OCR Text |
Show Jill. VARIANT REVIEW. The Statin of Church Litigation as Sum-niaritd Sum-niaritd by the United Statei Attorney, A EEOEIVEB A BIS EXPEKSE. The Costs of the Administration About 17 Per Cent of the Sum Realised Value of Eicheats. The report of Attorney General Miller Mil-ler has been submitted. It contains a number of interesting chapters, conspicuous con-spicuous among them being that which incorporates the report of Mr. Varian, thn I'niti'il Shid'S Mttornei'. 011 ths mat- I In No. 7505 ((iardo house and historian's histor-ian's ottice), that the real estate was occupied oc-cupied as a parsonage or bouse for the president of the church, and was so connected with church property, which was used exclusively for the worship of God, as to be exempt, etc. Jn No. 7503 (tithing yard, etc), that the church as a "voluntary association'' owned the property prior to the enactment enact-ment of July 1, 18B3. In both cases it is averred that the church is au association for religious and charitable uses and purposes, and has the right to hold such property, through trusteea, to bo used for such purposes, and in both the limitations prescribed by section 1047 of the Revised Re-vised .Statutes is relied on. I am informed in-formed the same matters substantially will be relied on in case No. 75U4, (church farm, and coal lands.) The manner and time of the acquisition acquisi-tion of (bis property by the church is set out in tlm tin Jin lm and decree, a best to investigate tho temple proper ties and titles at Manti and St. George? Findings numbers 14 and 15 proposed by the United States (see inclosed report) re-port) sufficiently explain my views in this connection. There are several parcels of realty which the present receiver is convinced was the property of the church. The proof, of necessity, must be made by lioBtile witnesses who have a real personal per-sonal interest in defeating the government. govern-ment. The determination of these matters will f necessity be expensive and the result uncertain. Since the foregoing was written I have tiled exceptions to the examiner's report, and enclose a copy herewith. Very respectfully, Chas. S. Varian, United States Attorney, ATTOKNEr-GKSKKAL, Washington, D. C. ter of church escheatment. 1 submit herewith, says the attorney general, a report of the United States attorney for L'lah giving somewhat in detail the history and present condition of the litigation, commenced under the act of March 3, 1887, with reference to the property of the mormon church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund company. com-pany. It is of course well known that the decree of the supreme court of Utah in favor of the government was affirmed at the last session of tho supreme court, but thn opinion is w ithheld for the consideration con-sideration of some motions on behalf of the appellants for a moditication of the decree. , In explanation of the statements iu tho report of the district attorney I beg to state that the suits referred to in his report as noeespary to bo commenced before tho Hith day of December next have been instituted. Steps will be promptly taken to carry out the other suggestions made in the report anil te bring said litigation to a conclusion as soon as practicable. The report is then submitted as follows: fol-lows: Exhibit Q. Report of thn Attorney of tho United Stales for the district of Utah uuon the status of the Mormon record of which yon have, and you are referred thereto for further information as to the sufficiency of these defenses. You will observe that the next step to be taken in these proceedings will be the filing of complaints or information against the property and the claimants by the attorney-general, ami that the same should be dune before December 10th. The values of these parcels of realty are stated in the decree, but property has very greatly appreciated stuco. The receiver brought actions in the First district court at Ogden to recover the possession of certain realty as follows: fol-lows: No. 1030, against David M. Stewart et al., to recover a parcel about 20 rods square in block 1. plat A, Ogden city, known as the Tithing yard. No. 107a. against R. J. Taylor and Lewis W. Shuitliff. to recover lots 8 and I) in block 8, plat B, Ogden city, being 2 acres of land, known as "Tabernacle grounds." No. 1071, against Robert M. Quarris and the Church association of Weber Stake of Zion. to recover the greater part of block 40, plat A, Ogdeu city, known as the ShurtlifT residence. Tbe city of Ogdeu has intervened in cases Nos. 1030 and 1671. claiming title in the first as a bona tide purchaser, and in tho second by dedication to pub- Church litigation. Okkice oc 1 United Status Attounky for Utait, V Salt Lake Cut, Oct. 27. 