OCR Text |
Show Ucal purposes of the temples. Mr. Dyer asked mo what his compensation should, be as receiver, and after a careful care-ful deliberation I replied, "that he was entitled to at least tho salary of an executor." Continuing Mr. Kichards said; "Mr. Dyer again called upon me in reference to the eompensatiou he was entitled to and an understanding was reached whereby he was to demand $35,00(1-" Questioned by Commissioner Strong, the witness replied that in the discussion discus-sion of the disposal of property, he had not consulted with Mr. Dyer, who was silent in the transaction." Mr. Dyer at no time took part in the consultations, nor did Dyer's attorney, Mr. Williams. "At the last consultation it was . agreed that there should be a linal decree of WHEN DYER-MS IN. Investigating Into the Manner in Which He Conducted the Office of Receiver, , 6TIRKING UP ' OLD ' CHESTNUTS A Whiskered Story Boing Eevamped and Witnesses Tell What They Know About the Matter. the property to the government, and it was my belief then, as it is now, that wo had confiscated all the property then and now owned by the church. The solicitor general examined abstracts and titles, and as I understand it the tithing yards and temples in Logan, St. George, Manti and other places are held by ward corporations, composed of members of tho church. As far as I am concerned T feel that the government govern-ment has got all the property belonging to it in its suit against the church, llad never an understanding with the receiver re-ceiver or his attorney relative to keeping keep-ing up the litigation of suits now pending pend-ing for the recovery of property in Ogilen and other places. I have' my doubts as to property now in litigation as being church property. I would like to answer what the purposes and objects ob-jects of the corporations owning the temples at Logan and St. Geargo as now organized. The articles of incorporation incor-poration will show that," remarked the witness. Upon being taken in hand by Mr. Varian and asked for his views in reference ref-erence to the officers of tho Mormon church as to how they were chosen described tho manner in which they elected. Mr. Richards said that he hah no consultation with Mr. Peters as attorney at-torney for Mr. Dyer regarding tho disposition dis-position of the property. Adjourned until 2 o'clock. Afternoon Mention. LeGrand Young was called to the stand at 2:1.") o'clock. He said he was one of the principal attornies of tho church under the present suit. He represented rep-resented the church iu all the matters in issue, and in tho conference, as he understood it, tho realty and property of the church was to be turned over to the government and receiver under the decree. In reference to tho church farm the witness said that the transfer according to Mr. Peter's decision was transferable transfer-able to tho government, and thcGardo house, tithing oflico and tabernacle was church property and belonged to the government under Jhe decree. Regarding Re-garding cattle, sheep and , personal properly it was in a mixed shape and a compromise; wan made for $75.00(1 in cash. The witness stated that some of the property which the government had designs on was not theirs, rightfully under tho decree, and they threw it into courts to have it contested. Mr, Young then viewed tho particulars par-ticulars of the surrender, and acknowledged that any transfers or compromises made wero in harmony with tho decree. "They kept insisting," said the witness, wit-ness, "on something we did not have. We gave I hem all we had, pending the. final decree. Mr. Peters declared that certain property was owned by the church, and we insisted that it was not. Previous to the passage of the escheat law tho properly they claimed had been transferred to the stake," added the witness, "but I could not be made to believe so." Mr. Young could not remember tho dates when tho compromise was made, and when the property was turned over to tho receiver re-ceiver which he laid cluim to. For one bo fought the transfering of the Desoret Telegraph slock to the government. The witness could not express an opinion opin-ion as to whether properly the government govern-ment was entitled to the'properly that was escheated under tho decree, believing believ-ing that the people living in wards controlled con-trolled their own property and the church had nothing to do with it. There is but ono church, but many branches. They maintain a local government, but practically they are under ecclesiastical ec-clesiastical rule. "The temple is treated as distinct and personal property not controlled bv the church proper," answered Mr. Young in response re-sponse to tho iiuestion. Tho witness then enlightened tho court as to tho manner in which they deal with people who are sometimes antagonistic to the church. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Young if the investigation before Commissioner Spraguo was conducted under the authority au-thority of tho government. Mr. Young replied "Yes," and acknowledged that at tho investigation it was proven that there was certain property owned by the church which the government was entitled to and involved tho suits that followed. When this report closed at 3 o'clock Mr. Young was still being questioned by Mr. Williams. Testimony given by Frank II. Dyer, ex-government receiver of tho Mormon church at the investigation which was resumed before Special Commissioner Stone this morning, opened with a question advanced by District Attorney Varian relating to a statement made yesterday by Mr. Dyer regarding the manner in which he came in possession of the church farm by a compromise. "That was the Jordan slock farm, was it not?" interrupted Mr. Williams. "That question is foreign from anything any-thing 1 have asked'" retorted Mr. Varian, adding with some venom, "if this occurs again I'll resent it." "You cannot resent it