| OCR Text |
Show H' ' Till. 11LIOP.T ON 1 lit: lllL'.llll H ' i ,f Junon IjomiiaURuni thsMuIri In Chancer ) , appointed by the Huprcmo J Court of the Territory, loexanilno Into 1 ths Church pereonal prorly esse and make fin lings, hat filed hi report which will lie found In lh!l lima of theDiar.llCT Nl un. It l not differ- I tiit In nnjr tetcntlal n-ttct from what we anticipated. . Tbectltloneof lbs locl organlfa- V llonifor oitlont of the iroperly am H treated In rational manner, noil we l I , think the logic and tlm law of H' the findings In relation to them H nreijiiiid. Hut In the conoluilom con. H lemliiglliecltlms ol theunlncorpor H j atcd Church of Jttus Christ of Litter- M ' (jay Halnts, we llilnk tint reasoning H faulty and tbo rocomminlallou un- Ml sound anil not warranted by Ihu re- i mines It hlnn that Ilia line, to which the M fund was originally put wire various. Also that the donors ilhl not select any Hi articular charity or religious purposn H ' to which their donntioiii ahoul I Iki -M piled, rhofuul wis lobe undcrtho H direction of the Presidency of tbo H Church, to be expended firauehpur-H, firauehpur-H, teres a nilkht le Herniary fbrlhu H ) good of tho religious orgsDlratlon H known an the Cbiirili of Jesus Cliilat M of Latter da) Hilnti. U Hut among those utcs anil iiirposcs, H t Ikls clear lhat llieMiuorlo( tho com 11 I inon,scliools In which children uf o- H pie of all pertuatlona ami tlenomlua- U I tlona were eduialiil, anil which were H uiidcrthecontrolof the Territory and H entirely disconnected with the Churoh, H was not lucluled nor Intended. It U must Le evident to eviry fair and Im- H t artlal mind that the legal dlslncor- H forattoti of the Church, suing tlittt the U ' Church organlaillon contltiuul Intact H and without actual change of form or H essence, did not on any Juit prlucl1e H (4 deprive that body of ll pruputy H tci rights. Itiltuplj erased to m a oor- H JL iteration under the law. H Rj What follows? Why that the Church H lj alone had a natural rljht to the pr. H ft aonnl property which belonged to It H 11 beforu the corporation was dissolved. H ' Also that no Uwful uses could bo no H near akin to thoie to which tho fund H was originally put, as tlieurposrs to H which It would be applied If tile petl- H tlouuf the Church should bo granted. 1 , It la undeniable that tile donors In- H tended their donations for Church M um. That Is, for the lienellt B of rsons and charities and H luitltutlons unlsr the Immediate H ausplcea of the Church and Its i'reil- i , dsney. They did not Intind that they H should be appllod to any puriwae or H J persou that was not under that dllro H. tlon and l'retldency. They did not H ( xlve their money tosupport schools for H the children of other denominations H The educatlonil lMirposee, mentlonel, H thin, were uct such iducattonal pur- H posea as the MasUr In (J hancery rco- H ommends they shall now bo devoted H H ' l'urther. Talis away the uio of "the H support of polygamy," alleged to beono H of the original purpoavs of the U fund, and what other of tho original H uieacan beclalmeil unlawful? There H Is no i reduce that If the petition of Hl the Church be cranted any portion of H thn fund would le devoted to the sup- i port of tho practice of polygamy. His j admitted by the Muter that It Is only J the practice nf lyKamy aud not bell be-ll lief In It that li criminal. Ho that no valid objection Is advauced against the ssBBBji actual owuer of the property the un H Incorporated Church, being, ruiltted H to use Us own fund for lawful )ur- iy. ptoses.. ITbe only roason(?) advanced why the fundashouli not bo thus devoted Is, that though the ) ractlce of k)Ij gamy baa been abandoned by the Church It ssBBBj Is still retained os one of Its leuets. Is H not this set forth lua manner that la H searcoly nocurate? Is the jfacllce of H polygamy still held ai a tenet of faith? H Is not simile belief In the principle H all that can lie truthfully alltgrd, H now, as ritaiiitNl ly some of the H Latter day tialnts, whllo tho prartlco H lielug ferbliiden It Is not a "cardinal 1 iwllit of IU faith?" H Hut the whole argument li narro fed H diiwli tothlsKilnt: The Church Is to tsaaaM bo revented from tmvlng IIh owu funds, for law till us a, U caue some of bbbbbb). Us nieuibers btlleve vhat I oogamy BiV would be pro er under certain olrcum- ftl stanceswhlcbdonoinowtxtst. That Is j tbo loglo of the report. If It Is law, It Is Kjf ' very bad law, and tho Justice that rrles K' aloud for Its own In every unireju- Hl diced scul, revolts at It anJ denouuees Hl It lnuch terms itsheent inot nitlng. H The lludltys will haw. to be colllld. M endbj tbo Hupremo Court of Utah, P and will then no doubt go up to the court of last resott. Thtre Is )et a H' faint hope that right nnd npilly will B prevail, and that tbo I.altir-da) tialull H( v. Ill not bo robbel of thilr properly A rlirltstrcaueuof ll.tlr ullegeil kllef H In an aUtrscl doctrine Mlilcli Is ton- T trary to ubllo o lulou. |
