| OCR Text |
Show THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS. Addresses ot Counsel In the Church' Cases Ibis Uoralsf. TLfTUONV OX mt.'ltllAt AITin- M)0. IIMrlrt Atlornty Vsrlsn, .Ulorn;! ' S. liltliards and Ullraml iiiiii( Occupy this loreaeoa, Tho lusting In tho Church civs wasrieutnnlonKaluMay aflemiion lu JudgnZstie'a court. Tha Suvtit te-portclosrnl te-portclosrnl with the opening lUtrmcnt of District Attorney Varlan, who gave an outline of the proceedings. Kvldi nee was then tsken. Messrs. J, It. Walker and II, W, Lawrence wire called by Mr, Varlan to Icrtllyastntha value of the tempi llU.ck from 1807 to 1072. Ilolh rtatrl that It waa of greater value than t-Vi.OOOatlhat lime. This closed the ia for the government. A peUHon for lattrventlon was then prisenteil anl real by Mr, Dlclai.n, and alter nbjrrllinsnn the other side arid short arguments from Is-lh issrllrs, the rouil lermltleil It to be tiled. IllshopJounlt. Winder was called as a witness by llio defense. In reply to Hon. F H. Itlchshlslielal.l hecamo InHslt Lake City lulMI and had re si led here ever since. He had lieell encaged In various kluds of liuslness. Was aiualnted Willi the Tailing Ulllcn Frol-rrty, Temple lllock aod the llstorlsn'aonice. Mr. Hlchards asked witness to slate th value of each of these leer or iro-srty lu 1S02, but Mr Varlan ob. Jrcled to the uueatlou a Irrelevant. Hie court ruled that II might In an. saenl.and the willies aald It waa a dinlrult matter to fit the value of real tslato In this city thirty year ago. At that time It had no llxed value, aud yrry Utile changed hands. Un bolng rniuesled to answer the question, he valued the Tithing ofllco property at $14,000. the Ten-id block at V).ll. aud theHlstorlan'aeftlconottuoxieeu IIOOO. Answering Mr. Hlchards' question, he said that thn three pieces tintned did not exceed -J0,v0U In value at that time. This closed tba case for tho drfeore and the arguments wcro set for Monday morning. TOIIAk'd lHUCEEUI.VUS. Tho argument this morning waa opened by Mr. Varlau, who brlilly re-cspltlllaleil re-cspltlllaleil the history of the rave. He referred to Iho flllri-c of thegcurral luformktlons, on Uclober blh, IkH, against tho three aroels of iiroperly unbraced In this llllgttlou, ami to the uh--rqurnlste4hai Ihereunder. The theory of thu government, he sald,was tint these roit-edlng were ha I against the riroi-erly and notice was glvenby taking i-usesslon thereof, as well a giving jersobl notice of the Mirvlce of the monition lo all persona known to claim an Interest lu eutli prot-erty, either by deeds upon record or by t-utllugthe actuil occupants In poraeesloll. There was no tule at com-lilsti com-lilsti lawdlrectlng thatthecourt should give notice of fuluru proceedings In anysueilal cewsaier; and hla con tentlon vrua that the seizure of till lreirty tiy attachment was notice ultlcletit to the parties claiming an lnterist.The returns of tbeoftlcersshow edanirroallvely that tlilejroierty was selzedand a copy of the monition filed aid recorded lu the rtcorder's tfllce, a co,iy lielng served ujsin all ersons claiming or lu )cslin. The single question to tie ditermtner! hero was wbelhtr this iroity was aciulred' la violation of the law ot 185:; whither the late corioratlon of the Church of Jesus Christ of I.attrr-day Hiilnts whl h had acquire I It had el. ready aisulred and hel I rial estate or the valueor,ir exceeding In value.fW,. Uui). Thelaw of lSnJj roblbltcl any rellgloua cororatlon or association froiiiaciulriugor buldltig real roicr ty under these circumstances. From the lauguaguof the act It waa quite ipvarut that Congrens contetti)itid that the violation of the law might W a