| OCR Text |
Show CHURCH PROPERTY. Able Armament of Eon. James 0. Broadbead IiriORE A HOUaE COMHIITLE. Injustice of Ibe Edtinnds Snpplc-nralil Snpplc-nralil Bill. Tlie IVrprlnallon or Climrlllrs C-lrMrljr Cxtlnetl. Following is the full text or the argument made by Hon. James O. liroadhead against the Kdmunds supplemental bill and in favor of leaving the disposition of the i.r-sonal i.r-sonal jruirty of the Church, now in the hands of the receiver, to the supreme Court of the United tatates The committee met, pursuant to call of chairman, at lttSJ a.m. The committee having under consideration con-sideration .Senate bill 4047. entitled "An act supplemental to the act of Congrets passed in March, 1SST, entitled en-titled 'An act to amend au act, en-titled en-titled "An net to amend section 5352 of the Itevised Statutes of the fjnlt-e-d States, in reference tu bigamy, and for either purposes," approved Marcli 22, ISsJ," this day heard argument of Judge James O. liroadhead, liroad-head, of at loul Jlr Hroadhead said. Mr. Chairman Chair-man and gentlemen of tlie committee, commit-tee, b your leave and courte-sy I appear before you tills morning to give sume reasons why the bill which I hold in my hand, which jassed tlie Senate, ought net to become be-come a law. I will read the bill as it lias only one section and as I do not believe the committee has directed di-rected its attention to it The bill is as follows N CT opplcmcuul to the act ot Con fro" atcl in llirch, eufttecn lics-lr4 lics-lr4 ni elirtitr ieTcn. -An act to amem! aa act entitled n act to amend tecuon bRt three hundred and ftr two of tne lncd utate ot tbe Untied Unti-ed cum in nrlcrcncc to Ujaar and for otlier D&rnoe- innmtri vfsn-s twcnij cconu, eihticn tandred xnJ cijtr twa" fit it cancrf, rtc That an y and all tandi orueriropcnrUxelrbeloFKiBrto or In the isMtekSHtn of or claimed by lae corpor aun mentioned la ecun seventeen o the actenuUed-Anatt to amend an actenu Led 'An act to amend lection flftj three bandied and filly two of the Ucused sta tules of the Lnnel states. In reference to bijramj.and for other parHes, aiprored larch twenty second, eighteen hundred and eighty two,- at, before, or unce the Ukinccacctot said act, eiceptaotaraait ahali appear in re, pen thereto that thero i a Uwlul nrate right to lbs contrary shall le devoted to the ttte and beneet ol public pub-lic common rchools In the Territory ot Ltih. and the secretary ot the Interior ahall tale and receive tne sue and diapose thereof to the c-e aforejald in aucfa man ner a shall seem to him. with the approval of the I'rtfKeat. to be moft expedient. And the tupreme eosrt ot aid Terntory la hereby inverted with power and aulhonly to make all necessary and proper orders andderrees for the purpose bereinbelwre menuoned. Itellev ing it w ill be necessary to give a brief hi-torj of what took place before the introduction of this bill into the Senate, I will state I was engaged as counsel in the case which was argued and submitted and decided by the Supreme Court of the United bUtc, involving im of the questions to which 1 shall direct your attention. Hut I ulllsav tlils-that I do not ask that ain action tliat mi) lie taken by this committee- shall coutravene any doctrine or any decision made b the&uiirenie Court rf iIim r7nlfTi states witli reference to this matter, but what I ask is strictly in accordance ac-cordance with tlie doctrine laid dowiil Judge HraJlrv in his o in-ion in-ion in that ca- III lba2 the Congress of tlie United Unit-ed -states passed tlie first antl joljg-amy joljg-amy bill. I liave a copy of the third se-ctlou of that act in no brief before the supreme Court. Tlie third section ot tliat act i rovided That it shall not be Uwf nl for any eorpor. atioa or astociauon for relipous or char-iiaUe char-iiaUe Miriioes to acquire or hold real es tale tn any Territory ot the Lulled -tales dunnc the existence of the Territorial sr crnmcot of a rrea er value than filly tnou sand dollats, and au real estate acquired or held I y any such corporation or association contrary to tho provisions of this act shall be fondled and escheat to tho tmted 'tales JVrrfcfaf. That existing vested rights in reil estate shall not be impaired by the provisions of this section Tliat is the first statute of mortmain mort-main ever passed t.j the Congress of the United states. I reaJ that lor the txirpose of referring to the provisions pro-visions of the act of lsjT, uuder which tlie proceedings wereiHstl luted before the supreme court of tlie Territory of Utah for the jwr-li-e of dissolving the corjioration called the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Chri-t of .Latter-da) saints, which had been incorporated as early as lsi)andmalntaineu its cor-(urate cor-(urate existence about thirty live vearsor more, and tills act purtorts to dissolve tliat corporation, aud that the supreme court of tlie 1 rri-tory rri-tory of Utah shall take charge of the property belonging to the corporation corpora-tion and dlsiose ot it according to law Uuder tliat act tiroce-eeliugs were instituted by the attomev. general and judgment finally rendered ren-dered by the supreme court of the Territory of Utah by which they decreed tliepersoual proirty.wlilch is now the matter in coniroversr here, should escheat to the United states. Thedecision of the Supreme Court of tilt United states oil that question overruled the decision of the Tenl-tonal Tenl-tonal court, taking the ground tliat it w as not a subject of escheat, that the iirrsjcrty did not escheat to the Government, but the i.ropert vras held fur charitable uses, and it was devoted -ind given origiuall) for religious re-ligious aud charitable uses, and Inasmuch In-asmuch as the religious uses to which jart of the projiertj wis devoted was for the spread of tlie doctrines of the Mormon Church, including the doctrine of tiolvganiv, that tint uas unlawful, but the sutreme Court ln-ld to thedcetriueof eliarit-abie eliarit-abie u.s, which is prevalent in tills country and in I.nglaud and everv. hereel-e where civ Hlzatiou has jire-vailed, jire-vailed, that where proper.) i given giv-en for cliaritable uses the charity uever dies,but tlie proivrt) remains to be d!o-ed of accurdlng to tlie objects for which it was given. If an) of tliee oljt-ets are imiiossible or illegal, then Uitre are two doctrines doc-trines which the court of chancery will invoke, that i. If there is no indication of any other use to which the charitable funds shall be appropriated, appro-priated, then th-y luvoke the dot-trine dot-trine of aj proximation or the doe-trine doe-trine of qjpru and jwrliars you are all familiar with it which sa) s the chancellor should npropnate the property to some charitable use isuearl) approximating theolject of tlie donor as possible. If, however, there are several charities embraced In the ue, or rather several uses are embraced In the same charity, the charity never dies, and If several of the usg of the same charit) are legal an J others oth-ers illegal, then the court of chance-r) chance-r) and the books are full of authority ujon that subject the court of chaucery will devote the fund to the legitimate use for which itwasgiven.it will destroy or Ignore Ig-nore the Illegal use, but will devote the object of tho charity to the legal uses. If the trustee dies, then the state become the trustee, and acting through the chancellor, it disposes of the fund according to the intention of the donor. The death of the trustee, as you all know, never defeats a charity; it ls perpetual, and it is the only thing whkh Is perpetual. Charities are peritual because they are not devoted de-voted to any particular Individual, Indi-vidual, but they are devoted to the purposeswhtcliarefortbeuse of all Individuals, either In the public pub-lic community to which use is granted or to a particular church, denomination or sect, or,whatcver it ma) be to which use Is granted, so the charity Itself never dies. The court of chancery never permits a chrrlty to die. Xow my orjectlon to this bill. If you please, Is this: 1 1 Is an attempt on the tart of the Congrtw of the ! United states to divert a charitable I use to other than that to which the ( use was intended. Xow the subject I of education, and the relief of the poor, and the subject of .hospitals, and the relief of the disabled and tick, infirm or aged all these are legitimate suljccts of charity we all know. Where a particular fund has been donated by the memtiers ot a particular church, or a 'articular class of persons to sui port the itior, and relieve the distressed, and educate edu-cate the children, and build churches, and build school houses. It cannot lie diverted to snme other ue, or for the benefit of some other person. A charity given to the inhabitants in-habitants of.the cit) of Washington to support tio poor of the city of Washington caunotlic used to sup- tort the ioor of the city of Washington Wash-ington and the poor of tlie city of Philadelphia. The olject of the donor must be carried out; projiert) Intended for ouepurie csnnot be diverted to another. I n other words, the object sought to tie established by tlie Senate bill is the same In principle as If tlie legislative department depart-ment would undertake to give the property of A to It for some good reason as they supiose, or to make a will after the death of the testator, which has been undertaken as you know by some legislatures of some States, and all such cases have been pronounced unconstitutional and void. The property was given to a corporation which has been in ex Istence for thirty-ld years, and it was given to them for religious and charitable uses. The religious Uses have been r renounced Illegal and void. Tlie corporation is abolished, but the charitable lArs remain. Tlie Chairman Are the charities specified' Sir. Hroadhead.-Ncsslr; the re Is the difficulty here. The question was not raj-cd before the sui reme Court, if tne charities or uses iiad been sccitled In the case hich is liefore the Supreme Court, then the Su preme Court would doubtless havt nude some t rov islou in n-gard to them, l-cause Judge Ilradlc)'s opinion justifies this conclusion, and I will read from his opinion. Tlie Chairman Do I uuder-ttnd you to concede that legal education is a matter of charity? Mr. Hroadhead Vt, sir, unquestionably; unques-tionably; I presume that there is no question at.ut tliat; but the olject of the donor's intention has to be taken into consideration. flic Chairman One thing more. Is there an) evidence of that doua tion in writing Mr. Ilroidbeail Uh, no sir; not at all. Mr. Wilson Thcc were simplv given to tlie Mormon Church as a corporation. Mr. ItmadlicaJ These were given giv-en from time to time and )ear to year, according tntht findings of the court in this case, and the question was w hether the court Lad tne (uw-er (uw-er to dissolve the ruriaratiou am whether it hid power to divert its funds from tlie charitable u-cs in tended. I may mention, in this ose, brought by the Government of the United states against Hit Church of Jesus Christ of Ijt-ttr-Day saints fur the 4ine of dl solving tills curiuntion, there w is an Intervening petition filed b) a large number of the members of the Mormon Chun h, proving that if tlie corp"rition should be dissolved dis-solved tlie fund slniull be d voted to the members of tile M irmoii Church for the cliaritible uses for which It hid been donated. Tin) come In ind inv tithes, fortximt-le, some pay in mom), some in w licit, some in corn, srue in stock, slut-p. cattle, etc., so much evtr) year which goes iuto the common fund This Is sold and disiiciiMi! to the poor from time to time, and that Is the wa) this rliant) originated md It is heM lorthe turposc for uliuli itvnsorlgiiiall) iu'c tided. Mr. Holers I an itlis,li in il... dirk about this, except as you go ilong. anil, if you will pardon me, I would like tu ask you a feu questions ques-tions now and tin ll "for tlie sake of information. Did this intervening petition to which you have just al ludiv', tud appl)ing in this cae. show or rove w hether or iiol this fund.whlcliU'cameicoiiiiiiotifuiHl, was devoted from )ear to ye-ar t these specific turins-a to w hfeli yuu hive alludi-d to the schools and cliaritles, etc Mr. Hroadhead It did mt, lie-cause lie-cause these questions were not necessarily involved in the issues then before the i-ocrt. The Chairman What is the fat t in regard tn that? Mr. Hroadhead Here is the fict in regard to It I requeued tln-iu to send me a statement of the iiiqi-i tion of the fund during the last ) ear, lSbl, and here I liave it under oatli and seal 3tmtrmmt ofJuhmnrmemiM sssWr lg tkt Ckmrrh Jens Hriu if Ltttr day soaolt rfar if ' Jr '", rte Wnnn or eswars, n- I oor (whiles and Indsxas) .... f rs ir Temples . 1KyM Meeune houses ... . ... - ! ... U.MM Trsatrrnnv or I txh. County of Salt lj, . I-ersonatly apfsrared befare UH-. use un dersunsed anoUrypahlK la and fr the e unly of -alt Lair. I uh Trrnlory. Jausrs Jack, chief eletl for the Hrst I-resileney of tho Church of Jesus thrKl of Ijller Hay saints, aa-lbeiuc by me first duly sworn, drno-es and says The fimjon-c sute meat of dlsbursemenu of funds for the year ls-e) to the several aerouats thercm named by the Churrh ot Jr-us fhn t of Latter dtv s,j , ,. InM. BBll , shown by U bools In soy toieMMs Ja-ii.s J.i k c , ' '"' l "eft. Subscribed and sworn to lfore mo this eighth day ot July. I ism. scat! L. Miiih IrEKsrx, NoCar ISti,it Sir Hog! rs Then umler that statement state-ment all things are declared iih-gal excel it di-liursemeuts for poor w lilies anJ InJ ans? Mr. Hnutdliead Xo, sir. Mr. Itogers Would not the churches, temnies, and what are tile others Mr Hnndht-id I will rvnl the act and show the lasls of the suit brought b) the Government of the United states; It Is found In sections IT, 17, and t of the act of Marc h T, ISsT, which I hive printed In the brief I had Ufoio tin. Sunrtme Court and which will explain it. Section It is asfollows. That it shall be the duty of the Ml iroev t.eneral of the I m'sd sJte, , mjui,,,, and prosecute lr.vce.lmcs to foifnt and escfcrat tfiih CmiMiw ,,-. ,- . . . corporations obtalne-l or hel 1 lb vsoianoD of section three or the art c r 0ufre,s an proved the first day of Jutr. etgbtcep huu dred aad sixty two entitled "An art u punish and revent the racuce of immvc amy In the l emtonrs of the L mtnl -utrs and other places, an I dlsanprovinc and an nulling certain acts of the lecislativr as sembty oi the Territory of i tah or in v-tolatxtn of srrtion Hghtceu hutHlrr-l anl ninety or the I. vust su:aIr, rt lfc Luted stale., ana all sock pr-iis-ny so forfeited and eseheatesl to the Iniie-t stale, shall be disposed of ly the Jrr5 Ury or tho Interior jnd the rrorerds then of applied to the ae and heaellt of the common schools in the Trmtory m wan-h rnlrty may be rrortoW.Thal no budding or the a-roand appurteuani thereto, which Is heM aud occupied rxrlu slvely for purposes of tie worship of cod or parsonage ronnerted lhercwn.sor liunii ground shail be forfeited. Now, that refers to real estate-alone estate-alone ind it provides for tl forfeiture forfei-ture of real t-tate foranv vi ilatlouof the provisions of the act of lv," Proceedings have alrcad) beeu In- StitU'etl 1m fun tli T. r!t...ci . z J - iiiuimitouiih to forfeit that real etatt- on the ground they held more than authoi-lied authoi-lied under that act of I62. Xow.l want to call )our attention atten-tion to the di-tinctiou between personal per-sonal and real property in this .r-Ucularca.se. .r-Ucularca.se. If there is forfeiturt. of course Uie property belongs to the government, all forfeited property goes to tlie government, but if there Is charitable use and art of it Is lllegil and part legal, the I roper.), whether it be legal or Illegal, does not go to the government excc t as trustee. The government then holds the proiicit) as trustee for the charitnble use. which Is legal, It ls not forfeited. 1 1 Is perfectly legitimate legitim-ate for tho Congress of the United States to decide that lien tills proii-erty proii-erty was forfeited to thegovtrnmt nt it should be used for common school lurries, because it Ls then forfeited property; but thL property liad never been forfeited at a'l. They declared simply In this decision part or tlie uses are illegal, liut the other charitable uses are not touched because be-cause the facts were not before the court at that lime. The next section, section 17, is as follows. That the acts of the legislaUve assembly of the Territory of Hah Incorporating-. i conunuing, or i-rovidlar for the corpora I tion luswn as the Church of Jrsut Christ I of Latter day Saints. an 1 the ordinanreof the so-calied general assembly ot the sute of Utsertt lneorporaum: thi (.hatch of Jesus Cfcrnt ot Latter-day saicu. so tar as " oar o have legal force and validity, are eercky duapproved and anna an-na led, and the aaH rorrnriUoD.'n so tar HSHammmOsHsmKafesmamsSl as it mjT now have, or pretend to bavfvany legalesistenee. is hereby dissolved. That ll ssall he tho dalyof tho AUorney-CiCEera! of tho Tutted Sutea to causo such proceed. lags to bo talen la tho supremo Court of the Territory of Llabas shall be propr to eierulo tho forcgoug pronssoua of thu section and to wind up tho afiatra of said corporation conformably to law, and in such iroceediegs tho court shall have power, and It shall bo its daty.to male such decree or decrees as shall be proper to effectuate the transfer of the Utie to real property now held and used by said eorpor atnn for placet of worship, and parsonages cosnected therewith, and burial grounds and of the description mentioned tn the proviso to section thirteen of this act and in section tweotr six of this act. to the re spcctlve trustees mentioned In section twenty six ot this act, and for the pcrposea ot thas section said court shall have all He powers of a court of equity. Section tf Is as follows That all reliriotts societies, sects, and congregations snail have the right to have and to bold, through trustees appoiaied by auy court exerosio; probate powers la the Territory, only on tho totntnallon of the authorities of such society, sect, or con gregallon.so much real property for the crcnioa or use of bouses of worship, and for such parsonages and burial grounds, aa shall be necessary for the convenience and se ot the srveral coagregauons of such retigsouf society, sect, or cougtcgatlon In answer to the question asked me, 1 say In accordance with the provisions of thee two sections tlie -upreme Court of the Territory of Utah decreed that what is called the Temple Hloek, upon which Is situated the Mormon Temple (which lias cost them already several million mil-lion dollars) and the Assembly Hall and TaWrnacJc tliat block ls Xo. 87, I believe In the City of Salt Lake, was set apart to the trustees for the benefit of the unincorporated unincorpor-ated members of tlie Mormon Church fills coriuratloii having Iieen dissolved b) act of Cougres, the decree of the court. In accordance accord-ance with the provisions of tills section, so far recognized the existence exist-ence of this Mormon association, if you I lease so to call It, lie-cause lie-cause it was not then a corpora-ttou, corpora-ttou, and a decree was rendered setting ajstrt to the trustees for their use tills block of the cit) , so that, the court an 1 the act of Congress recognizes the right of this Mormon Church association to build churches and teni) Ic-s and tu hold prota.rt) through trustees for that irjose. Mr. Itogers Whowereapininted trustees In tliat matter Mormons? Mr. Hroadhead Uh, je, sir; of course the) would notapialut trustees trus-tees hostile to members of the Church Thi Chairman I had not learned that fact, and I am vir) glad to learn IL Mr Hruadhead That was done In pursuance of this section. Hit) set apart blot fcs7, whittle ml raced some tiveor-ixaere-s. Mr. Cilne It contains ten acre", judge. Mr. HroaJlicad It Is a ver) valu ab'e 4ect of iniierty, usm which Is situated the T mple, Talieruaele, and Ase-ciubl) Hill, which are the largest buildings in Salt ItkeClt). Now I vvi-li to call ) our attt iitbin, for I wish to lie as brief as ptissililt, to what the su rente Court has said in this case. Mr. Itogers Ilefure going further, Is that ill the proptrt) tin. have-now have-now di-irct-d to the whole Church Mr Hroadhead That Is all. Mr ltogtrs What has Isxiimi- of the lain mat k- in the various counties coun-ties ami 'lurch prosrty? Mr. Hnnuhead Tin) were not in the corpurttion; tin) were owned by V'lwrale organizations in the diflereut t-uuutk-s. Mr. Itogers Tliat Is not disposed of, tliat is left In the hands of these churches, etc. Mr Hroadhead- Tin) did iKtt-e-kii4 to the corisiratiuu at all Tint iiatnnaii souudtrthilaw titerc has bee u no forfeiture of ri-al e-Utt? Mr. HroalheaJ. No, sir, nol)tt; but prntwliiigs have bicn instituted institut-ed and the) liave liecn wailing dt- ioatm of the -supreme Court of tlie Lulled States in this cms, to see It t would throw some light upou the sui jett liefore trying tin i-ase-s. I u-toTMiatiotis u-toTMiatiotis in rem hive Isreii instituted insti-tuted in the Territorial court on all proja rt) which isel timed to 1.- over Uh hki. Tlie Chalrnian on will jardoit me for iuttiruj4ing )mi, but vtt are luxious to know what the facts art iu ssiuie regards and we are quite sure ) ou both know and will ti 11 us is tin v are. and we are nn,r lUw ml ill asking )ou questions than most eojile, U-cau-s. we know )oti so well Now, lsthereiii)tlilngabutit tuis lecumulatetl personal j roiierty in i wa) to trace the original tiuiu-turn tiuiu-turn exit) t sinqj) it was donitcd to thi ( hurch? Mr. KronJIiead Tint is all, sir. The Chairman. Xow.tlien.in re-gartl re-gartl to Uie u-e-s Mr. Hroadhead I may sa) tlii. further in answer to that, the Church has been found and decreed b) the supreme Court of the lYrri-tor) lYrri-tor) and of Uie United slates to lie an organization for religious and tltirilable iHirjioses. Tlie CIsalrmaiL Without specifying specify-ing Mr Ilroadhea 1 Without stccify. lug what.the clnritles are. IheC lialnnan Can )ou give any infoniutron as to tin ai'toni of the Churtli in disjsniug of tliis fund heretofore, nut onl) this one ytar lt other) ears in Uie wa) .if thar-it), thar-it), oulshle of the religious feature of it-Mr. it-Mr. Itmodhead I can only till )ou what I heard from Individuals. Ouo if the most prominent men in -alt Itki. and a h-a'Iir in the Mnr. mon (hurch, when I was there a )enr ago, said Uiat that )ear the Churc.'i had paid Sllii,Jui) to the supiart of the ior In Salt Uike Cit). I ma) sa) In regard to the Mormon K.-u!e tliat tin) do not nrmft i isrsou to sutler from isivcr-ty, isivcr-ty, that is one of the chief virtues of tlutorinizatlou. Tiuv provide for the disabled, sick, aged, and lull lu-ll ml as full) iiml freely as inv -Ide ou this earth 1 low that is ilJtie 1 cnuiiot go Into details. Tlie t h tirmaii I do not ask that. Mr Hnedhea 1 Tlie) liave a place for the rtcclpt of all projvrty tint ls brought in. It is a Ltrgu t Liblislimeiitaud Is called the nth-lug nth-lug ortlce." I am told the donations are vuluutarv. I di imt kurnr ntn. Uiing ilsiut thaltxcept from wlul I am told Tin) are brought Into this ver) largtbuildlngUiere which Is a receptacle for the pro(iert). There art places for Uie storage of lu),griiu nn J other produce, and a corril for sheep, cattle or horses tliat limy Is given, orinythingelst they mi) send in For meat thev ma) stiil in the) have a market there. If there is in) ouesulleriug from ivert) In tlie tily who needs food, ho goes to the hou-e and gi Is i mi pii of loud and the fund Is credited with the amount, llils one w) , and Uitre are other means of providing for the wants of the ,or That has beeu the custom of the ( hurth,as far as I hive been informed, in-formed, from time immemorial. There ire icrsou appointed to in-qtun in-qtun Into the wauls of the poor and provide them wlUi what ls nee-es. sar). Mr Stewart May 1 ask )ou a quesUon? Mr. HroaJhead Vcs, sir. Mr Stewart If I unjorstand you, the gifts or donations to Uiis cTnratlou were general, that Is, Lobody give toany jartlcular use? Mr. ilroadhea 1 Xo, sir. Mr. Stewart Tlie corporation Itself, It-self, then, divided this bctwetu the religious and charitable uses? Mr. Uroadhead Yes, sir. Mr. &tcvart Xow, then, how can you ascertain what proporUou of the donations which have gone in to swell this accumulated fund should lie devoted to charitable Uirs? Mr. Hroadhead I do not think It is necessary to iuqulre. If no part of the fund can be devoted to lllegil purjoses, the rund rercalnln Is to tse devoted to legal purposes, education, educa-tion, the ioor, school houses, etc.; If Uie Illegal purtoes caunot be carried car-ried out, it goes then to Uie legal Jirpocs, lr the fund had beeu divided di-vided before it was given that l. so much to the Cliurch for religious IKiqufes and so much to other ir-lo-ea -the rule probably might lie ditTcrent; but there is no room for such an inquiry In this case. Tlie Chairman One question more, not because I regird tt as material, ma-terial, but for information. I sup-iosethat sup-iosethat this fund donated to the ,'hurch and exiieuded fn cliaritles Is limited, as far as the object qf the charities are concerned, to members of the Church? Mr. Broadhead I suppose that is so. But how that h managed Is a maUer of detail on which I am not Informed atall. This Is a copy of Judge Bradley opinion. It Is very lengthy, and I have only marked ono or two portions of it. TbeCIialrman Haveyou an extra copy of that opinion? Jlr. Broadbead Xo, sir; this Is the only copy, but you can have this after I get through: but, however, It will not be Tery long before it is published. The Chairman I had a copy, but I mislaid it. Mr. Broadhead This is the United States against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, numbers 1031 and lOut, October term, 1S9. This Is a very learned dissertation upou the subject of charitable u-e-s. Judge Bradley says: Tho property in question has been dedicated dedi-cated to pbmm and chaittahle ne It matters no: whether it la the product or private contributions, made during the cour-e ot halt a century, or of taxes Im posed upon the neoolcor of rams aristae I rem fortunate operations In business, or appreciation tn ralueJJieeharluMansesrer whKh It Is held are stamped upon It by charter, by ordinance by regaltuon and by usage, in such an indelible manner that there ran be no ufstate aa to their Chirac ter, purpose, or object He says further The principles of the law of charities are not confinra to n particular people or na tion. but prevail m all etnlged countries pervaded by tto sptnt of Chnstlanity 1 hey are found imbedded In the civil law of l.ome. la the laws oft- uropean nations, and especially In the laws ot taat nattou. from wnach our InsUluUona are derived. I loading and prominent principle prevallloc in them all is, that property devoted ton charitable aud worthy object, promotive or the public good, shall be applied to the pur posra of Us dedication, and protected f rora spoliation and fromstiversloh to other ob lerls, Thougn devoted to a particular use. It is ronfldered as given to the public and is therefore, talrn under the guardianship of the laws. If it ran not be applied lo tho pat ticurar nso for which it was intended, rttherbtcaufe theobiectso be subserved have failed, or because they hare brcoute unlawful or repugnant to tho public policy ot the sute, if will be apt UeU to some, ob y ot lindred character so as to fulfil In ssvlancc if not la manner had form, the purpose of lis consecration. Of course where Uieru is no it-pose it-pose sbjwn for example, in the celebrated case of Jackson against Phillips, in which there is a most learned opinion on the subject of charitable uses by Judge Grty, of thesupre me Court, then judge of the supreme court of Mos-sachusttts there were two uMects in the wIIL One was to provide for the maintenance mainten-ance and supirt ol fugitive slaves and the other was for the promotion pro-motion of the cause of female suffrage. suf-frage. The court held tliat the cause of female suffrage was not a charit ableu-e. It decided against It. It decided against it, li held Uiat the other wis a charitable use, and Instructed In-structed the master to hud ai-chtme by which an) tortion of the fund not prov Ided for and devo'ed to the other olject might be tltvoted to senile other object of thaiity, ly way of approximation to that for which it wis give n I ll tint case there was no other tinnl-luii, Imt hern is i provision, is I undertake to show b) I e-L in other words that tin re are-oUitr are-oUitr eluritaMe uses than that of I romotltig the irogress of the Mormon Mor-mon n ligion, an 1 that is the siqv-(ortof siqv-(ortof Uiu wr, eUucatioti of children, chil-dren, etc. M r.ICngc rs tt lial cist was Uiat to which )uu alluded? Mr Hroadhead II is the-rase of Jackson agiinst, rhilllinU Mien, Massachusetts), ami It is i ver) learned opinion and 1 ver) able opinion. riirUicron Judge Hrtdliy savs. rroperty. destined lo superstitious nscs, H given by tawof l-arltaascnl I the King to dispose of aa ho pleases, and it fall properly under the rMgsiiganre of a court of icvrsue llutwherc property is given to loMalvn rharttahb- - mi runrt iSssaia- eauhcsCetuoen the oianiyand the use and seeing Ihc chanlabse