Show THE NEW EDMUNDS BILL SPEECH OF SENATOR CALL RIGHTS OF THE MORMON CHURCH in the U S senate on jan ath mr call of florida made the following excellent remarks mr call mr president it has been asserted very often that there was a difference between this legislation and a law respecting religion that this bill is not amenable to objection because it legislates upon the political relations of mormonism suppose we concedes concede 3 that this fi is an organization in favor of polygamy tor for the purpose ose of teaching it and defending it gow how much do we advance the argument what power Is given to congress over it the senator broin texas seems beems to think that because utah is a territory congress is emandi emancipated f from rom all the limitations of the constitution mr maxey I 1 beg bee the senators pardon pat don I 1 took no such position 1 simply spoke of our power over the territories mr call what does the constitution say congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press the senator from texas cited the law of libel Is it to be held that congress may prohibit the promulgation 0 of f opinions upon the subject of of government or religion whether they be true or false did any one ever hear that blought was to be oe abridged ridged ao and the expression of it does not that mean free speech does it not mean a free press and it if they do teach polygamy have they not their legal warrant for it in the guarantee of freedom of speech and is it not the principle of our government that we are sustained by f free tee speech and free thought as the foundation and support of our liberties and all our ci civil vil institutions tut ions are we to be told here today this bill is right because it makes war upon opinion political opinion 11 nion political teaching the freedom and press why sir the ar argument ciment is this no not advanced to any just conclusion buslon by this proposition ane mormons cormons have a right by the very charter by which we defend the christian reli religion on which for many cen centuries turlee was forbidden forbidden to be defended except in the orthodox way it was here heresy to differ in opinion from the established slashed creed of tile the government and we owe our foundation as a government erIl ment and as a people to the freedom of speech the freedom of religious and political opinion whether it ft be for monaray or whether it be to promulgate fal fale ae philosophies in regard to society we rely upon the omnipotence of free thought and free spee speech chanda and a tree press for our protection and for the success of correct ideas we are departing from that in this billiani bill bil lIand and the senator f from rom vermont toils tells us that this is right because we are dealing with a political hierarchy let us concede that it is a political apolitical hierarchy that it teaches otic and immoral doctrines they eave have a right to teach them and we have a right to confute them by free speech and free thought that is the constitution and the fundamental principle of our government nobody ever questioned this before and the idea that because we pass laws of libel therefore we may abridge the freedom of speech of thought of expression and provide that men shall only think and talk in support of our ideas of what we proclaim to be can not be defended why sir it seems to me strange that this thia ill bill should be defended upon that ground the mormon chu church ch or society have as much right to teach their ideas as the dl distinguished orator who assails the christian religion has to teach his and he be has as in much uch legal to oro claim his bis ideas and to have an n association to support them as we have a le legal gal political right to associate tor for the maintenance of what we believe to bethe be the divine faith of christ and that is the lesson of the gospel and the lesson ot of the christian religion it itis is by bv moral power that the religion of christ has overcome polygamy in other countries and other times and it will be by bv its moral power that polygamy in utah will be overcome whether ibe a political or a re religious iz ous hierarchy does not affect the ar argument ament thu the prohibition of the constitution remains the same I 1 insist take possession of if this mormon church to confiscate its property to manage its affairs whether it be a political or religious ious ins it ution has no foundation a and d that this congress I 1 is ie ex expressly presly forbidden by the provisions of if the cuini which forbid any law that shall hall abrials abri ils ge the freedom of speech from interfering with them because of the doctrines which they may teach whatever they maybe may be and it il cannot be denied 1 that this is not a bill to suppress polygamy but it is a bill to aud destroy a sect w hiell teaches pola polygamy eairly and the methods by which it proposes to suppress this reet tilts this teaching of polygamy is tile the coulis cation oi 0 its property the seizure ut ot the contributions of its followers and theu arbitrary appropriation by congress to such purposes as it thinks proper er the trial of its irs followers by part partial j juries n ries on evidence forced fro from the lawful u I 1 wife however grievous may be the evils of mormonism these unlawful lueth