coutlnulng one, lu rrgnrtt lo the prohll Itlcu, Congrssa was strlklug at what was sut posed to be a menace to the Institutions of tho country, and the olject waa to limit this cla-a of contritions, nf aggregate ag-gregate lioiliss, from massing ti gather real property In exiess ol a certain amount. The property Itself was not made the oflinder, but tbo holding In certalu hands of a surplus amount. Counsel quoted froni the general stat ule ot 16'l.',and Instanced what be cou nlved lobotbeapiareulnbjt of tile t rohlt llory prjvliion. Congrei-s.hav lug In mind the act of limitation prohibiting pro-hibiting any suitor rosecullon to in. force any penally or forfeiture, Inserted lu the prohtblbiry provision of 18 12 the words "or held," maklug It char that thelllteutlou was that this viols-tton viols-tton or oltensu was to I in tbu tistuie of a continuing one, and that In the case of any rellglou corpwatloti or association hoi ling from day lo day, week lo week, and esr lo year within the prohll llory claute, tho government could at any lime It thought protier enforce the prohll Itlon, What the United ritatee was now seeking seek-ing to escheat was thu title, tha feu tit I he property In controversy. Th sole oblectof Inquiry here waa to aiertai n w,ielhirlhleprorty wss obtained In violation or tho law of UK; lucldinl-ally lucldinl-ally conntcted w Ith that the statute of llmltllatlona hvl to be considered. Tho defendants In there case claimed ns trustee for tho tiensul ol all tho members mem-bers or tho unlncorjierMed association, which It bad been all aloug conceded was) radically the Church Itself Ilia suicessur ta the late corsiratlon In one reuse, tut not lu a legal sense, and thereforo not entitled bi hold this troperty. it was Its successor only In Church matters. There wax no pretense for raying that any of these defenjanta had any Kgal right as Individuals lu lha properly In ill. I ute. There wrru nu vested rights, lie Inslstud, as to the Temnln bioU, Historian' ofllce, tlardo House, or rithlnir yard pro-etty, l-ecause the rleht orieMHi prior to these pro-CetdltiKS pro-CetdltiKS were simply those of llci nseia. The Hon. F. H. ltkhards folluwi 1 on the side of the defendants, and Ills, rofrrrttl to thu Importnnceofilie matter lu controversy. His contention was Unit lh& suit originally brought lu Iho Muprrnie Court of the Territory was under a separate provision of the statute stat-ute from that upon which the present proceedings were btsed, and fur a illf. ierent purpose: It luvulved Issues aud did nut liiUude any of tho questions aud matters that had been set up as a ilcfeuie lu these actions. That was a suit In equity, this wis a proceeding at common 'aw. At the very direst old or tin so pneeJlngs, when a ersclal apiearance was iuaJ on the part of som of tho rersons who were now !e-rendsblsln !e-rendsblsln thevo ca-es, the point was then mule that It was a common law proceeding, that the drfeultota had it light lo trlil hy Jury, sill that the rructsdliiK shoild bo had, as they claimed, unJer tl.o cmle. It wa conceded by the guv-ftrmnint guv-ftrmnint In that argument that the deftn tint were eutlilt-d tu have these Isrui subrullle.1 to and tried by a Jury, nnd tbey HOW coma l-efore this ceirt to try !beirta!lrrsJurycase. Coun-st Coun-st I examined Into the utlnlnii of thu Hufreme Court or the United mates, which lie sltoweil not only riDbraceil the record, all the pirn lings, and tho i-mirlslntlnlheorlllnsl suit, tut the Mmllugeatid decree. He quoted frjul II. sccll'iiis of Ihoslituteuui.crwhlcli the re-ant aiilou wero lintituted, and rwmarkeil that there were brought Inlothe original cau, during the pro gressnf the trill, cerlatll thing which were not wlthlu tho Isslit ami which could not properly be tiled lu that suit, llelnslsted that the whole eion and object of theotlglllll suit waa to nbUI i adetreedeclailngfiatthe corporation of Hie Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day rlalnls had lieen dlssolveJ, de-tirmluligwbat de-tirmluligwbat properly Ihecuriora lion ioerecd at the time of the ills.)