Show THE CHURCH SUITS what la Is generally known as ae the church case the united states state of america plaintiff vs va the late corporation of the church of J ebue carlat of latter day came caine up for argument before the judges of the territorial supreme court this morn gnp the petitioners petition ers wilford woodruff george Q cannon and joseph P F smith were represented by ron hon F 8 richards richarde and aind attorney W H dick son eon on the side bide of the government were united states district attorney varian and attorney J jj rawlins As batore stated in these columns th case now comes up for argument on the report made some time ago by master in Cn chancery ancery loofbourow upon the inquiry had before him with regard to the method of application of certain es ea cheated property of the church mr varlan varian raid there was waa a prell preliminary ml question which must be settled on the merits of the cabe before the arguments ments were reached Atthe at the hearing before the master four schemes scheme were presented one on behalf of the church one on behalf of the govern ment and two outside of these one on behalf of the Brig hain young uni hersity and another on behalf of five counties in the territory these matters were heard and considered by master loofbourow and after the case had been finally submitted to him another scheme was presented it was a written docu t upon this filed with the master no evidence was taken and subsequently his report was filed and exceptions were taken thereto by the parties proposing this scheme counsel now desired to interpose an objection to go on record aga against irist the consideration by the court of any of these theme outside schemes attempted to be lodged by parties not connected with the litigation and who bad not heretofore obtained leave of the court to intervene and be beard he had made a motion to strike out in particular the exceptions made by the brigham young academy and strongly objected to the consideration now of the so called scheme presented on 01 0 1 its behalf no outsider to the litigation hud had a right to introduce himself into the body of the suit fluit much less after the decree decre e take up the time of the court and therefore a portion of the funds in controversy if these schemes were to be admitted practically any member of the mormon church who chose could come forward and ask to be beard on any pet scheme the entire people of that church were now before the ourt through their chosen representatives mr varlan varian expressed his desire to file on behalf of the master a supplement to his report this simply set forth that at the hearing had before him fi ur schemes were submitted that afterwards about december 1891 the hon J W judd presented to him the petition of A 0 smoot and others in behalf of we the brigham young academy which he ha endorsed and bled aled on the day on which blob it was wag presented nothing was done thereon however beyond that he examined the petition and brief submitted and returned the petition with the original report mr varian said he be believed chunat counsel 1 I on the other side bide were of the same opinion as himself when he urged that the outside schemes be not considered by this court to this the hon HOD F 8 richards assented I 1 judge judd said he be bad no idea that it would be necessary for him to interpose at this time when his scheme was presented to the he master that gentleman informed him that it was in good time if that scheme were now admitted and considered si his clients would have no objection to pay their khare of any additional tax upon the funds that might be incurred this scheme he insisted presented absolutely more merit than any of the others judge judd asked mr varian why he be did not give him notice of his present motion mr varlan varian I 1 do not recognize your you right then why should I 1 give you notice the judges consulted and chief justice zane sald bald the court la Is of opinion that the application on behalf of the brigham young academy filed with the master in chancery be stricken from the files and that the application for leave to file a petition now on behalf of that institution be denied the arguments will therefore be confined to the schemes presented b bj parties to the suit judge judd remarked that he had prepared a brief upon the scheme presented in his position which of course would be applied upon the arguments in a general way it dealt simply with the main maid ground of the queSt question IOD anti anil he asked leave now to file it attorney dickson said his side were willing of course to admit judge judd judds s brief dealing with the main issue the only objection was to the introduction tro oi of anything relating to the brigham young academy the court admitted the brief on this understanding judge zane then invited counsel to proceed with the arguments which he must te confined to two days it war therefore mutually agreed that each side should occupy one day and that judge judd should be given reasonable time attorney richard bichard W yo young ng here came forward and observed that he presented to the master at the bearb g before him I 1 a scheme on be half of the young university he asked whether the decision of the court in reference to the brigham young academy governed the case of these petitioners petition ers whom he represented judge zone zane the same rule will apply to your institution as well hon F 8 richards then proc proceeded beaded with his argument on the part of the petitioners petition ers he presumed that there were now only two schemes under consideration the one that of the government asking that this property of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints sainte be met bet apart forthe for the use uee of the public scho schools olp and the other proposed by the first presidency of the church asking that it be devoted to certain charit charities lep enumerated in the scheme for the benefit of the church counsel then directed attention to the latter scheme and stated the substance of the same he said it was clearly proven before the master in evi evidence deuce that this property or these funds had bad been contributed solely by members of the church for religious and charitable purposes ees and that the same was under the direction of the first presidency an effort was made on the tart art of the government to show that the purposes purpose to which the fund should be applied were general and might be devoted in any way the first presidency might see fit but a careful examination of the whole testimony showed that while it was under their dire tion and subject to their control for the support of the poor the building of temples and the repair of houses bouses of worship still it was left to their die discretion in that regard only As to LIM kitbing ing that was a purely membry v bohin tary contribution by the of the church no mans fellowship s was waa called in question because he did or did not make this contribution ja tra supposed upp oBed that the reason why the th master did not approve of the church scheme was wag because he was wag precluded preclude a from doing go BO by the decree of the th supreme court of the united ham A large part of this fund had ns been used fo for r years for afa benot benefit of the poor and aad distressed mew men bore bers of the church chereb a larger sum bum tha than could possibly arise from the ancora income of this fund in view of the circum stance the cate cabe it would be an ab surji ty i f which neither this thia court nor the supreme court of the united states would surely be guilty to aw we will set aside these lawful trual say and cuseta which were the actual anten lions of the donors and hunt up some som other use uee that most nearly correr correE ponda DondT to chefe lawful uses and substitute that for it counsel dwelt at some length with the case of romney et at ill wh wherein a rein it was claimed that th i