methods are not the proper means for its overthrow and can never accomplish this purport par pur post mr call I 1 move to amend in section 13 line 3 by striking out after th word tos to the words forfeit forfeit and escheat to the united states the proper of corporations obtained or held and inserting the words dissolve the corporation po ration exi existing so as to read thatis shall be the duty of the ato attorney r n ey general of the united states to ins institute ti tute and prosecute proceedings to dissolve the cor corporation oration existing in violation of section n 3 of of the act of congress approved the 0 of f july 1862 the president pro tempore the question quest iod is on the amendment proposed by the senator from florida mr call I 1 propose mr president to follow this motion by a motion to strike out all the words on the eleventh line after the word states down to the word worship at the end of the seventeenth line and insert the following I 1 state it in order that it may be seen what it is that I 1 propose to tb do and all property shall be returned by the dourt court on due proof of ownership to the berbon or persons and their hens and signs 11 gus who contributed the same provided that all buildings on th the grounds appurtenant thereto and occupied exclusively tor for the purpose of the worship of god shall be conveyed under the order of the court to tr trustees who shall be selected by the congregation gre gire gation or society who const acted such church building and who use the same for the worship of god according to the dictates of their conscience mr president I 1 wish to say a few words in support of the amendment I 1 said yesterday that it was impossible for any one to give any reason on any gr ground auna of law or any plausible ground upon which it could be asserted that the congress of the united states hai the right to confiscate to forfeit the property of this corporation or an mer ot other corporation this act uses the term escheat what is an escheat in the lawit is where there ceases to be any right of ownership where an inheritable estate falls tor for want oi of persons designated and known in the law law to receive it and what becomes ol 01 lit it it goes back to the parties under the feudal law from whom it was originally derived according to the english law says the definition escheat denotes an obstruction ot of the course of descent and a consequent determination mi nation of the tenure iby iy some unforeseen contingency in which case the land naturally reverts back back by a kind of reversion to the original grantor or lord of the tee fee what pretense is there for alleging in this bill that the property shall escheat and be forfeited to the united states surely bir there is none no lawyer will unde undertake to say that thi can he be a case of escheat and why here is a corporation created by law the senator from alabama says that it was not created by law that it was not a religious corporation that they had no right to create such a corporation well sir suppose it was not a corporation suppose it was a political corporation po ration why had they not a right to create itt it there can be no question that it was created by law that it is recognized in the act cited by the senator f from rom vermont one that it is performing the duties and the objects for which it was created now the united states come no longer exist concede that th they ae nave havethe the right to do so have they the right to take taie the property ro perty can they appropriate it to their own use by ca calling 11 it ar an escheat when u under the en english engish 9 I 1 laws the pro property ert did not go to t the e crown what to do tie the law books s say ay on that subject the english parliament is omnipotent but butners here private property can not be taken for public use except on compensation pensa tion made under tile the law of escheat the land went back to the party from whom it was derived the go government in case there was no owner might appropriate it by law when there was no one of kin no one la in the order of descent and so they may here but can they destroy the person in order to ac acquire aire tile the property that is what thil this bill proposes to do and what the argument of the senator from ver mont a does it follow because a corporation is terminated that there is nobody who is a cestui cestus que trust and can the government destroy the corporation oy by act of law and then say there is nobody to own it we have destroyed it in the proper term of its chartered existence and do you not call that a forte forfeiture iture a confiscation and appropriation of private property L let t u us see what wa was s the english law T there he e re is neither analogy not nor is there any kind of precept or authority for this bill in all ali the rin 11 law aw an parliament capable without restraint of auy law confiscating fis cating all pro property erty casias pa sias bills of attainder attai nider and making blood even under uniti that constitution and that state of things there is no analogy to this legislation by which a corporation js is destroyed terminated in the period of its lite life and then the property of the corporation abed some all abion was wade made by the learned senator train from maas