Its execution would be exceedingly difficult, so that not many honorable men would be willing to take the position of trustees of the funds which such a measure would remove from Mormon hands. The difficulty of separating the funds unlawfully gathered by the Mormon Church from those which justly belong to it would be very great, if not insuperable. Hence it would be very hard to defend such a measure from the serious charge of arbitrary interference with the rights of property.
It cannot be defended at all, unless it is put on the ground that the Mormon people, by continued hostility to the Government, have forfeited all political rights of every kind—even the right of property. It cannot be defended on the basis of justice at all. It looks to us to be a proposed theft in the name and under the authority of law.
But, as has been said before, in all probability if this measure should become a law, the trustees would find no funds at all; for they could easily be transferred (nominally at least) to private parties.
Just here let me say that the people should be on their guard as to what they believe concerning the Mormons and the wealth of their Church. Charges are made that have no foundation whatever in truth, and small and trivial circumstances are so exaggerated and warped that they appear as crooked monstrosities, and are presented to the world as common Mormon occurrences.
A great deal that is said and published about the large amount of funds in the hands of the Mormon leaders, and the use to which they are put, has not a scintilla of truth in it, although the persons who publish it by word or pen, being misinformed, thoroughly believe it themselves. Thus, in one of the most reliable missionary magazines in our land, in May, 1885, it was stated on the best authority that the Mormons had a large corruption fund, and as a sample of the purposes to which it is put by them, it gave the following instance: “When Bancroft, the historian, was in Utah recently, he was told that if he would write certain things in his history of Utah, they would take two hundred and forty complete sets of his works, which would give him $40,000.”
The writer determined to use that statement as a test case. He, thinking that the greatest American historian, George Bancroft, was referred to, sent him a letter of inquiry as to the truth of the statement, and the following was his reply:
“1623 H Street, Washington, D. C., February 3, 1886.
“Rev. R. W. Beers, Elkton, Md.
“Sir: Yours of February 2d is received. I am astonished that you should attribute to me anything so false as that I have been in Utah, and all that follows. You ought not to have needed to ask anybody about falsehoods so palpable.
“Very respectfully,
“George Bancroft.”