| Show A RATIONAL VIEW THE philadelphia Am american erkan which aps afu never been sk friend frield to mormon ism ina tokiwa view of the prop erty question which is in accordance with the title of that hat io journal atter after giving RD an account of the status of the ease case up to date the Atner american fean says say this is is a matter of difficulty the secular power has never essayed the redistribution z distri bration of ecclesiastical property and escaped severe censure but there is IL a right and a wrong to this mormon trust fund after all so far as a appears pears t the he revenues of the Mori mormon fion church church have J always been derived from cormons mormons Mor mons they were the proceeds of a church tax if mormons cormons contributed this money out of their own earnings why should any artof part of 1 it beyond the cost of dealing dealin ir with the hierarchy because of its rebellious conduct be handed aver to persons who are not and never were contributors to the fund why should the civil establishment be a benki beneficiary clary these are hard questions but the government of the united stat states ea cannot afford to be u unjust even to mor mons moms why should not a permanent school fund fand for the benefit of the children of the persons who contributed to the fund now held in trust be created and the remainder be distributed among the mormons who paid tithes an ani and i otherwise as assisted s isted in creating the property pro rata rat a Th that atwould would at any rate be just if the law devotes the church property to schools that probably determines the whole matter but is that to so it is too ton much t to call the ti tithing tiling method of obtaining church contributions a tax it never was and certainly is not now DOW a tax but this does doe not affect the main question quee tion everybody who to is dierx disposed sed to be equitable must concede that no one hag bag a right to the funds contributed by the cormons mormons Mor mons for church purposes but the cormons mormons Mor mons themselves and seeing that the uses declared unlawful are no longer existent and that there is no intent to put the funds in dispute tl to any purposes that are not lawful there remains no BO excuse or color of it for diverting those funds to the use ilse and benefit of any one but the donors and their successors As to the distribution of the money pro rata rala as proposed by the Anar dom that would be a cumbrous and difficult task aud and as the whole body of the members who have an an equitable interest in the property desire that it may be held by a trustee or trustees for their use in an aggregate capacity there is no need to attempt so complicated a disbursement the law does not devote the personal property of the church to the common schools it does not escheat that property or malie make any provision for its ito dedication the dispute over it has arisen from its seizure and its attempted control and disposition by the courts it is only the raw real estate above the value of which the law declares forfeit and which it devotes to the benefit of the schools the personal property hold held by the corporation at the time of its din Y uon was the balance of a fund and partly disbursed through a ion long term of years it would be difficult to say wast individuals contributed to that balance and as some gome donated large amounts and others but trifles it would scarcely be just gueho to distribute it 1 pro gaga nothing more equitable simple and in accordance with the law has ham been proposed than the plan offered by counsel for the church it not only secures the funds to the body that actually owns them but their use in a lawful manners manner and for purposes the nearest alike alik a to those originally intended the spirit of the article in the american is em eminently I 1 bently just and rational |
