| Show PROPERTY PROP stored RE TO I 1 EDO the bill passed the house aej THE UTAH STATEHOOD BILL Is 13 UP hawlins and ana democracy restoring to the people of utah their rights eights the congressional M mccord of october 6 1893 gives a complete account of the fight 0 made by delegate rawlins for the restoration of the es cheated personal property of the church of jesus chariut of latter lat day dav saints the only opponents I 1 to his joint resolution were republicans and sir rawlins whipped thern them on oil every point ns as the official records show an ali amendment to rawlins joint resolution being up the discussion continued as follows mr burrows burrow republican yr mr speaker I 1 desire to inquire whether this joint resolution is not dot subject to the guint of order that it must ln st considered in committee of the whole it relates to certain moneys belonging to the united states which it is proposed lo 10 oveido over to private individuals mr oates det democrat nosrat no crat the go gi etleman is mistaken this money does not bellog to the united states stales and never did mr M r dockery what is the amount of money mr ali oat oatis s the gentleman from texas mr bailey made the repart upon this bill but I 1 do not sea him here li ere the speaker the gentleman from texas mr bailey is absent by leave of the house alouse mr air oates gates ta then ien di discussed the situation at some length reviewing the escheat and the consequent litigation aaion which was carried to tile thi I 1 supreme courton court of the united states slates mr 11 hopkins republican does docs the decision of the supreme ilat Il rt of the united states indicate what shall be done with the per bonal property mr air oates I 1 eanno cannot tsay say a as S ito to the lat decin ap ecale with aube J ata 0 e not been familiar with ill tho detune for some come time I 1 thero therefore fore yield tile the floor for a limited period to the delegate from utah alir mr rawlins who is perfectly familiar with it mr Il hopkins the point is not waived mr speaker as to this bill requiring to be consid considered ered in ill committee of the whole the speaker speak er W what hat claim has the united states upon this fund this property seems to bo be in in the hands of a re civer mr oates jalcs I 1 will say that the receiver has no interest in the question in the world further thau than his own fees are concerned mr Il hopkins of illinois the gentleman does not understand me and it seems to me it is a lack of knowledge on this matter that is troubling all of us if tile the personal property properly now mentioned is now in charge of the receiver with authority to sell it and convert it into money and transfer that money to the treasury of the united states state mr oates gates it has been converted into money I 1 mr II Il of illinois then what is to become of that money it is to be transferred into the treasury sury of the united states or to private individuals mr oates I 1 will ask that the delag delegate it to from utah mr ir rawlins Rawlin sJ he be allowed to explain this matter as lie ho is more familiar with the details that I 1 am mr air 11 hopkins of illinois I 1 desire that the point be reserved until we can obtain the facts and upon them have a ruling of the chair the speaker of course there is always ome forne objection to discussing the merits ot of a bill pending a question of order the simple question here is what is the receiver to do with this fund what interest has tile the united states in the fund if the bill does not pass mr ir rawlins ile he lias has no interest whatever the speaker then what dries does this bill requite the receiver to do with those funds mr ir rawlins in 1887 congress passed what was known as the edmunds tucker act which dissolved the corporation of the mormon church mr 11 hopkins of illinois this is all familiar history tile the point we want to betat get at mr rawlins Itaw lins I 1 trust the gentleman will allow me 1110 tv tu state the facts of alie matter tile act to which I 1 have authorized the attorney general of the united slates to institute 0 the court of the territory to I 1 wind up tho affairs of the bissol dissolved ved corporation in january 1888 such a suit was commenced and alio court appointed a receiver to tako take possession of this property pending the alip winding c up of tho the corporations business the receiver after his appointment canio came into possession of rea real I 1 estate anil and personal property the act of congress provided that the real estate which might be forfeited or might escheat under the provisions of the statute should be applied for the benefit of the alie common schools school 9 in the territory I 1 but it made no do provision as to what disposition should be made of the personal property properly A decree was entered which was finally taken to the supreme court of the united states that court held that the legislation dissolving t tile the corporation was war valid and that the real estate should go to the benefit of the common se schools boos as provided in the act if it should be forfeited to the united 1 states tates 5 the court furthermore held that in the absence of an act of con congress r ress I 1 and the