Show A PROPER APPLICATION 1 IN the proceedings in la the suits planted against the Church by the government before the Court last lut eyen eyen- evea an application was made by the defense for an order older authorizing par par- parties parties flea ar-flea ties who may be made defendants to institute such suits spits as might be nees necessary necessary sary against the receiver without special permission of f the cour court The reasonableness of this application aioo Is self evident when it is 18 considered that the court some soar time since granted the same ame privilege to the other side I It If the plaintiff Is ia to line have sive es la live privileges and aid the defense e timi t be robbed of 01 its it rights the then f ere ere t would be no conte contest t as I on en one side would be A combatant armed and equipped fro from head to b heel 61 while the other r would w b be practically without a h legal Ral weapon with his bis hands bound together b behind hind nil Dim When the same authorisation was asked for tor the receiver as was wa requested y by y the thc de- de defense defense de defense the former forier urged its claim on the ground round that the tare court was Willi not 1 of ottea in ia session and ud ana It ii might retard tn tae progress of 01 the receiver it if the or- or order order or order der wax was not Dot made aade When the same reason is 18 advanced in la behalf enaif of the de- de de defense t the receivers receiver's rc iy rJ attorney asserts with an n p U y the border of ut elroD rt and nd l a amount no puts 8 to that Ue t e s ot of the court coart are for orall or orall all purposes pertaining pertain to tee lue other wide side The law referred to on the subject by Mr Rawlins Is so 80 direct that one would have nave under r ordinary circumstances that the tobe taking of the subject of the application under aO- aO ad advisement was a work of tien tien The statute gives the defendant the right t in the premises premise thor therefore fore why the delay delar in it To deny dellY it would be a flagrant flagrant injustice and would go 10 direct directly in ia the face of an equitable claim base based on OB the fact ot of ottile tile the other side having been given a similar erder and would woold be contrary to the requirement of an e express statute That the defense needs a remedy that is as I speedily operative as practicable practicable practicable a against possible encroachments of the receiver beyond the limits of his bis o cial capacity has already bee according acc to our view demon demon- demonstrated demonstrated lie has already taken pos pos- possession session sessi n of ot property which as we Un- Un Understand ua it not now BOW per a r never lever did belong the of the Church According o the a standpoint of the al ad court its itself lf it could iI lo g to q ration in both taking the g and that that body oal Wag IM s tane- tane ne- ne tie p s e oJ of the s d- d Tucker mu d l I law W W n e J ass s portion of property to the gusto y Qt of which the receiver is not entitled Is liable to be seized by him he may lay yen yen- Ten tare tare further farther in the same direction to the he detriment of private parties artie whom he might thus make der nd and who wao should have the sp speediest ediest pra practicable practicable cable tJ-cable remedy within reach It appears appear as If some people had been converted away from tile the funda funda- fundamental fundamental mental principle of govern govern- governments govern ments that the right to property should be inv inviolate This right is natural and exit existed d antecedent to the that instrument m merely tely re enacting a natural right right or providing tor for its pro pro pro- protection If one man takes summary possession of another nother mans man's man cow ia is it itin itIn in acc with the Institutions Institution of this country that thai the latter latter should a old ob- ob obtain obtain tain special permission putt for tor its recovery re overy yet het t the e i Iq complete The receiver celver has 40 ItO mere rI right bt to take into his possession the property of o pr private vate parties to 0 the cus- cus custody tody tody of which da he i Is hot Dot ot i t b than the man who selves b l s cow That he imagines imas he Ire has a makes not Bot ot a shade of dif dUr rence The person who seizes another other pe Ona anima animal may may also al albe be be iB ip 1 the same ame way on account of ot his hia inability 4 4 0 to do distinguish between his owa own co cow cowand and linet that which is the property of an- an another another an another other person The p person subjected io in either case to the deprival rival should ti-hould not be compelled to too oMaIn to a special permit to have an opportunity to t kid tej his claim his |