1800. ) Sir In responee to yourrequost contained con-tained in your dispatch of the 22d. in-Mant in-Mant 1 hereby submit the following statement of the so-called Mormon litigation. liti-gation. On July 80, A. D. 1887, the United States by its attorney general tiled its bill in the supreme court of the territory terri-tory against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ai:d certain alleged al-leged trustees and others, under the provisions of section 17 of the act of congress of March 3, 1887. At the same time another bill was filed against the Perpetual Emigration Fund company and trustees, under the provisions of section 15 of the act, supra. On Nov. 7, 1887, the United States marshal, Frank H. Dyer, was appointed appoint-ed as receiver aud qualified 111 both cases. In the case against tho 'Emigration Fund company, no monies aud very little property are reported as coming into the hands of the receiver. On Jan. , 1888, he made a report showing the property coming into his hands to consist of an office safe, desk, books of account, and a number of promissory notes. Of these last those not barred by the statute of limitations aggregate iu face value, as reported, the sum of $3,171.40. 'o real or estimated value is given. On February 15, 188S, (he only other report made by the receiver was filed, and shows the receipt by him of 1311 shares of Parowan co operative stock raising company, par value $1 per share. The reafor estimated value not given. The expenses of the receiver are stated at $72 and vouchers exhibited. exhibit-ed. As no further attention has been paid by the receiver or the court to this case I assume that there were practically practic-ally no assetts and its consideration may be dismissod. h or your information I may add that, as I understand it, the Emigration Fund company was accustomed to advance to emigrants money for passage and expenses, taking notes, etc., for the repayment. re-payment. The notes mentioned iu the receiver's report are doubtless of this class, and the debtors being probably poor persons and widely scattered throughout the territory it was con- 111: use. Tho property involved in the three cases is estimated to be worth in the aggregate over $250,000. The opinion of counsel for the present receiver, John A. Marshall, Esq., is that the city has no claim; that the receiver will probably recover in case .No. 1072 No opinion expressed to No. 1071. These cases are at issue, and, 1 am informed, will be pressed for trial by the receiver. I should here state, perhaps, that the counsel for the church claim (and have so testified in a hearing upon a reference refer-ence of tho former receiver's accounts and acts) that there was au agreement between the former district attorney and the former solicitor-general aud themselves that those actions iu the First district oowt should be dismissed and that this was-in part an inducement to tho church solicitors to sign the statement state-ment of facts before referred re-ferred to. Mr. Williams, the attorney for the former receiver, emphatically disclaims any knowledge knowl-edge of such agreement, and I am informed in-formed by Mr. Marshall that the former district attorney has written him to the same effect. However, an application to file aniended answers setting up the decree of the supreme court as final and a bar and this alleged oral agreement as a bar has been deuied. There is a suit pending in the Third district court against the receiver, in whiph Mary R. Iliff, as complainant, brought suit to quiet title to a part of lot 4. block 80, plat B, Salt Lake city survey. This suit will not be defended, as the receiver makes no real claim. On the 13th day of July, 18 j(), the court directed the reciver to makeafull report of his doings, and appointed J. H Rnsborough, Esq., as special examiner exam-iner to examine and report thereon. On July 5 the receiver tiled his report, re-port, ami objection having been made by the receiver to Mr. Rosbormigh, on t-ie 15th of July Marshall N. Stone, Esq., was appointed. The examiner proceeded to tako testimony, tes-timony, and aftr a full and prolonged examination tiled. Ids findings and report. re-port. I incloso copy of the orders of reference and copy of the report of the examiner, which you will observe present pre-sent also the findings proposed by the United States. Iu due time I shall file exceptions to such part of the report and refusal to find as I deem necessary. In the meantime, on the 10th of July, the receiver resigned and his resigna- tSitn uraia a irtart ttii w i t K (ha 11c 11 al ruLar. ceived impracticable to attempt collection. collec-tion. But to resume the history of the main case. On October t. 18"H, the receiver having gathered ami reduced to possession posses-sion personal and real property, the solicitors so-licitors for tho United Stales and the defendants agreed iu w riting to certain facts, among other things specifying certain personal and real property then in the possession of the receiver, and stating the time and mauner of its acquisition ac-quisition by the defendant, the late cor-p cor-p oration, and also setting out fully the alleged