OCR Text |
Show THE DILI. TO R03 THE CHUBrtV. In the House or Representatives on (tie HtU Inst., Mr. Ezra B. Tay-lor Tay-lor called up the Senate bill 4947, and yielded the floor to Mr. Caswell of Wisconsin. The bill wvi read n follows: "Ho it enaded, rte., Tbat all funds or otter propony Luelr bclonjloe to or in th pcs cs-ilun of or claimed bv ih corporation mentioned in secilnn17 of the act en itted 'An act to amend an act entitled 'An ct Id amend sealon 5.13.! of the Kiid Stamies of tho UaiiWS'atMaTcrcrenco to blgamv, an.t for Other pui-poSc-, atlfiroVid March 'A 1SS-.V ar. bi'itf'e, or since tho takngtncctcrkd I act, except so far as it shall appear In rcspc-t thereto lint theie I aUwfulpriatori;hito tho contrary, Jhallbedeotcd tc IDs uso and bfiifi't of puohc common rtlin..1- !n the Torritorv of Utah, and the Secretary of tho Interior shall Uke and receive the same and diijso ttiercof to the uses afonaid in such lnacarr as sliall seemt'i him, wita the approval of the 1'm.idcnt, to bs most exfiedlent. And llie supreme court of said territory is hereby lnicsicd with m'ir and au bonty iu niakeall necessary nec-essary and p-opcr orders and decrees for tae purpose bereinbeioro mentioned." men-tioned." When Mr. Cnswel) look tho floor, Mr. OaUsUted lhatanUnderstand lug was had that this bill should not bu discussed until Aifi Culberson coold pnstrhl a minority rexrt. Mr. Ciuwtllwasverj anxious to have the matter disosed of during the morn-iughourauda morn-iughourauda dispute arosu between liiniand.Mr. Ciilberiiti which rei sulU-JIn:dx.;a.,rteli,s taking the tlourand makiDg the following remarks re-marks which we take from the Congressional Becord of December 12lh: Mr. Caswell. Mr. Speaker, I would like to roe-red wim theevn-slUeratlou theevn-slUeratlou ot tills bill. It is it matter d Very great InipurtauCel uil 1 desire lliu attention e f the lluu-v uh;ie I make n rtateiuwit. 1 shall be zy brier, aud then will i ie!d some time to lab gentletnlu irom Texas Mr. Culberson If he w I-hes to be beard. Those who are conversant with the dicussiuu in ISiT uf tiisilor-uion tiisilor-uion bill ku( n i- 'tie Tucker-tols uiiluit r:! win remember that bj llite act or Congress of lboj all corporations w itlim the Territory of lLiU ero restricted iu tlie owner-slip owner-slip of real propcity to the utnouut ofsj,KK. But notnithstanJing that restriction the Mormou Cuu.ch gnlieretl iuto its ioesessiou, u ils o ii name aud through the inter-posiliuu inter-posiliuu of trustees, large amouuls of projiert both real und jwrsoual. H Hie act of IiS7 the Tucker-r.du.uuds Tucker-r.du.uuds bill the franchise was abolished, and the property of that ehurch, both real ami personal, was placed in the hands of a receiver. I'ruceedlugs were iuktiti-led In tho Territorial courts or Utah by which litigitjuu has been had Concerning this i rois-ny. It was nil placed In the hands or a receiver. The church building it-eir has been set aptrt Tor the occupation aud eujoi -mentor the members of the Mormon Mor-mon Churcli. The litigation that was instituted found Its way to the supremo Cturt ofthe United States, an i that court nas held tnat the law w is cuu-litutloiia, and that the nro-ceediugs nro-ceediugs which have taken place-were place-were pnir and legitimate. The parties supposed to be Interested Inter-ested as trustees, anl referred to a few mluutesago I suppoe bv the i iitleiiiiufro.il IVnnslrauU'fMr. Vaux were interpleaded, settinguii Uleir rights to the property both real and s;rsorial,aiid they were heard. The court held that tills pro-rty iu the hands of trustees was reall) fie projit-rty of thechurch organization, tlut it uelouced to the church audi came within the range ofthe con-! tl-catiou and was properly in the hands ortne receiver, do that the rights of those parties have been litigated aud riiwned iuto Judgments, Judg-ments, J h But the bill provided that the pnx-eeds orthe real estate in excess otS3U.0W should be placed in the schoal fund ofthe Territory of Utah, for the puriose of educating t u elilMreti of the Territory, both Moru.on and others. But the bill applied only to sales of real estate, not to H-rsonal