt