OCR Text |
Show JJ THE SLTItaiE COUBT DECISION'. w -. Tjie full text of tho Opinion of lHjgl? ' the Supreme Couit of the United fw W4i ' Slates In the suit to confiscate the l3i - WSF&lS oi the Church of Jesus 3fJJi Christ of Latter-day Saints will I- jsgjl&s'' found In another iart of this laper, SftAfT; with the exception of the statement Sifiixf of the case, which it is unnecessary B'SK' to reproduce, because all the parttcu- IBff's' larsliave been previously published. slfrSi """lie disquisition as to the powers ti!zI of Congress over tlie Territories is a Bfi summary of opinions previously en- Wj' . undated by the court, and an afllr- SpglfJ' nsatioii of the doctrine that in these Sjll- atciuired itrcels of tlie public do- iVgffii main tiie authority of ilie national sjKfvf Covcramciit is absolute, "sulject ra8fc-" only to such restrietions-as are cx- "JW&kS' prs)sd in tho Constitution or are 'tiH' nroestarily implied in its terms.'- ' v-'SWi Tiitf ib:- an important limita- ''SfeSi "!l " i'0'1 ,ve ca" "le jlgl.ft' attention of those advocates of im- ' fflttl' jsjrilw?m who contend Uiat Congress - awH is ustlmuDd by the Constitution in IHJ '' supreme sway over the Terri- $sKsi brk. 'ijKSsi The genera! lower of Congress tc wBwSnf annul an aet of a Territorial Legis- , SsMr "- Jature, when submitted for its cou- " 4h sideratkm, lias not in this case been SiJ-, rjuestioued. Tlie conteutkin'ou tin B- - lwrtor Church counsel was, that the Wjgt act of incoqioration of the Church SK-g was in tlie nature of a contract be- SeL . l-vecu the Legislature aud, ttythi i tacit const ut of Centres, between the Government and the corporation; and that the obligations of that contract con-tract ccuM not be constitutionally impaired. This imjortant point tilt courtajipearsnot to have considered. But the corporation being dis Halved by congressional legislative a--t. the question of succession to 01 legal pos-is-ion of its property becomes be-comes the great question. Tlie cumt explains at great length the doctrine of tlie administration ami afiplicatlon f charitable estates. . gi, And reliance is chiefly placed by tlie j6 court upon the English law and & procedure. In the cases cited iu &J&' American practice there is no par- &Jj?! "'I1 to the resent ie-uc. Indeed, ?i ; when tho wisolf argument of the ""$- , iJUrt tiiwn diaritable uses, and the $.;' liowcrsof courts aud the sovereign Iv.j in relation to them is simmered ' ; . down, Jt will be found to have no if" direct application to tlie case uuder 'a.' ' adjtnlitatiou.becauss ii is essentially U , tliffireni to all tlie precedents cited ,i In a very important iwrticular. K"' If Khe conceded that where prop- fi - ' of a charitable corporation has ft.: ' Iwen Uib result of '-ten thousand f"; Iy contributions extemiin J through a long period of time," tlie " t go VernmeKt or the cou rt of cha ncery - . may, In the dwolutiou of tliecor- t lrtion, assume cont: ol of the fu ml , ' because it con id not be returned to T ' ', tint donuts, it must, so the court ad- ft ": he devotetl to '-the lawful olijecui of charity mo4 nearly cor- W. resfvndinj to those to which it wa S. : originally destined.'7 iAi3' K-wthen. Ttie charities referred . yv to throughout tlieargument are those .;; charities which were originally iu- P, tended fr the benefit of the general ruMic, or certain classes thereof, Ir-reqsccU Ir-reqsccU ve of any particular denomination. denom-ination. In this case the charitable )& . 'I9s of tho property were for the j,', , purposes of the Church of Jesus g Christ of latter-day SaintF. A T:re donations given srere not A? v for any other urpose. Tlie lower court so foun J and the higher p court sustained the flnding. The 4 corporation is declared to have bein i "a religious and cliaritable coqior- K Jttlon for the purjose of promulgat- A I"Ki tprcadimr and UIioIding the vJl principles, praetits. t -aching- and iS teicts of jaid Churcli, aud for the iff purpose of dispensing charity tittijed P and according to tukl principles, j rraeliec,tcaeutfftaniiOna:t. g3 Tlie propxHition? then, to devote thepropertyof the dUoIveJ coqor- ation to tlie general public use of ' I ' common school, would be foreign to "the ol ject of charily for which t'" it was. originally destined." They , ' 'ercjsotliecourlfinds.forthepur-- 'ercjsotliecourlfinds.forthepur-- puwof "dlf pensing cliarity, sjU'ect ; and ac tr.ling to the principles, i pruticis and teachings of th. . Churcli." To devote them to secular secu-lar schools for the benefit of people ouUMo of and hostile to the Church aud its tenets, aud who never dnated a ;ut to the fuud, would iHit only lo unjust but csalrary to the principle whkh,the court says, must govern lUi t)e jniliciil and sovereign power in the dUtrilxitioti of surii accumulated properties. Supposing thut one of the uses to whieli such funds has in the IMistbeeu applied was the upholding or promulgation or i ractioeof polyg- , amy. It tlovt, not appear, nor is it n. staled, that this was the exclusive purpofoof tluo funds. Tolygamy is only alk-ged to Ikj one of the tcuete for th promulgation of which the funds were used or intendid to leusl. That praiiice Uing de- '. dared unlawful, there are scores of Urer uses within tlie Church to which the pruj-erty may be put which would have uo relation to llyg.uny, iu practice or promulgation. promulga-tion. And granting all Uiat is alleged - concerning