any too soon," retaliated Mr. Williams, anil when matters mat-ters looked warlike, Commissioner Strong put in his oar and stated that he would not allow any blood shed in his presence. The district attorney then dug down into a musty heap of papers, and revived re-vived with emphasis of animus testimony testi-mony given on a previous investigation by Mr. Dyer. The witness denied that he had KiiHieiont evidence when seizing books and safes of lhe church to justify him in taking possession of lhe church farm. When ho took possession of tho farm ho had a talk with business men relative to lhe value of the farm, and he decided from views extended as to tho worth of tho farm that it was not up to the standard us reality was then having a boom. In tho matter of his compensation as receiver in tho farm matter, Mr. Dyer stated that the church withdrew opposition oppo-sition to bis claim, saying "that it made no dill ereuce to I hem (meaning the church) what was paid me." "I," said Mr. Dyer, "niade a personal solicitation to the church people to make no opposition oppo-sition to my claim. I asked them what they thought was a reasonable compensation compen-sation and they replied that 1 was entitled en-titled to anything that was reasonable." "Tho attorney general," continued Mr. Dyer, "was consulted in reference to my acts as recehor from time to time and letters sanctioning my action were received from him." "Have you-fonnd those letters'' asked ask-ed the district attorney. "I think we have. I wouldn't bo positive as to that. My clerk cau answer an-swer that I think," responded Mr. Dyer. - "Issue a subpeona for tho clerk," was tho advico given by Commissioner Stone lo tliti prosecuting attorney. "If the originals can not bo found, I will telegraph for a copy of them," volunteered the witness. "It's not necessary," spoke up Mr. Williams, "the clerk informs me that he has the letters." Mr. Varian here rested and the witness wit-ness was taken in hand by Mr. Williams. Will-iams. In response to quostons he said that he was no parly to the liual decree and was not consulted. Relating lo the' leasing of the farm Mr. Dyer stated that Mr. Wolcott was in charge of the farm as his representative during his absence from the cily. Mr. Dyer remembered re-membered how tin! interests of the church, tithing yard, etc., were seized. It was represented by threo trustees, nud the church denied ownership to any tithing yards in tho territory outside out-side of thoso in Salt Lako city. Ho asked tho supreme court in relVreuce to the leases on the property seized, and he was authorized to re-lease them. Mr, Dyer said he handled the property the sumo as ho would his own personal affairs, nud was watchful that it was not used for immoral purposes. Ho leased tho properly for the best terms possible, except the first leasing of the the church farm. District Attorney Varian took the witness in hand again, anil in answer to it question replied that tho attorneys did not wholly and solely get their information in-formation from him Tlioy secured the most of it from testimony 'furnished before be-fore Commissioner Spraguo relative to tho mailers involved. Mr. Dyer gave it as his opinion, through consultation with Mr Peters that tho attorney general gen-eral and Mr. Peters had an understanding understand-ing as to the settlement of the property, prop-erty, but as to that he would not bo ponitive as he felt he had no authority to interfere with the powers of the attorney at-torney general. Mr. Dyer stated that ho had spent the most of his time taking tak-ing care of the property he had seized, and had not reached for more. He had his hands full with what he had hold of and stated that the sheep alone would require full tho time of four receivers. The reason ho had not seized other property was that ho had it located, and could altach it at any time lie wanted to. He gavo as another reason why ho did not attach tho property in question was that he had been advised by his counsel not to do so as the question was pending a decision in the supremo court of the United States. Mr. Dyer said that he did not interfere in-terfere with any negolintionseutered into in-to between the respective lawyers of the tho church and receiver with tho attorney attor-ney general relative to the settlement of the property seized. lie also gave it as his opinion that it was a serious mistake mis-take iu seizing tho sheep, as it caused an expense over which he bail no control. con-trol. Replying to Mr. Williams, Mr. Dver stated that he made out monthly reports re-ports regarding his duties as receiver, and that they were accessible to the government authorities. The witness next described decisions of the I'nited States court relative to the sheep and property of the Mormon church, all of which has been previously published. Regarding the tillo lo the temples, Mr. Overstated that those at Logan and other places were in the names of individuals indi-viduals and were not in the name of the Saints. Mr. Varian asked Mr. Dver if ho was not aware of the fact tliat the build ings were being used for tho services of tho Mormons. Ho replied that he thought they were, but was not posi-tie. posi-tie. F. S. Richards, an attorney, next took tho stand and in response to a question said he had been one of the attorneys at-torneys for the receiver. He stated that there was certain property : claimed by tho receiver, right to which was denied bv the defendants, de-fendants, who purchased it and then turned it over to the receiver upon de- ....... , ,i i.ui in tut; receiver upon ne- maml. The witness did not know of any property belonging to tho church that had not been seized by the receiver, nor knew of tithing yards that wero being used by the church. Speaking of the temples ho said they were not church property, but were held by trustees and corooralioiis. Ho could I not annate ititelliircuUv ua. Uiu audesias- |