property. The Inn I lacing the proceeds or the real estate iu the school run I ofthe TerrI tory lias been sustained; tiut in the mirimime the receiver hildsnearh kW,lMi worth ot lrsonal proiwrt .; aud the question now Is, what should be none with this personal propert? It re-ts in the hands or the receiver; and everyone can see the Importance of iu early dis-sition. dis-sition. Tills money was gathered into the hinds of the Mormons in jiiuoj lue-iiorinon utmrch and its jairpose, which the court holds to have been au illegal tHirpuse. Ol course it should be theo'tject or the courts aud or Cougress, sj rar as possible, to carry out the wishes of donors when they ire legitimate. Mr. Oatcs. I would like to ask tho gentleman a iiuesiion at this loiut. Is ii Jt the disKaiilou of this fund involved in n litigation now pending an apial? That is tbe fact, if I am correctly Informed. Mr. Caswell. I do not no understand under-stand It. I understand that all questions as to the ownership or title to this tiuuey have been a J. judicated and Hist the deci-Ion of the court stib-Unlially Is that it is i parlor the ruuds that were confiscated. confis-cated. Mr. Oates. UnJcr the Edmunds-Tucker Edmunds-Tucker law? -Mr. Ca-well. Under the Edmunds-Tucker law the personal property his been placed In the hands ot a receiver without determining determ-ining what IU ruture disi-osltlou should be. Mr. Oates. How can tbat be when that law applied only to real estate I and tills money Is the proceeds of , personalty? Mr. Caswell. Well, such Is the de, Won of the court. I understtud that the a .judication extends to lrjonal projwrty as well as to the realiv. Mr. OaUs. Has the gentleman that decision at baud? Mr. Caswell. I have not. It may bet found in the last volume of the rc-jwrts, volume 133. .Mr. Oates. Is not my frleud j aware of the fact tbat the Ed- ! munds-Tucker bill did rAt apply to I this fund, but a plied ouly to real estate? Mr. Caswell. The court holds, as I uuderstauil, that the donation was fiir an illegal purjstse, being for the extension or the Mormon Church aud iu doctrines, and that the dls-lusltioii dls-lusltioii or the iiersonal proper! lies with the courts or with Con gress. The franchise is repealed, the corporation is at an end, and the court holds that tho iiersonal property in question was donated for illegal purposes aud Is now subject sub-ject to the dissal or Congress. I conc-deacourt or chancery might do tills iu the absence oT legislation. It is tiie province or courts or chan-ciry, chan-ciry, wlien donations hae been made foran illegal urpose and the trut cannot I- executed, to dispose of the pro.erty by assigning It to iwce legitimate ot Ject. and so far as sil.e to a worthy ot Ject. Now, it Is Ulleved that the most proper disposition or this money would !et place It In the school fund, which may be regarded as a charitable pure. As the money cannot be devoted to the original purpose of the donors, It would appear ap-pear that its most equitable disposition dispo-sition Is to place it iu the common school fund of the Territory for the purpose of educating the children of the Territory. In this way the Mormon children may receive a partial benefit. I have thought that if a plan could be devised for devotine this I fund to the care and support of the I women and children beloatluK to I the Mormon Clmr. h who have been I made w Idows and orphans, as it I were, by the Jldmuntls-Tucker law, I that might be a very worthy pur-i pur-i Ijose. But I tee no way in which the fund could be so managed without with-out nbjecllng it to great risk of liclng lost aud squandered. Nor do f I know of any plan by which tho inoccy could bedlsposed of for the special and exclusive benefit ofl persona belonging to tbat par-l Ucnlar church or indnlrlng UJjrUgljbclleAuJ MBMiMssaiWka seemed to the committee, or a majority of the committee, that the best possible disposition of this fund would I to place It where the proceeds pro-ceeds of the real estate have been placed In the school fund of the Territory. This certainly Is a worthy object, and while such dis-pcltiuu dis-pcltiuu would cot cirry out strictly