bs(cl in the In rentson of the brsutwr, they execute lh inlentssn. varying the w-c, as the king ,w ho is the curator of all charities and the eon sniutiwnal trustee for the performance ot them, please to direc. ami appoint. Ktirthcron he says. Vndtnalltbece.a.etbe general mien lion of the testator favor of charily will he effennalcl by th court through a r r-rrs spplKaUon ot the fund. The same propositions are last down by Mr Justice -lore m his eiultv mnsprudeBcr seetiosja IKTcfu-t, bant is uancccs ary to sale further iisolauons. These authorities are rued and naa3 more m ght be adduced for Ihc purpose of showing that where property ha brcn devoted de-voted to a puUss or charitable use which cannot be earned out on account at souse ilirrailr in or failure of the oMect. it does not. ar-ortling to the general law of Chan Irs, mnt lo ike ovsaor or hi heirs, or oiIct representative, bwlH applied under the dirs-rtion of the coun, or of the supremo lswer in the state, toother char liable, oltrcts. Uwlul in their character, but rasrrespondinx, as ncaruM may be, to the original intcnlsoa of the donor I lesa)ri further: It is not our province to pas Judgment upon the necessity or expediency uT the act of lebruary IS, IssT Tliat Is a mistake in the dat;it ought to be thu JWh. Thin u is a contiict alout the time it went into eilcr!, the government claimed it wis thu Sth of Pefaruar) ind tin other side stated it was TJ or March. It is not oar pn-riuee to pass judgment upontLe necessity or expediency of tho act of lebruary llrh l-s7 undrrwnlch this prorcr liag was talen. The only question we have lo considerlin this rrg.nl a lo tho constitutional power of congress lo past It Norarewcnowcallrdupontode clarc bat dlsposiibiu ought to be made of inn mpeny of the Lhan-n of Jesus Chnst of 1 Jtu-r-day Samta. Thw su 1 1. In some rrsi-ecss. an ancillary one. invtt uted for th- nrpofo of taxing fsssessioa of and holding tor final di'posilt jn the nipeny of the detunrt con-oration in the hands of a receiver, a&d winding up it afiairs. To thai exlrnr, and tu thai on y the decree of tho rlreeil rounLas gone lulheprorenl lnga winch have hern inslHule-1 In thedM jlrt coert of the Temlory, it will be de termincd wnctber the t e ll estate or tho cor poratsonwhicnbas been seued exrepUng Ibe ponion- exempted by tho act has. or ha not. escheated or become forfeited to the I ntted state, tt it shou'd be decided in the uSrmatlvr. then, pursuant lo the terms of Iheact, the propeity so forfeited and eschea-e-l will be disposed of by the ecrsvtary f lb- Intrnir an I the prorecls applie.1 to the u-e aa-t beneSl of common schools in Iho Ternlory ll obvious that auv properly of the corporation which may rs. adju lge-1 to be forfeited and escheated will be subvert to a more ubsoluto control and dtpo.mon by Iho rovernfacal thxa .hat which is not so forfeited Of cour-H.-If It Is forfeited and c-chtileil c-chtileil It IsTcomes thu propert) of the gnvirnimnt, and the government govern-ment nu) dowhititi4easeswithit The non forfeit! property wiH be sob Jcrttoxarh rtisposltiou only as may be re iinirisl by the law ol rlsantabse nse whilst the roTettrd nn I crbatd proiicny. be leg subvert to a mote absotula control of tho government, will admit of a greater latitude of discretion in regard toiudas IsMluau. Then III the winding up of his opinion hi- says thi, in regard to the Intervening tition, to which I liave mide reference. The aiftsra.lou ot lmecr and others, ind ll Is for them I sm-ak ipivv !n this cas-s., rrprsseaUocthe uulneorporale.1 members of the Chuti-h f Jesus t,.-ulst of letter day sjiou-. b fully dt-posed of be the consider anons alrraly auouccd. The rnncipst luesllou discussed has been whether the proprrly of the Church vras in such a con ditlvn as lo authorise Iho government and the court to tale possession of tt aa I 11 ll until It shall In seen what final di.oi,ioucr It shout Ibe made, an-l we think it was in such n couJitsou, and that nil r-rvperly held In the cusbtdrof Iheirccncr The right of tho Church asmilicr- wdl necessarily a, esion into consideration In the final dtsposiuon of the case-. Thero 1 no ground for granuog their present applicattoa. The property is tn the custody of thu law, awaitlog the ladgmenl of the court a to iu final dsspo 9Woa in vtcwof the Illegal uo b, whscb It l subject in tho bands of the Church of Jesus. Chnst of Latter day saints, whether Incorpo-atsd or unln eorporated. -The eon liUon for claim log possession ot It by tho member ot the irciorcoimauntty enter the act dsnotat present exist We do not set cut any of these objects ob-jects of charity in Uiat application. Wcasfcrthat the proiiert) ml;ht be turned over to them for charitable ues without ss-cifying Uicm, and perhaps thc-y should have specified them lu this petition, and we did not claim lu the argu ment liefore the court, a Judge- Hniley says, tliat the members of the Church were entitled Indivlduillv or rollm-tlvelv- to the Church property In their own right; not at all. We claim that they w ere entitled to hold It lu trust forUic puriose for which It was given, and one assignment oferroa was In thes- words: anccaoss If It final y shall be held that said act ts valid in so far as it repoa s tho char terof said eorissratloa. and if sab! eorpor auoa shall a-allt bo adjnlged dusolveL sull uyoa such dissolution tho real cute and property be oazing lo sai I onrporalMn oughtlnlawanletiultyto bo adjudged to bo and become tte property of me Individual Individ-ual members of said corpbratioa at the due of tu d ssolutlon. charged wi th teo same trust, uses, and purpose under whKh it was acquired an-l bed by said cor yoratlon. And that Is where we say it ought to go, and tliat ls where Judge Bradley say It oJght to go; but these I facts were sot before him. And if there has been no other charityl pontcH out, if they were u cable to point out any other charily than the support and maintenance of the Church, then this might as well be devoted to general educational purposes pur-poses as not, except that the donor's wishes and IntenUons ought to be respected; although some part may bo an Illegal use, whatever use Is legal It should be devoted to, or carry out the Intention for which It was originally given. I must hurry on for I do not wish to detain you, but I want to refer to one or two authorities. I do not Intend to read books, but I made extracts In order or-der to direct the attenUon of the committee. If they feel disposed to investigate this subject, and give some srominent authorities, for tho books are full of them, although this is a question tliat docs not often come up. In the rase of Jackson against Phillips, H Allen, 574, Judge Gray says. Ily tie law ot the commonwealth and IT the uw of Lnglaad git u to chantahse use were highly favared and will he most I b-crally b-crally construed in order to accomplish the Intent and e-urposes of the donor, and trail which can not be upheld in ordinary cases for various reasons will be established and earned Into effect when created to tur-pon a girt to a ehanuble use He says further: ou can male them inalienable aud per petual. which cannot be doce by mean of a mate trust without regard to the rule against pefetuine. Judge Story, in his work on Equity Jurisprudence, says, section sec-tion 1176 Tut this sensible distinction now pre vail that the