titles and claims of the other defendants to certain portions and paa-cels paa-cels of said property. This statement also sets forth that block 87, plat "A." Salt Lake City survey, sur-vey, known as tho "Temple Block." since l!48 had been used "exclusively for the purpose of the worship of God according to the doctriues aud tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Dav Latter-Dav Saints." Afterwards, on the fctb vation, and Henry W. Lawrence appointed, ap-pointed, who immediately qualified by giving bond in the sum of $300,000. The receiver has sold the sheep in his possession by order of the court, aud tho personal property iu his possession October 1st, and the value thereof may be stated as follows: 47.'ia shares of D 'ieret telegrnph stock inn prcneltt value). (W) shares of city gas stock, par value ftui i 8.rwo.nn Caih on h uid In various banks A si .'. "3 Credits due on sheep L',u0.uu Total 381,812.K3 The rents of the realty in his possession posses-sion hereintofore mentioned amount to $1000 monthly. In the final report of the former receiver mention Is made of certain parcels of realty in Nebraska, and the opinion ventured that steps should be taken to recover the same, its value being stated at $25,000 or $35.-000. $35.-000. The present receiver submitted the abstracts of title to Mr. J. F. Gardner Gard-ner of Omaha, recommended as a lawyer law-yer of repute and standing, w ho re- day of October, 1x88, 'hidings aud decree de-cree w as entered in pursuance of the said agreed statement, and subsequently subsequent-ly an appeal was taken and the cause determined in the supreme court of the United States. This decree you have in the record on appeal, and it is unneces-I unneces-I sary to further allude to it except to direct di-rect atteution to the fact that it sets apart the entire "Temple Block," 10 acres in all, to the defendant church as property excepted in the act of congress, con-gress, aud to the question of its finally. in the meantime the United States had tiled informations in the district court for the third district, to escheat or forfeit certain of the realty specitied in the decree, as follows, to-wit: October 8, 188. against property generally known as the tithing yard and office. File No. 7503. No. 7504, against 1000 acres and one turned his opinion adverse to the claim of the receiver and the United Stales. I have examined his opinion and fully concur with him in the conclusion reached. The abstracts an4 opinion will be forwarded for-warded to you for your investigation should you deem it necessary. The foregoing w ill, Lthink, sufficiently advise ad-vise you of the condition of affairs. It only remains for me to specially direct ! your attention to some matters which seem to me to be of pressing moment. By reference to paragraph 4 of the examiner's report you will ascertain that up to July 15, 1800, the expenses of the administration amounted to $54,-021 $54,-021 80. about 17 per cent of the sura realized. re-alized. The court has heretofore ap- undivided half of 100 acres, all known as the "Church Farm." No. 7505, against property generally known as "(iardo House" and "Historian's "Histor-ian's Oibco." Monition to claimants was issued, published, pub-lished, recorded and filed. On December 0, 1888, and before the return day certain claimants appeared specially and noticed motions to dismiss dis-miss the several proceedings on various grounds including the alleged want of jurisdiction. These motions were not brought on until September 10, 1800, when they were oerruled. Subsequently in two of the cases certain cer-tain claimants to the property appeared j and set up their claims. It is expected that claimants in the third cane will shortly appear. Time hss been given the United States in which to tile complaints com-plaints or informations against the property, and the respective claimants until December 17, 1110. The defenses iu these cases as evideuced by tbe clainies already filed ai; 1 ", , - or',; - proved every expenditure and, that is the end of it. But it would seem desirable de-sirable to close this business, as soon as possible, as it seems to me that a receiver re-ceiver is too expensixe a luxury for the fund. In this connection would it not be prudent to determine at once the effect of the decree, and whether the receiver can proceed to take possession of other property should any be discovered? If the decree is final in this regard there is no use in keeping a receiver and his counsel as an annex to the fund. The cases against the realty can be pressed and determined and the fund can be paid into the registry of the court, there to remain until congress provides for it. Moreover, in my judgment, no other personalty will be discovered. Further, Fur-ther, can the attorney-general proceed, under section 13 of the act of 1887, to institute proceedings lo forfeit and escheat other realty (if any) subject to be escheated, and il to, would it be |