the present atti tude of the. ministers or the Church on that question, and further thai the property may ' he legally devoted to the cause ol , education, wouid it Lot bo contrary lo the doctrine of c laiities advocat- od by the c urt, to devoto that I Iiroirty to the general public use, ? which was "destined" for the bene fit of the jarticular denomination i for which and in which It was orig- iiially bestowed? According to the principles laid down by tho court, and the position (" jt has taken on this question, even f -. if this prorty, donated by the I Latter-day Saints for religious as well as charitable uses, may be I legally used for scholastic riurpcw, then the children or the latter-day Saints should alone recti vo the beucfit of that diversion, suljtcl to the tenets and teachings of their Churcli lo the exclusion of everything every-thing favoring polygamy. The decision of the lower court is fully sustained as to its general fea-.turea fea-.turea and findings of law. Its etate-f etate-f meat of facts is, of course, accepted without question. In addition to these tlie court of last resort makig assartloiis c nic-rnlug matters outside out-side of the record. At the rauib I time It omits some things contained in tho record, which if considered might have Important bearings upon the equities of the case. The remarks of the court about the "Jlomion" propaganda are extraneous ex-traneous and Incorrect. It is not true that he "emissaries" or the Church aru "engaged in many countries In propagating polygamy." Aud this does'not apjiear in the record rec-ord of the case. Tho court has judicially judi-cially accepted common rumor, which, as is frequently the case, Is very unreliable. It Is also untrue un-true that the Latter-day Saints have "attempted to establish an independent community," and to "drive from tho Territory all who were not connected with them in communion and sympathy." Tliis is not in tho record, and the facts prove tho contrary. Trie court has no right to Incorporate tlie slander of anti-"Mormons" in a judicial decree on a matter of Law and equity. The court Is also unfair inex- cluding parts of tlie findings of fact which modify other and immediately imme-diately connected arts. For instance: in-stance: The court cites the lau-guagoofthe lau-guagoofthe lower court In regard to the teaching and practice of polygamy polyg-amy or plurality of wives, as one of tile tenets of the late Churcli Incorporation, In-corporation, b ut omits tho qualifying qualify-ing portion of the very sentence quoted, which Is a a follows: "but only a portion of tho members of said corporation, not exceeding 20 per ce ut of tho marriageable members, mem-bers, male and female, were engaged engag-ed in tlie actual practice of polygamy.' polyg-amy.' Let us figure on this a little. We do not admit it as a correct estimate. But the court to stated it. The usual ratio is placed at five persons to the family. That is, two-fifths or 10 r cent of tho poiulat!on are .idults. One-fifth oriOiier cent of two fifths would make eight per cent f tlie "Jformon" population, Including In-cluding male aud female, who were -ngaged in the practice of iwlygamy, according to the estimate of the court. Well, Is it right to conclude that a Church iu which eight ier cent of tho population are polygamlsts, is in organlzatiou for the purpose of tho establishment of jolygamj? And is it fair or judicial to rule that bcciuse eight per cent of a Church population are engaged iu tlie practice of something declared urflawful, therefore the ulnety-lno per ceut who are law-abiding, shall be deprived of the property donated by them far religious and charitable uses? We regard the iIygamy pretence as a very thin pretext for stripping an unpopular Church of its prosily. And we are sure that it will have no elTect on tho exaggerated polygamy polyg-amy question, nor will it induce anyone who is a Litter-dav Saint at heart to forsake the Church which he believes to be divine. Such injuj-tice only serves to increase in-crease the faith of the devout, and render more determined the steadfast stead-fast and true. This is proven by hl-tory and will be demonstrated again iu the near future. The question of the final disposi Hon of the personal property ii not yet fettled. Ami the-qi:cs Hon as to which pieces of realty will lwcome forfeit and escheat to the lyiited States is still open. Suits will have to tie carried on in the DUtrict Courts, aud will no doubt be taken up to tlie court of last resort, lu regard, to each piece of property claimed by the Government. Meanwhile, tho Lattcr-Uay.Salnt will look calmly on, knowing that the imiperty irt of this great controversy con-troversy in but a small thing, in view of tlie violation of justice which is being perpetrated in the Government under which they live, and of the glorious priuciples of truth which they live and labor t maintain. Scuator Kdmund-, as will be seen in our prcsj dispatches, has come to the help ol the Supreme Court, and proposes to effect by legislation what the court hesitates to do by judicial authority. Tlie principle involved is just tho same, and no excuse will justify wresting from the Latter-day Saint, that which rightfully belongs to them, aud giving It to persons who never owned it r had, or pretended pre-tended to have, any claim upon it. Will Congress and the country sanction this renewed attempt at robbery ? I |