courts will not decree the execution or the trust of a charily In a manner dffrrent from that Intended, ex ccplsofarasitts seen that tbelntenUon can not be literally executed. In that ease another mod will be adopted consistent with ttie general Intention to execute f, al though not la the mode et in substance. In the casu ol Uie Attorney-General against Bulbee, 2 Vesey, Jr., the mister of the Itolls said, quoting w 1th approval a former decision of the court. A testator directed tread to bo distributed distri-buted to the poor person attending dlvmo servsco and chanting- hi version otthe psalms. These alnis were unauthorized by law, so this part of the lieqtiesl rinist fail, but the distribution of bread was decreed to be carried out. The general obiect is not to be r fleeted if it can in any ouerway be attained. Ill the case of Jackson a-rainst rhlllips, to which I hav e referred, the court says, referring to i number num-ber of authoritlcson Uil point The court of c-iuity in tho exercise of Us turisdictioa applies the trust aa near to the testator parttcuUr directton aa possible to carry out his general charitable intent. There is one of tho cases of St. IxhiIs. Under the Mullanr-h) will there wis a Is-qiu-t forthel-enefitof poor immigrants.Thesupnnit Court held itwasa tnistfutid, that it whs a t haritible u-c, aud that Uie court should find out who were the wr immigrants to which this fund mutt Im devoted. And In reganl to Uie doctrine of jMtrCH patntz, which lias Utn Invoked In-voked here, tliejiouer of the king vtparcut jxitrvz to disjo-c- of prop-trty prop-trty b) his sign manual when the uljeets art- Illegal or Indefinite. Judgu Gray says It n ditValt to see how It cou d be held lAevm in a republic lu which chsnublo hrruel have never beeo forfeited lo the use or submitted to ilisposifioa by the lor crnment because they are superstitious or illrraL Becaiifu the) ire Hlcgil they do not bcljug to the Government, Imt Use Government takes snsessinn of them as truse for some other charitni le isirj-ose w hich Is legal. ream s-oclety 18 Mainringe s, the court says. The general provisions of the statute of 13d Utukrth are in forco in this scite and tac-o-porated into our chancery lurisurud-ence lurisurud-ence Extrinsic evidence is admissible to aid In giving construction to devtcesor benuesu aa I to show what properly was in leu led to be devised and what person was intended to uie Page JM. Now that is what we sec here. There was no evidence Is fore the SU renu Court In regird to these other charities, all Hut was before the court wis that the proiert) was il voted to some charitable u-et 1 1 was given to the Church and was dlised of In that way The Church onraulzatiou as acomori- tion has Uen dissolved ind it ciniiot hokl it tinder that decision of the court The (tovernuieut takes pos se-sion of it is trustee , tin n it is the duty of the Government, we sa), to devote it to the iiiariLiUe pur-mscs for which it wis Intended, and we ma) Introduce outside testimony for the pur)iose of showing what that wis It was not done iu this case but I will ki) to the court what I propose to do. This question is lift ojien with the Supreme Court I iro-OM- to ajiply to tho suprtmt Court at the next se-6lon for an order upon the su reme court of the Terrltor) ot Utah to permit the-e irons to file a bill of review by w hich they can set out the facts ami have them adjudicated Now, I tike it, the .Supreme Court would not entertain a bill of nview. and In fact It has U-eit tie-ciileil tie-ciileil tint the -supreme Court will not tntertpJu a bill of review. It will order in Inferior court, if it thinks roier, if a pro's-r show ing is made liefore the supreme Court, to entertain n bill cf review for the IHirpo-se of Liking le-tlmon). A bill of review does not ralt-aii) quc-tion of law at all. it is somt-tliim-lit-1 motion fur a new trial In an action of law. except It ral-e-s no question of Law. It does not attiek the valldlt) of the judgment made b) the court upon i question of law but for some equitable reason, or iintliRdiscovtry of new testimony, it will authorize a bill of review to lie mill the jotty to come in an J show whit lit avers to le true. I have no Idea tho Supreme Court will entertain a hill of nvitw, Isit I lo not doubt for a moment that the) would entertain an application for an order, nnd woul I make in order upon the supreme court of the Territory Terri-tory ot Utah, which has original Jurisdiction in this case, ind permit the) turtles to file 1 bill of review ind set out these facts so as to show the cliaritible- ol jects to whleli this fund was intended to be devoted. It has been pnctlcillv- devoted for years and years to these pur-urn-", and It w III therefore bo cirijing out the charitable pur-oses for which these gifts wire made, Irrespective of thcChurth, for them to lie put into in-to Ihc hands of trustees to I ippolnted by the court, but trustii- who are not Inutile trustee, to be managed fur the chin table purises for which it wis intended, by person friendly to the association associa-tion and to the otjeci and purpoes of the donation. Now It cannot be sui posed for a nisme it tint mcnilsrs of the Mormon Mor-mon Church, when tiny icild their tithes from timu to time, that they Intended tint Uie proceeds of tlu-e tllllcs should bedi votisl to tlie es n. eral purio-trs of education all over the Territory The Chairman Were these tithes told acconling to the law of the Territory; dlj the law provide for the inyment of these tithes Mr. Hroadhead Xo.slr; there was no law on the subjecL Mr. Culberson I hid an Idei these tithes were laid under a law requiring them. Mr. BroaJhead On tho part of the Territory? I know of no such law. Mr. Stt wart What do you consider con-sider the cITect of this exception, "except so far as It shall appear In respect thereto that there is a lawful law-ful private right to the contrary"? Sir. Broadhead That does not amount to anything. If this fund had been In fact devoted to charitable charit-able uses, no private right can Intervene; In-tervene; It lielongs to the publlc,not to private Individuals. It may be that some nun's property may liave ls-en taken; a horse may be claimed by one man which belongs to another, an-other, and It might have been taken and given as a titlit- to Uie Church, and the man goes home and brings suit for his horse. It docs not need any act of Congress to authorize a man to sue for his property If some one else has It The common law prevails In the Territory, so the coart says la this case. No, sir; tho clause In the bill to which you refer about "private lights" looks plausible, plausi-ble, Uit Uiere ls nothing in it, and it Is only calculated to mislead, though doubtless not so Intended. Mr. Stewart I suppose that) ou will admit that the devoUon of this fund to the general purpose of edu cation would bo perbara on lh whole beneficial to the people of the TeMrtoBroadbead-It would be; so it w'ouUbe beneficial If any one should give my property to pcor n. That would boverybenefi-cial boverybenefi-cial to the poor man- ,,,,.,. Mr. Stewart That would be a mere private matter, but this, you eS, would boa public mer. However, How-ever, I understand yeur .mint, Mr.Brradhetul-Tbepoor Indians and the poor Mexicans, -"d the poor "Mormons," and the poor "Gentiles" (although I do not know they are