| Show A perplexing QUESTION TAB press of the country is once more commenting on the decision of the supreme court of the united states on the escheat of mormon church property the leading papers seem to sense the situation pretty clearly while others exhibit a lack of information and intelligence but most ot of them regard the ewe case as forming a precedent which is likely to become baneful and the means of introducing great evils into the jurisprudence of the country any one who has watched closely the proceedings designed to deprive the latter day salute saints of their church property under the specious plea that part of it had been and some of it might be used for an unlawful purpose to wit the support of tho the practice of polygamy must have been impressed with the confusion and inconsistency manifested therein it has been a muddle from the beginning many things had to be assumed patent facts ignored and property rights invaded in order to give a color of legality to say nothing of a pretence predence pre tence of justice to the diversion of the property of a church to other uses than those for which it was donated and for the benefit of people who never contributed a cent to its sum it is a new nev thing in the united states therefore many legal aud and judicial precedents in this country had to be set aside and the court in reaching the conclusion at which it was determined to arrive had to transcend bend its legitimate powers and encroach croach upon the domain of legislative authority among other influential papers the st louis globe democrat gives a fair account of the leading points of the ease case and makes the following remarks which we copy without endorsement or comm comment ewt this implies a doubt as to the authority of the court to apply the money in its own discretion as seems to be the intention of the law and four of the justices dissent as to the existence of the power to order any disposition thereof it is urged that the purposes for which the property was originally designed were unlawful because the corporation endorsed poly polygamy amy and therefore it is impossible in to lud find analogous purposes of a lawful order but has the court power to dispose of property properly in that way even if it be conceded that I 1 here are charitable objects to which it might be devoted without any impropriety it is undoubtedly within the pro province vinee of that tha tribunal to approve ve and confirm the condemnation offo of property but the disposition of condemned property is in another thing and possibly a thing that can be done only by by legislation and not by a order the question ques tiou presents a grave ve difficulty and it is possible that az the court may yet conclude to forego aach petion and let congress provide in distinct terms what shall be done with the money in any event however the forfeiture will hold and that is the main thing the fund will eventually be used in such a manner as to carry out the theory of the law and give the peo people lo 10 of istah the benefit of this large sum were there are schools hospitals and other public institutions which certainly come within the meaning of the act of 1887 and means will be found to employ the money in their interest the report of the master in chancery will show all the facts in that relation it is to be supposed that the receiver is in entirely trustworthy and nothing will be lost by waiting until the matter shall be thoroughly investigated and the best method ascertained for enforcing the law in a practical and beneficent way I 1 the new york sun thus closes a long and ably written editorial on this perplexing question chief justice fuller and his democratic associates les who dissented from the opinion of tw majority of the supreme court were right when they said that if the purpose for which the mormon property ert v was accumulated were such as had bein been represented it could not be brought within the rule which required that property destined for charitable uses w which have failed shall be applied to a pur purpose pose as nearly as possible resembling the object which the donors had in mind nor is there any counterpart in congressional power they said to the exercise of the royal prerogative in the disposition of a charity if this property pro erty deely was van accumulated for purposes declared lared illegal that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation I 1 the correctness of the view thus expressed is emphasized by the form in which the court has now put its it decree of for that decree shows that the united states government having taken possession of a vast amount of pro property arty formerly under the control of the mormon charch to is at a loss to know what to do with it and that the federal courts must devise some method by which it can be utilized for purposes of public charity this is nothing less than judicial legislation in the most pronounced form f 7 |
