OCR Text |
Show P. L. WILLIAMS TESTIFIES. lleTcIU Abtot the Beef Irei'a Par-salt Par-salt of IToprrly. At 10 a. m. today (Sept. IS) the Dyer examination was returned before be-fore Commissioner Stone, .in the office of the Salt lake CityGn Company. 1. I Williams Judge Judd and Arthur Brown, the three attorneys for the ex-receiver, and F. 3. IHchards, attorney for ths Church, were pn?ent, bat the government gov-ernment 'was not represented by counsel. Mr. Williams was placed Ujon the stand and testified at great length i n behalf of the receiver. Stally all the ground he west over was old, and made familiar to ths public by testimony been heretofore published. The witness taid: In my acquaintance acquaint-ance hero In the past I hav known of properties reputed to belong to the Church, and hae known of Its reputed TreaUh, and converted on these nmtcrs with Jlr. Dyer; th possession of personal prontrty by the Church, I rcgarded'ss safll-cient safll-cient evidence of owner ljlp and stejewere taken to recover ell. i-r- j sonal property that wuhl be found. Tho witiii; described what personal per-sonal property, account books, etc., had been cittd, and stated tliat account ac-count books dating prior to lia7 could not be found. Tho teams used about the tith'ng olSoa in this city Were claimed li the bait Jjake rtake, and a demand by the receiver for them ii met i th a refusaL I bsl teved Uitoe t earn, etc, could be recovered jf p"opt rstep were taken, aud filed su applicition for a writ of assistance which was granted, and under it the receiver took possession of the property. The title was contested rigorously lij the- parties claiming otv nershlp, and at ieurth the claimants aid for it. The uitn?s detailed at great length investigations which had been made in tho pursuit of Church Puterty. Ho bad understood that the Constitution lot had been owned by Urigham Young, but had b&m turned over to the CLiinJi by his executors In liquidation of alleged indebtedness to the Church. John Taylor, a) trutec-in tru't, convened thewholeof thelottoll S.Kldredge and witness believed that H. j Kldredge would swear that he owned It absolutely aud. did not at first deem it wlso to plant suit. One man who had a ground leatc os-lcn os-lcn ibly from Eldredge, tcld ituets that he paid his rent to one Ilossitcr, understood to be a Church agent; later data wcreoblaiced to warrant the fllloc of a complaint; tbo names of the defendants were obtained froJl tho business signs on the properly, and thcreuItof the suit was, lu the judgment of witne-s. ery doubtfu'. ilncss gave the larticulars re-Isllng re-Isllng to a pieco of land vet of the I-'on Ifou-, which was IncludoJ lu the oonifirociif, told about the Theatre, aud the reason why suit was not planted to recover It, which was bisad on the fact thit the Church had parted -with Its stock In tlw Theatre company before the disincorporating law was passed. liy inquiry of persons friendly to the receiver; and by various other means, investigations av.ere pushed looking to the recovery of property, rial and personal, and gas stock, street railway stock ad oilier property prop-erty were recovered. The witness gae Ihu ditalis of several such transactions. With the exceition of the suit planted to receive the roperty near the Lion House, witness regarded all the suits as doubtful, for the reason that the facts wiru in the custody of per-ons ho-lile to the rocslver. f he reason hy parties who claimed Church property at iengtli weakened weak-ened was, in tie op nUin of the witness, thel- fe r of pro cs-t on for ierjury, an J he believed that the reason why the representatives o! the Church at length agreed to a surren ler of all its iiroperty for the Iirpo5of a fiual decree Mas because be-cause they felt something akin to consttroation. In the opinion of the witnes. it would have betm au Impossibility to liave recuvired a single specltic piece of tlie PLrsonal proiwrty for wlileh $TS was accej ted. Wlt-ueassaid' Wlt-ueassaid' '-I couriered that when that sum was ofTered by the Church and finally settled upou, it was n ck-argalnto the fund, fur I don't believe fifty cents worth of the property pro-perty in lieu of which it was paid oould have ever bou ncoxered. Marshall .t Il-jy le cndo-tl thisret-tlement." thisret-tlement." In rebUion to the real estate suits, the witmts gave It as his opinion at the tiai- conlirmed Mnce, that the receiver noukl liave lost every onu of them except the one planted for the proprty west of tho l.Ion House. Witowsed txprr-4ed to Mr. Peters theoptuion thatthcMormoaChurch had not abandoned the teaching or practice of pol. gamy. This was in connection with the settlement for the final decree, and was designed to influence the government attorney attor-ney in respect to that settlement. Witness testified concerning Investigations In-vestigations in regard to Temrle and Tithing properties in various parts of the Territory, by agents of the receiver, and by himself. lie described the nature and objects of the corporation which holds the title to the logan Temple, as stated In Its charter, and gave the history of that title as disclosed by the records. lie a!o gave tho history of thu titles of seeral tithing properties In Cache county. He treated at length upon Stake and ward corporations and tbeiroAnwihipof property. An Investigation In-vestigation of the title of the tithing property in Brlgham city disclosed, that it vested in Ilrigham Young. This was a surprise to the people there, who Insisted that it iiai b'eu ued and controlled by 'them locally for tithing pur-po-us, long before his death, aud that it belonged to them. Ilrigham You nz's executors made no claim to it. Mud the ieop!e had a roscory title which witnefS believed was good. Witness testified concerning Washakie Farm, on which aco!-ony aco!-ony of Mormon Indians were located; lo-cated; it was worth from $1000 to $13)0, aud the title was in John Taylor, tru-toe-in-trust. Witness belicvedthat the title to this property prop-erty could not Ua conveyed, and that no harm would come of allowing allow-ing it to remain as it was. Witness tee tided concerning certain properties proper-ties In Ogden, used for tithing or re-HgiouHirpoes; re-HgiouHirpoes; hethoughtposslbly the tithing property might be traced back through dlllerent ostensible owners to the Church, as It had always been used for tithing purposes. pur-poses. A suit for this property Is pending; al-o for tho Tabernacle and for the propcrjy used as a residence resi-dence by 1a W. Shurtliir, the latter Is claimed as a panonage. The witness was never a party to any agreement to dismiss those sulk. Mr. Peters had told witness that the Attorney General liad expressed ex-pressed a disinclination to plant suits forTcmples,and the Tabernacle property In Ogden, and thought the latter ought to be dismissed. Witness Wit-ness gave what he understood to be the view of the Attorney-General regarding the Temple Block in this city, which was that it ought not to be attempted to be esheated on account ac-count of any past ue It had bren put to, nor on the strength of a suspicion as to liowltmigl'tinfuturebeused; but that it should remain in stafu ouo until actually ued for an un-lawful un-lawful purpose, when suit- could ue planted and imshed. Witness believed that the counsel coun-sel Tor the United States knew of the condition of the tith.. to alleged Church properties In variojsrurtsof the Territory, bsforo the sstllemuut was made with the Church for a final dcrec; witness had Informed Mr. Peters personally in regard to these propertlps. ., Witness spoke of the decree in the case of the receiver vs. II. S. Eklredge, which, it is claimed, settles the title to the Council House propertj : ho did not think such was the true Intent of the decree, and narrated -the manner In which it came to be rendered. Attuelve o'clock a recess was taken tin 1:30. |