has to the duct duci ritie of cy pros pres ai a i an analogy to it the legislation on this subject is very plain it will be borne in mind in thi that we start out willi a positive tive prohibition from con giesh hoin appropriating private property properLy taking iland it and that before it can be appropriated by tue the g government overn ment of the united states U under der any proceeding or idea analogous to escheat it shall be when there shall be no owner of it no person wilh a legal or equitable right to itin itin 0 other til er words when it ceases to be private property tile tae legislation for charities in the Krig anglish lish to which the doc trig of cy presa pres applies P p ilici ll 11 nally finally terminated iu in the stat statute t li 43 eliz iz c 4 1601 com commonly morill called the statute of charitable uses this statute provides and as it has been extended by judicial de cislon from time to time defines the causes for which a charitable corporation may be created they are not religious li ligi lous ous they are such as beneficial beneti cial associations they may be religious or they may not be chev are all included within tile the statute of elizabeth relief belief of aged lim impotent potent and poor people maintenance of sick or nr maimed soldiers soldier and sand mariners marinero ma schools of learning tree free schools and scholars in universities universia sid ea repairs of bridges ports havens causeway ches sea banks and atud highways education edn cation and preferment of orphans relief stock or maintenance for houses of correction marriages of poor maids tion aid and I 1 help I 1 of young tradesmen handicraftsmen a and nT persona decayed etc tile the subject has received large consideration in the courts of the united states perry on trusts contains all the decisions on tile the subject and goes extensively into it anere we nud find laid down tile the following it if gifts were imade to establish a jewish syna synagogue go ue to teach judaism in 9 opposition apos v t ion to or to rees establish reestablish re es ab is th the e su sn prenia cy of the pope or to educate chil fremay dren ren in the catholic faith contrary to the statutes or to promote dissent contrary to the acts of uniformity or to keep alive superstitious customs and practices the charities could not of course be carried in effect as ta given v en and the king gave effect deflect to them as char ties by his royal loyal pre roga tive cy pres the original purposes but whether the pi prerogative of the british crown were proper or improper or whether chey were wisely wifely ex raised or not in the cases named is no question here no such power exists edicts in american magistrates judicial or ministerial that is the decision of our courts fit t does not matter whether it be the prom promotion fotion of judaism or christianity or dissent to the orthodox belief be the object of the charity what it may it has been held by the supreme court court from 4 wheaton until today to day by the I 1 uniform course of decisions by the decision of chief justice gray of the state of massachusetts among other learned men cited in this book that any benevolent charity to trustees who can receive it for the bent benefit fit of an indefinite number of people no matter what it is lit in respect to its religious tei fetching ching no matter what it is in respect G to its political influences is a charity and will be enforced and carried out oat by the coarts but here we have this bill in defiance of the whole course of american decisions and of the very words of the constitution in ia defiance of the whole course of english decisions and of the statute of elizabeth undertaking to put forth a proposition which with win great respect to the learned men upon tills this committee is utterly indefensible and unreasonable that under the doctrine of cy pres you can divert you can destroy the corporation terminate its existence during its chartered life and appropriate its donations not as the statute of elizabeth says ac according cordin g to the will of the donor but against the will of the donor deprive it entirely because it teaches some heresy religious or political why mr president there surely can b be no ground for such a proposition astvat as that it is a pure case of religious eliglo us persecution e r tiou in e express cpr es d defiance fia nee of al all 1 tee the p provisions becu r isfort of the the C constitution 0 ti t of th the e U united I 1 ted states state T the it e sell senator from alabama said this is not religion suppose it Is not can we bay what his religion or what is not in all the course of time those who maintained the orthodox religions have decided that those who differed with them were not religious religions that they were the greatest of criminals burned them at the stake torn out their tongues more than a hundred thousand people wera destroyed in one year on the very proposition of the senator from alabama that somebody had the right to say my religion is true and your religion is wrong you are a political hierarchy hierarch ora or a religious hierarchy and I 1 am your doctrine is false mr president I 1 shall not detain the senate any longer I 1 merely desired to show that this proposition of escheat or forfeiture had no warrant in the |