court withheld its d becis acis sion in the hope that Conr congress ress might make some pro provision n as to the disposition of tho the personal proper property kyl 1 this thin personal proper property t y hould be applied according to the he doctrine of cypres or charitable uses to some charitable purpose lawful in its character r and most nearly corresponding to that which was originally designed by v those who gave imand the supreme court of the united states sent the matter back to the supreme court of the territory that it might inight 7 take that question into consid consideration era I 1 was special counsel for the united states in that matter and I 1 am familiar with t the be case testimony was taken as to whether the church had given up tip polygamy because this property should be applied in accordance as nearly as possible with the intention of the men who denoted it this money has been in the possession of ohp receiver for about live five years ant and barring I 1 the reductions duct ions and the dispersion of it which have taken place by reason of the expenses of administration is is still in his possession now the church is stripped sir ippei of all of its property pe rth it has given up poly polygamy artray as s is found by every federal 0 official in in the territory and recognized by mr harrison in liis his proclamation of general amnesty while this property that ought to go to the individuals is i still held in tho hands handa of the he acce dver iver and cannot until action is taken such ay as pro proposed posed here be distributed I 1 submit when these people have yielded to all the demands of till the government that this property in justice and right 0 ought to be restored to them they are individuals v vi private individuals who have given notes for this indebtedness n es sand and turned the money over to the hands of the receiver the notes are now due and tb they ey ai aie e unable to get the to pay them and their private estates are threatened it is ia an urgent matter and I 1 ask this body to pass this bill mr air Il hopkins of illinois this bill seeks to take this property from the government and give it to the private individuals that being so it seems perfectly clear that the principle that whatever property under the control or in the possession of the united states is to be taken from it the bill making such provisions ions should have it first consideration in committee of the whole house on tho the state of the union nir mr rawlins I 1 would like to to ask the gentleman a question take this statement of facts and they are all found and assented to by the members of the judiciary committee first by tile the sub com cittee and subsequently by the whole committee nobody is prepared to dispute the facts as I 1 have stated them I 1 say taking C these facts then I 1 ask the gentleman ou on what ground the united states has any power to control this property or hold possession sion of it either directly or indirectly they have never claimed that right 0 mr ir of illinois why the gentleman states that the property is held by the government of the united states mr ir rawlins no I 1 stated no such thin thing 1 I 1 said it was held bold by a receiver in in a case pending 0 before the court appointed by tho court and the receiver is simply holding tile the propel ty just as tile receiver in ari any other judicial proceeding would hold it mr hay democrat I 1 cannot see on what principle of honesty or justice anyone can call oppose the passage of this bill here was an exacting corporation and to it was giyen givan the money for certain charitable purposes and objects before tile the corporation had bad carried out these purposes upon tho the complaint of the attorney general arid and certain interested person abeli was all proper all and right a suit was bought blought in the namo name of the united states government overn ment to windup wind up the affairs affair of the corporation this money by direction of the court was placed in the land hand of the receiver and is now held by that receiver the united states slates government has no interest in the money and never had arid and if it khouli take the money and apply it to any government purposes in my judge mont ment it would be no better than a thief or a highe highway ay robber now this bill simply proposes to pass the money moncy back into the hands of these men this corporation who are arc guilty of no crime or odense as the matter stands now with power to apply it to the very purposes for which it was designed sip ned by the original contributors the court has not adjudicated its disposition and au an act of congress is necessary I 1 sincerely hope that no objection will lie be interposed and that the measure will become law it is better that this money generously v donated for charitable purposes be applied as intended than that it lie idle or that it be eventually returned to the donors as the court has suggested 1 it may be some of whom boni may maybe be dead and some of whom may have changed 0 their minds let a worthy charity once commenced bo be faithfully carried out the republican members tried to prevent the matter coming up for a vote but to no avail the resolution carried |