thu wishes of the donors, as this money was gathered all over the world for the lAirposb of aiding the Mormon Chuh.li ah Illegal pur-pose pur-pose aud It could not be carried out. The money in this way would be devoted to tne common interest of thS tnlMren of the Territory. The Senate Las passed tills bill placing the properly iu the schssjl fund wherelh.lt other fUnds belong, and I see bo reason why the fund arising from the personal property should be diied cf in any way differently from that derived from the real estate, and the committee thought it best to let it take Ibe sime course with the proceeds of the real estate, and combine the Uo funds in one for school purposes. pur-poses. -Now, I do not know what opposition oppo-sition there can be to this proposition, proposi-tion, unless it lie cUimed that the Courts ur the Territory might make rsjnii disposition ef It that Would eoufioe it totheu-c and benefit ot the Mormon ChUna atone, or to the inecjlvra cf thn Chrfrtii. As I have-already stated,it seemed to the committee almost Impossible to adjpt any plan by whiifl tbat could be done without a recognition ol the Mormon Church Itself. No one has any deHre to misappropriate this monej . No one would desire ti1! fN- it HlvehwJ.rtr wishes to divert it, from a legtmuatei purpce tr charitable purpose. But the fact that it was glveu promiscuously b people all over the world aud placed i.i tho treasury of the Mormon Church for an illegal purpjse, it seems to me.makes It strictly i roper . that lorigrvu should gather up all of thee luuds and pi ice- them In the treasury orthe Terrltort for the pur-lO-e of edui-allug the (hlldreu of that Territory. Mr. Oate;. Let mo ask the gen-t'einin gen-t'einin this questiou: H the iuml was given ror two or three diflciciit Iiuris.-se,ud tlle-y leere nllllltn-il but one, would it not under the law-have law-have to go to tho one .urpns which was legal? Mr. Ctsurell. If it was given ror several and ilifTereut urposty, oue of which was legal and the others I Ureal. I know or uorulu either ol law or equity which would plu-e it all fur the benefit of the legal (Sir-pose. (Sir-pose. But, Jlr. Sfalcr, in this case I do nut bellee that we need to s.ie-culate s.ie-culate on that jsjitit, fur I do not kuo or any oucpurpo-e fonvhl. h thbtmjiiey was coutribtred which could be regardeil as legal. 1 think theuulyiiljetlforthc githering together to-gether of the fund was ror the promotion pro-motion of the Mortuon religion. All agree that that was an Illegal jKir-sc, jKir-sc, as its priucljal feature was thedeettirteof jiolygamy. Now, as no one will contend here ror n single sin-gle moment that the oMecU ot these I donations were legiti uale or could possibly tie construed as having a legiti in He irpos-, I ask, rhoull nut Congress lake pots-Ks.!ou and control ot this fund? Whit better source cmu we point out fur lis mamgement than to place- it iu the educatioual fund for ibe Terntorv? I am not positive as to the bearing ofthe dei isioii ofthe court upon the question raised i.y the geuilem tu from Georgia Mr Oatei-J. I bojsr he will exa.ulue the decision, and 1 will myself ii.lestig.ete- th0 joint whether the iau was applicable to the srrouaI protty or not. I understand un-derstand the decision embraces and confiscates the (vrsoual ropcrty, and hoi Is that theiersual pruien eif the Church may be di-josed of by Congress. Now, Mr. Speaker, on tomorrow, if the gentleman desires, I will yield him time. -r. cuinerrori, ot Texas. I desire time tomorrow. Mr. Casw ell. It will then !e the understanding tlut tomorrow I will yield some p.rtioii nf thatime to the gentleman Irom Texas. How much will the gentleman waul? Mr. Culberson, of Texas. I should like to have thirty minutes. Mr. Oates. I also want some time. Mr. Caswell. I should bo ery glad todisuse of this question within with-in the morning hour if possible. Mr. Culber-ou, of Texas. Then yield to me say tweutv miuutes. Mr. Caswell. I will do tlnd; I w ill 3 ield to my friend ft- ni Texas twenty minutes and ten to my friend from Alabama. Mr. Oates. Make it fifteen. Mr. Caswell. Very well, let that be the understanding. |