poor), so far as the worthy poor are concerned, have an interest in this fund, and charity ls personated person-ated in that respect. -Mr. attwart-I did not understand that you claimed, to far as anything whatever Is applied to educational purposi"", bat it should bo confined to that ono sect of Mormons, did JMr. Broadhead Ye, til, ob.ye, certainly. The IntenUon of the donor is to be carried out; that is what I claim. I do not deny that educaUon Is a charitable purpose, but this was Intended for the education educa-tion of the Mormon children ana not the other children In the Territory Terri-tory of Utah, and providing for the wants of such ioor persons as the members of the Mormon Church through proper trustees might dl- Mr. Stewart Suppose it should appear In a general way, for it docs not stand on the same footing as a will, where the IntenUon of the testator Is distinctly and expressly expressed, there can be no quesUon: here Is where there Is a general sort of contribution all around to a corjioration that has certain powirs; now, do )ou say this intention Is to be establLshed and to show what the usage Is? Of cour you can not show the Intention of all thec Hroadhoad I think that Is the best way In Uie world of showing It, by show ing that the-e donations were given )ear after year, time after time, to the leaders of the Churtli as trustees to constitute a fund which wis uetl for the relltf of the poor, for education, ami other imrioses, and they still continue to give it, and Uiat it Is still used in the same way. Mr. Stewart Ik) you understand sofaras this is applied to the pur-jose pur-jose of education Uiat the Ucntiles were excluded from enJo)ing any lienttlts or Instruction from the schools undtr this, that their children chil-dren were excluded from sharing the benefits of the appropriation to the educational fund Mr. Hroadhead lly whom, the Mormens? Mr. stiwart Yes, sir. Mr. Broadhead I do not know how that Is. What I meant to sa) is they could exclude them if the) chose, for It was intended fur that articular sett and not for the world at large. hen a -rsoti makes a donation of what is his own, what has been acquired- as the product of his own toil, he has the right to say how it shall lie uses!, provided it is not for in illegal purpose; and it matters not In principle whether the mode of giving is by will or by donation infer nroj. I f the i ntention can l accrtilned, that intention must govern. If the proierty In this cise was given to tho Mormon Church to 1 devoted to charitable uses, then the Church must determine how it sliall bo used tu carry out those iiurpuscs according to the Intention of the donor; If the Church is a corjioration has I tin dissolved, as It has U-eti in this case, then Uie court as the rtpreetntative of the I loveru-ment loveru-ment according to the rules laid down In this ciscmusttither manage thu fuud as It was intended t- be managed, or niut appoint a truster or tm-tees to to manage it. Thi statute of charitable use, 43d j Klizabeth, followed in detail thej ol jects of charity which had been organized and s)stematlzed iu the Itomin l.niplre tinder the reign of Constintlm, the revenues provided for charitable uses under that statute we re tithe, legacies, and do nations of movables and Immovables, and the intention of tlie donor was alw lys cirried out. The courts of this country tell us that the princi pies embodied j a the statute of 4,Td l-.IIzabeth have unlform'y been uloj ted aud carried out by our courts of cqtiit), although the statute itself has nut beeu adopted, 1 for the plain reason that the statute provides for the collection of the revenues for r-lnri table- uses, and ap-polntsolllcers ap-polntsolllcers fur that (mrpose; our jolitical system tolerates no enforced en-forced methods of collecting rev-enue-s, such a9 tithes for charitable uses. Charity w iUi us is voluntary and comes from the Individual no part of It from the state. History tells us that in the year of the Norman Conquest, Baldwin, Count of Klindirs, died, leaving a will, in which hesald, remembering thu words of our Iionl, "I was a stringer, nnd ye took me in, naked, md )e clothed mr, I washungr), and ye give me food " I have given a villa to a churrh tor the sui port and refresnment of the poor We are told tint the-Jewish husbandman, hus-bandman, when his liarvest was over, left a sheaf of wheat upon the field for the benefit of the unknown tnnger. These arc illustritions of general thirities not contlnd to auy individual indi-vidual or particular classof indiv id-uaN, id-uaN, aud tho rule is tint the pur-ioscof pur-ioscof the lie netlt must Im general, or to a geinnl class, for It is the unrertaliitv of the p-epson upon whom the 1 -en tilt may fall that gives merit to the action. A legacy to i friend is no charity. True clnrity mut spring from a love of humanity antl a desire to relieve tlm sufferings and necessities of our fellow-men. Horace Blrnty, in the celebrated Ginrtl will cise, in his argument before the courts In the land said. Whatever is given for the love of (od. or for the love of our neighbor. In the eaih otic an tunlversa sense given from these motive and to these ends, free from the stain of every tblog that ts peronsI,priratr, or selfish isagitt forrbaxilabteuse. But these gifts may Iv limited to acertiliitlass(3sharswoodv: Budd, leading Cases on Hell Kstate, p. 333) the requirement of generality living satisfied by a comprehension ofivrsonsor designated communities, communi-ties, as the students of a certain religious re-ligious faith, the sutTering poor of a certain place, or Uie poor emigrants ofa certaincit). All such gifts for special cliaritable uses have been sustained by the courts, and I know ofuo lietter or more reliable book In which to find the authorities upon this sui Jcct tlnu in the 3d volume of sharswood i Budd, IaJIng Cases of Beat Kstate, Notes to the Keport of tht Opinion of the supreme Coutt of the United States in tht Giranl will cise. And so I say in answer to the in-qulryof in-qulryof tho gentleman from Vermont Ver-mont as to whether the Gentiles weio excluded from the-benefit of Uiis fund or not I do not know, but It was unquestionably Intended for the benefit of Uie members of the Mormon sect a nd their families, tho same ect to which has been decreed by Uie court the Temple Block In bait Laku City, for the erection and use by them of houses of worship, for their ueand convenience In the lawful exercise of worship, accord-ding accord-ding to the tenets of said sect and body. This property, Uie court sa)s, Is set apart to the voluntary religious worshippers and unlneoi- porated sect and body known as 'the Church of Jesus Christ of Iatter-Day Saints." It Is thus that the Mormon Church Ls organized as a sect, a body of religious re-ligious worshippers capable of holding real property through trustees, and wily should not the personal property given from time to time by members of that sect for the benefit of the poor, Uie aged, the infirm, the a filleted, and Uie ignorant ignor-ant of this generation and of generations genera-tions yet unborn belonging to that sect be turned over to trustees and devoted to the objects for which they were intended? A devise (o an uolncoriiorated society for religious purposes Is a good devise (6, Watts and cjergeant, -I-)- A gift to the poor generally, or