The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-07-08

TIE SRII LANE
cred than the truth. You emit cover
~ up and say we won't disclose. and
they can tell the truth and answer this
complaint"
Nr. Richards Takes a Hand.
Replying to the argument F, S. Rich
ARDS stated: "It was said by counsel
that we are trying to prevent an an
SWer and that we shield ourselves be-
mind a cloud OF technicalIties / just
want TO disclaim any such intention.
he says all tho conclusions that are
conclusions OF law and not statements
or TACT are all right, that II WAS all
captlous. We have not got to state
when Joseph F. Smith was appointed.
we are not obJecting to that; but we
are objecting TO allegations OF this
character that the trustee can do this
MS trust to do something else.
we have nothing to answer, Coun-
sci says that the purpose OF this action
is 10 get an injunction against the trus-
tees OF the church. to enjoin them
from misapplying the funds OF the
church He says they are violating
the trust and must be enjoined What
is the trust that they arc violating7
Your honor has held that trust must
DO alleged, that the terms of this trust
must be shown, that the court could
not determine that there was a viola
tion of the trust until the court found
out what the terms OF the trust were"
Wants Rule of the Church.
, Taking up tho question Of the pay
ment OF tithes, Mr. Richards con-
tinued.
''If the law or rule Of the church is
shown under which these contributions
have been made then the court might
presume that the contributions had been
made for the purpose stated In the law
OF the rule of the church. That would
seem to be a very simple matter. Coun-
sci says the church has not made any
rules as to the manner In which the
fund should be disposed of, or the pur-
pose for which II shall be used but
these contributions are required accord
Ing to a doctrine or rule OF the church.
What is that doctrine or rule? That is
the thing your honor pointed out, 1t
does not appear here. II It did appear
1t might be shown what the purposes
were for which these contributions were
made.
Nothing to Answer.
What is this case as we have 1t to-
day? The complaint simply alleges this.
When you come to throw out ell these
conclusions as to what is lawful and
unlawful, contrary TO public policy.
and come right down to the facts, we
have this. That according to doc
trine and rule OF the church the MEM
bers are required TO pay one-tenth OF
their gains and incomes, and that they
have 50 paid these TO the bishops, who,
IN turn, paid them to the presiding
bishop. and thus they reached the trus-
tee and that he has invested some of
these contributions In schools. sugar
companies. banks, and because the
trustee has made those investments
this court is to find that there IL
been a violation of the trust l SUI
NIT. IL your honor please. that there
would be absolutely no justification ON
the part of the court to ask us to
answer any such thing as that, for
there is nothing In It to answer.
Question Of Public Policy.
Then counsel says II Is against pub
lie policy. There is no allegation In
this complaint that there has been any
investment made In violation OF any
law Of this State or that any Of the
trustees have ever appropriated one
dollar to their own individual use. No
such claim Is made, They have sim
ply invested in these stocks, and that
is not contrary TO public policy and a
violation Of the trust. II 1t is con-
trary to public policy what law or stat
ute Is It against? He cites a statute
providing for corporations or assocIa-
tions not for pecuniary proht. and he
says that makes IL against public pol
| ICY Because the Legislature has pro-
yided that associations desiring TO In
corporate not for pecuniary profit may
| Incorporate In a certain way. therefore
| IL Is against public policy for q nom
| incorporated association to purchase
stock In any mercantile or banking In
stitutions, Suppose a secret society
Odd Fellows or Masons-havng money
| on hand and desiring TO obtain the
| best interest that they could. was to
| invest In the stocks Of some Of these
| banks. that il would be contrary to
public policy because that association
might incorporate not for pecuniary
purposes2 The church IS not incor-
porated. but because II would be possi-
BILE under that statute TO incorporate IL
is against public policy, 1t seems to
me that that borders very closely on
the absurd. and 1t is not worth serious
discussion
Judge Zane-May / ask a question?
Do you consider these tithes and these
donations received as an endowment
for the church TO be held for the en-
dowment of schools?
Mr.. Richards-Judge. we are trying
to get you to show just what the
character OF these donations or con-
tributions are. l am not here to say
what these contributions are: when the
time comes we will answer. But we
want to know the terms OF the trust
and the terms Of the violation OF the
trust,
Judge Zane-The point ! wanted to
make is, do you hold that II is held
as On endowment for a school. Schools
can be endowed and the trustee may
invest that endowment for the purpose
of preserving the fund in the meantime
and make ii productive? But 1t Is not
so here
Mr., Richards-You may treat this In
the nature Of an endowment, l don't
care how you treat It, but i want to
be shown the violation OF the trust.
and until you do that we are not re-
auired 10 answer, And we are not
standing behind any cloud Of trivieli-
ties or technicalitics, We arc standing
on our rights. We are not asking any