-lullon, ills.)-lullon, and placing lite pro-riy lu the baud ol the Itet-elver. That was all (lie tsiwer thn ci.utl ha I under the itstule, all It ould do and atlem led to do. It did not Intend tu delurtheile-fi delurtheile-fi u.'ants of any or th rlihts and rlvt-legralncluded rlvt-legralncluded Itilhe suit now lending. lend-ing. Thee, questions of really were not In Ihe case at all. Counsel arguid alleuglh upon various lnts of law whlih hecin-d. The claim of Hour-ney, Hour-ney, Dluwoudey and other tut been mentioned by the other side. Those parties came In and aikrd tint tb jirofieily be taki n out of tho hand of tho Itenlvrr and turned over lo them a the truster for the Church; but nobody In till Initauco was asking any such thing. If Iho rlghta or the illtlotirr were to he taken Into ton slltMllon lu Ihe fln-il dl'pnsltlon of this I rotrty, when, be aAi-d, could they Le beard ir not now lu these fro si-dings? Iltliopr perly was declared declar-ed forfi lied, then they lia I no more rlglils'nnd lfevrlbey wtro going to havu a hearing and nu or-iwrlimlly of I resenting t'oilr claims they mutt hove It now and that was Just what they wet trying for. This pruteity hal ln lmirecd wllh clisrltsl.loufF, and cuiimel for the defendant asked that It should be pnserved, and that when tho proper llmecame, and Ju tho prctar rlice, llmyoluU I heard again. Mr. Hlchards Hlch-ards claimed that the Uatdo House wss Just as much a parsonage as wo the residence of any clergyman ot the Lpleccqal church; but t-rcaurn there was ho ecclesiastical position In this case, upon that barreu technicality was tho Church of Jesus Christ if LatleMlay Halnt to l del lived of Kroperly Inlen led for the uso of the esd ot thn Chu irh? Till Chun h ws Just as much In existence, iss Chtirih, today as It evir was, althouzh It no longer existed as a cor(ratlou. The defendants ha I tb right to the verdict of n Jury upon evi ry m iterlal question necesaary Id the determination as to w hetber or not this f ro rty was sub Jut to forfeiture, or whcthir It mm under theexemplloQ of law. Under these olrcumitauei aud condition a carrful analysl or all these iroceed tngs Would show that tho Hurreme courtlett ojen, and tree for cousldern Hon. all matters that pro-irly pertained to these questions of escheat or for-ftlture. for-ftlture. Attorney LnClraml Young followed fol-lowed ou tehair or tho defendant', defend-ant', and after traveling slightly over some of tho ground trod leu by his collraguv.bo arglml liM)n the quea-Hon quea-Hon of vested rlghta at emis lonth, quoting particularly from lha act of 111 I and that of ISilJ, and dealing with Iho rovlalon and meaulug uf the rn-emptlou rn-emptlou and homeUal laws. He Argue 1 Ibat there waa a vc-dod right established In lines cases and that the gnvrrnuii nt was topM-u froni making an escheat, Inasmuch as the land In question had len duly inured uudtr the townslte act, and the Interested !rtleshailpAldforll. Court then took a rccrostlll two p.m. Till aflirrcou Attorney Dickson loik unlhe ariiument nu the luart of the defendants, contending under the statute of llnllutlors the Ulillid Wales guvirnment wa i.eliairrd from Instl tutlLgthrs proceedings, not having commenced th action wlthlu a period of five years after tho raising of the act oribUJ. |