they and the other members of S the church whose on behalf theila th was filed were petition equitably the th owners of tuch property arad and bene ben fici fi daily filially ally interested therein ana points pointed out the clearly apparent difference between that claim or scheme and the th present one one claimed the absolute abao lutS and unrestricted ownership 0 of 1 th the property the other only asked to have its proceeds applied to some of the Us ufa I 1 or which it was contributed in oo 00 with the decision of the bourl colm besires me difference in the there was another reason why the tha romney application did not bar the present one the supreme court ou na the united states stated in its opinion clearly recognized the th s fact it WIS I 1 clear cle arrum the records in this case that the supreme court of the united unite states had upheld miffs gifts legislation no ts cause of what it termed the 4 geon oon tuma tumS clota character ot of the church churchill jeasus christ of latter day saints 11 ft treated on the question of polygamy and showed it to be the practice of tu church this lay at the foundation this litigation counsel referred ia what the master in chancery I 1 in ate report had described as the conditions and said bald it was abundant ly proved in evidence at the late ih that not only had plura marriage lapsed but had bt been absolutely forbidden by the auth author ties of the church any person wiio awo practiced it would be caged that appeared prominently 61 the testimony and could not be trover ted what more could the beada of the church have said than they d dia on this subject 0 0 in view of th these age t faite al and that the church had bad elim eliminated inam everything illegal from its prece and practices ep there was wag no reason and there was no excuses excuse for any ion longer withholding this property from tc th church the petitioner petitioners ers might with good conscience sad ad good grace ave come before the courto and asked that this property be absolutely turi tun ed over to the Church But they did not do dothie thin they were willing that the of the courts of law should be thrown around them and to show to this coun and the country that they were in good faith in this thia matter they did not ask aak the court to place this fund beyond itz ite reach though be beli believed evou that if they did so it would ultimately grant tho application and he believed it ought to keep this lundby all mean sunder argument on behalf of the government at 1045 he referred to what be termed the manner under which the contri butiong bunions to this fund had been acquired and called attention to the law of the church as aa set get forth by revelation on this subject and published in its book of creeds he next made mention of the law of the territory passed by the first territorial legislature in aid of church purposes ff then he briefly dwelt upon the history of the church in utah As to how this fund was dedicated counsel on the other side contended that there wasa was a specific intent in the mind of each of the donors having in view some borne definite charitable purpose he insisted however that there was nothing of the klud kind that if it were possible to ascertain an opinion from each and every member of the church who contributed to the fund it would be found that there was an intention to devote it simply to religious and charitable purposes it was quite evident that the money was given as tithing practically exacted as a taxes congress enacted a law because of the diversion and misappropriation of this fund devoted to charitable and religious purposes its misuse in aid of illegal aid a id unlawful objects counsel dealt with the decree of the supreme court ot of the united states and argued that nothing now remained but to carry it into effect it would seem that since the final judgment and direction of the court this thie trustee had reformed and now promised to administer this fund in accordance with his big duty under tue the law the church he insisted orthe applicants for its scheme as ae well as aa this court were absolutely sol precluded from applying this fund to its original purpose ilithe lu the manner and form at least in which it was once applied until another decree was formulated on different principles the contention of counsel sel in regard to its ite application could not be maintained it had been stated b by y counsel for the petitioners petition ers that the practice of polygamy having ceased there was no reason why this property should any longer be withheld from those who heretofore bad charge of it but it was the teaching and promulgation of the doctrine of plural marriage the scattering of the seeds throughout other peoples and communities which the supreme court of the united states said was a blight and a wrong on civilization it was in no spirit of criticism or faultfinding against the mormon jl people or through any doubt doubles a las to their sincerity that he spoke thus thuc it was rather because of their good faith aud and sincerity on this thi question that the argument gained strength and force fo we had seen been sald mr varian all the power of this government great as it is ie exerted for months and years with what the mormon people were pleased to call a savage ferocity jl in order to enforce this law against polygamy and practically without effect so for far as the people tb themselves em selves were made to believe it to be their duty to submit to the law we had seen the simple word of the head of this church sent forth throughout the territory charge change the entire practice in a day why because the people believed that almighty god stood behind their president and that he be was speaking with the void voice of deity but suppose deity changed his mind anil and another revelation came what security had the government or the court that their former resolution would be adhered to or that this fund would be applied as was now promised mr dickson the court would stil have this found under its control mr varian continuing remarked if the scheme of these petitioners petition ers was allowed allow jed would it not be devoted to the erection of ef buildings where the people could still teach all the doctrines and principles of their religion this fund ought not to be applied to the building of meeting houses so long as this doctrine of plural marriage was wais pound doctrine in the creed of the church this was simply ao an application by the Mur 1 under the law and organization of that church no man in it could control the disposition of the funds by the authorities or heads thereof this application of the boners was to appoint private individuals AS trustees in an unincorporated association Bo clation to administer this fund and the court could not he urged grant it attorney ballins followed with his argument on the side ot of the government he said laid this property could not rever tto the donors or those who contributed tri buted it and it if the charity failed it fell back into the residuum of property belonging to the united states counsel cited legal authorities bearing on OB the subject of charities and the dis trib ution of their funds here said he be they bad a property given to a dissolved corporation without a successor and if the object bad failed it must go to the state the court not being able to designate a new object it was freed of any taint of trust judge gray counsel instanced referred to a lase case where the gift was to a charity generally the court could not sup ply a charity not expressed and the doctrine of cy pres pree was left without a standard to guide where property properly was given iven to a trustee to devote as he might designate it was not for the courts to handle but would go to those legally entitled to it in this ease case unless this court disposed of the prop erty it must be administered upon by congress all counsel for the government now asked was a |