Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers
Decision Date | 14 July 1948 |
Docket Number | 7130 |
Citation | 114 Utah 108,197 P.2d 477 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | THOMAS v. DAUGHTERS OF UTAH PIONEERS et al |
Proceeding By James Rolla Thomas, For Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, For A Writ of Prohibition Enjoining The Daughters of Utah Pioneers And Others From Acting Under Legislation Authorizing Construction of The Pioneer Memorial Building And Display of Historical Relics Therein Alternative Writ Quashed, Peremptory Writ Denied, And Petition Dismissed
Certiorari Denied by U.S. Supreme Court May 16, 1949.
Rehearing denied September 14, 1948. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Allen G. Thurman, N. J. Cotro-Manes and W. Stanford Wagstaff, all of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Grover A. Giles, Atty. Gen., and Martin M. Larson, of Salt Lake City, for defendants.
The attention of the reader is invited to the fact that this opinion is the majority opinion only as to the question of the violation of Section 4, Article I of our State Constitution pertaining to the expenditure of public monies for religious purposes. Upon the other issues involved it is a minority opinion, and the majority of the court conclude that the writ should be denied. As this opinion contains a complete statement of the historical and factual background of the case it introduces the determination of the case on this appeal.
This matter is before us upon petition for an alternative writ of prohibition, which, by stipulation of the parties and in order to expedite final determination, is to be considered as a petition for a peremptory writ of prohibition. The parties also agreed that this court may on its own motion, or upon motion of counsel take evidence with respect to the issues, the same to be submitted either by stipulation, or by the taking of testimony either before the court or by reference.
Plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants, and perpetually enjoin them from action under and pursuant to certain legislation enacted for the purpose of building a certain memorial building and the display therein of historical relics of this state. The issues will be specifically treated hereafter, but may be classed generally as an attack upon the constitutionality of the legislation from the standpoints of the separation of state and church, of special and irrevocable privilege, and of statutory construction. References herein to the Society or the lessee are references to the Daughters of Utah Pioneers.
Before taking up the legislation directly involved, there is a bit of legislative history that may be of some importance in considering this case. In February 1921, a
"Resolution authorizing the Governor to appoint a committee of five to investigate and report regarding the provision of a suitable place for the preservation and housing of documents, etc. belonging to and pertaining to the history of the State of Utah" (italics added)
was passed by our legislature; and it was signed by the Governor, March 5, 1921. This was known as S. J. R. No. 4.
Under the heading "Communications from the Governor" dated February 10, 1923, and bearing the following letter of transmittal, the report of a Committee was submitted and filed and referred to the Committee on Appropriations:
(Italics added) Other events of interest were:
On January 27, 1923, a resolution from the Utah Daughters of Pioneers requested an appropriation to take care of their work, was presented and referred to the Committee on Appropriations in the House. No further action appears to have been taken on the resolution.
On January 29, 1923, the following petition was presented:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rio Algom Corp. v. San Juan County
...Stone v. Department of Registration, Utah, 567 P.2d 1115 (1977); Salt Lake City v. Tax Commission, supra; Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 114 Utah 108, 197 P.2d 477 (1948). The presumption of constitutionality applies with particular force to tax statutes. Although we are concerned he......
-
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead
...their newly founded religion had successively encountered in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. See Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 114 Utah 108, 197 P.2d 477, 510 (1948) (Wolfe, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 930, 69 S.Ct. 739, 93 L.Ed. 1090 (1949). The Mormons were the first sub......
-
Baker v. Matheson
...has been violated. See, generally, Stone v. Department of Registration, Utah, 567 P.2d 1115 (1977); Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 114 Utah 108, 197 P.2d 477 (1948), appeal dismissed, 336 U.S. 930, 69 S.Ct. 739, 93 L.Ed. 1090; State v. Packer Corporation, These general principles, al......
-
Gregory v. Shurtleff
...matter of the legislation and to put anyone having an interest in the subject on inquiry.Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 114 Utah 108, 197 P.2d 477, 508 (1948) (Latimer, J., concurring). A more recent opinion saw the purpose of the clear-title rule as ensuring that “the legislators wi......
-
A liberal theocracy: philosophy, theology, and Utah constitutional law.
...e.g, Manning v. Sevier County, 517 P.2d 549 (Utah 1973) (dealing with the establishment clause); Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 197 P.2d 477 (Utah 1948) (upholding statute authorizing construction of a memorial with historical exhibits on federal and state constitutional grounds as i......
-
Utah Law Developments
...ordinarily refers to “a peculiar benefit, favor, or advantage, a right not enjoyed by all.” See Thomas v. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 197 P.2d 477, 507 (Utah 1948) (Latimer, J., concurring in part) (cleaned up). Rather, the UHC imposes a duty to keep peer-review materials confidential. Utah......