to the poor of a particular town, parish, age, sex, race, or condlUon is a good smmnmmmumunuaunnuauno charitable gift (Jackson vs. rhil-lips, rhil-lips, p. 551). Xow It was known to these parties when gifts were made that they were used for this purpose, and I mentioned this becaue It did not appear In the trial of the case before Uie. court, and I bellev. t they had been brought before Uie court Judge Bradley would have made aa order 'TastfheVthat the legislative dena'tment of the go vcrnmeut sin I keep Its hands off this question until the rourt has setUed It. bec-uise the-court the-court has amplejurisdictlon w ithout any acUon of Congress which would undertake to Interfere with the Jurisdiction of the court- Itlstrue there Is no statement as to what disposition shoul I bo made of this fund, amounUng to fourorfivahun-dretl fourorfivahun-dretl thousand dollars, but I say It Is a wrong against the prlncliles of common Justice to take it away from this common ot Jett to wmen ll was evidently Intended to be devoted de-voted and give it to the general objects ob-jects of educaUon. It Is true that such a disposition as Is contemplated will benefit the cause of education very much, but these weople have-not have-not the control of the political machinery ma-chinery In Utah; the management of the schools has been taktn awa) from them and the right of suffrage has been taken from tlnm to a great extent, and here is a fund which should be left In the hands of the court to determine w hether It shall be put to tho purposes to which it was originally Intended or whether It shall be given to the Jew, Gentile, Gen-tile, Mormon, aad all the others alike in that .Territory. 1 sa) it Is not right that it should be so, and not according to the principles of justice and not In accordance with the adjudications of the courts. Mr. Stewart The court has power under Uie Kdmunds-Tucker act to make final dispositiiuof that fund? Mr. Broadhtid It says "itconl Ing to the law." Mr. Stewart I remember tliat, as I hid something to do with that. But it did not point out what law Mr. Heed. They hesitited about finding any law. The Chairman ( should think there would not lie much divergence of opinion in the committee with reference to tho general doctrine which )ou have ixpresscd. Mr. Oaten This fund Is derived from the sale of jursonal rojurty? Mr. Ilroadhea I a es. sir, from personal property entire!). Mr fatewart How muth is there of that. Mr. Broadhead Three or four hundred thousand dollars some of it is deposited in banks then, bear ln.j interest, and some of it isiu the original form, thireareabouttwe unlive un-live or thlrt) thousand sheti, I think, which are still in Uie hands of the receiver. Tart of this fun I is in railroad stock, street railroad stock, telegraphic stock, and In linstock lin-stock of the Salt Iake City gas company, I think, which pays dividends divi-dends annually. These stocks have lietn taken possession of ind art-held art-held by the receiver and he is getting get-ting the dividend upon them from time to time. They are ver) valii-ible valii-ible stock, because the city is increasing in-creasing in population rai Idly, au I then Uitre is some rent from re-il estate, a farm which is rented fur J25I1 a mouth, and the projsrtt is considered very valuable in tliat Territory at this articular time. Mr. Culberson I s)mnilhizevtry much with your position and I do not want to lumber up ) our remarks ! with what I say, but I would like I to ask (his Would not this s. imnl I fu nd go alone to the cducition of the I Mormons? Mr. Broadhead It is for the isir-pose isir-pose of educating the Mormons, .and I for the purisise of t-dticlting the poor. Mr. Culberson I understand that 1 point, but if this fund Is donated for the purpose nt educating the Mor I mon children ind instilling In them thedottrinrsot the Mormon Chun h. including polygam). would not that fund be tainted with that kind of illegality which the court would not sustain" Mr. Broadhead I will say this in fefereiice to polygamy, tint it is pretty much extinguished in Utih. Mr. Culberson 1 do not doubt that Mr. Breadhead And It Is golty I down and co-wingless every dav I Mr Culberson I understand it and I think it is so, too, and I think Congress will hold i donation to tharitaUe i urposes perrctuil, prc-vidlng prc-vidlng the rharitv is legal. Mr Broadheil Thedecrceof the court ma) cover that n hole ground. It might require the trustee to retort re-tort on that from time to time. Jlr. Cullierson I would like to ask whether you do not think tint donation would be tainted with II-legallt) II-legallt) If that fund or any art of It was donated for the purjwse of educating Mormon children, and if being so donated to the Mormon Churc h it slnll educate them in the tenets of that Church, tliat King part of the education, now is not that donation and fund tilnted vv itli Illegality, and therefore shoul 1 )ou claim tint the fund should still be kct t for that purjose? Mr. Hroadhead I should not claim it should lie devoted to an) purpose that has ls?eii pronounced iu the law ami judgment of the cour Illegal, unquestionably not. Mr. Oates I under-tind you to draw i distinction and cite what I do, Uiat w here a bequest w is for two purposes, one of which was legil and the other was illegal, the tourt should 'apply it to Hie Itgil oueaud refuse to appl) to the illegal one, now the question put by brother Cullierson was, if tlie court should distinguish in the education tint which wis of the Churtli ind tint whlthwasnot of the Church, tht one being legal and the other Illegal, Ille-gal, how woultl you do alnut tint Mr. Itogers I u other word, could not the decree lie so slmissl i to appl) the fund tt education to the i xciuslon of religion" Mr. Hroadhead There is no question about that at all, the w hole matter is in the power of the court. Mr. Itogers Apt lying it to the children of Mormon parents and not permitting education in the tenets of their Cliurch. Mr Hroadhead Most unquestionably unquestion-ably so, liecause the t-tipreme tourt his iKilded that the doctrines of equity jurisprudence pn vail in tint Terrltor). They a) tho chancer) court his exclusive control of this matter, and having once got ,iot-sionof ,iot-sionof it, it w.ll disburse it le-curti-ing to the principles of equity, md if arnurtof equity can not control It, I know nf no eirthly power tint can. Mr. Wilson I tindirLuid )our argument to mean this. In ree-tnl in the purpose fir which this fund wis from time to time given there wis no express dedication, )ct It tin le learned from iscertilning the mode In which it wis heretofore disioed of. Mr. Broidheid Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson Aud If a tort of the dedication heretofore Ins been lawful law-ful and a part unlawful, the court will see that it goes hereafter to the lawful purpose? Mr. Broadhead Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson And no law of Congress Con-gress is necessary? Mr. Hroadhead There Is no law of Congress ntcesary. The court cau manage It, and I say tint a liw of Congress to divert the fuud from the Intention of tho ilmmr l l.i.t illegal as to take one man's proiicrt v and give it to another. 1 thank you, gentlcmeu, for the attention you have given tne In the discussion of this question. Thereupon the committee adjourned. |
