Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-06

y,
ACT oil 1884 Incorporates the church the
act OF 'S5 repeats the Incorporating law,
but still saves the rights of the church:
the act OF 's8 allows it trustees for the SUI
perntendance OF lis property. All these
acts thus recognise the identity of the
two churches and their rights OF proper
~.
he Attorney General contends that
these laws can confer no new right, be-
cause they would in that case be uncon-
siltu'Ionoi, being contrary to the i4th ar
t'cle the Bill OF Rights, Mr.. Wickham
was not certain that The constitution docs
prohibit any establishment of religion.
The time may come, when the legislature
may be OF that opinion. AT all events,
these laws do not contravene this article,
because they do not confer any original
right. They only give the sect which was
already superior TO The other before the
! revolution, the means of enjoying its pro.
Perty better than before. Notwithstand-
ing the great erdor which had been mani
| tested on this occasion 10 guard the Bill Of
Rights from violation, he had some doubts
whether deviations from this instrument
had not occurred more oStensble than
these laws on the glebe lands. On the o.
iher day, property was given TO Mrs. Reed
In the case OF Reed and Reed, without the
| consideration of public service. Property
has been given to schools, which however
general they may be in their utility, cannot
be said to be Public institutions or TO be
productive of public services. The en-
| p!oyment OF chaplain by the legislative
| body affords an instance of preference
being given to one religious persuasion a.
bove al others.
These laws then have vested property
in the church. The laws may be repeal.
| ed, but the property cannot be thus dvest-
ed. The Attorney General has contend
cd, that an act of Assembly may repeal
laws establishing corporations and after.
wards dispose oftheir property. Mr.. w.
| admitted that when the property of corpo-
/ rations or orprivate individuals was taken
! for f"6hc purposes, this right might exist
IN them. Bul can they take property from
\ and give it b, although 3 has right to
! ii, or although \ has none? If they cam
! not do 1t directly, they cannot do IL indi-
recfiy. This brings us then to two ques-
! tons.
ist. Whether the legislature have at
tempted to exercise any such power?
I'd. Whether they have a right to do
it?
lst. The acts of 1898 and sol may, ip
this respect, be considered as one acl, as
they have both the same object in view.
I The irst repeats ali laws since the revo
! luton, as being unconstitutional. The Sc
cond carries this law into efieGl, by vest
ing this property in the overseers Of the
f, poor. EIr. w. observed, ne would say We
! ry little on the Inconsistency in these laws,
| sacrificing the rights OF the church in the
! glebe lands, and in still re- aiming churches
and church yards, and in giving emolu-
ment tothe present incumbents.-Mr.W {.
said, that the object of both these laws was
he same. 1t was to take away the proper
" from the church, and dispose of it on
The question OF right. This was ques-
ton which this court alone was competent
10 decide. 1t was similar to any other
! question Of property. 1t was not one in
| which the interests of the state were iii.
reStly concerned, in which property was
TO be transferred to the use Of this COM
monwealth, 1t was question between
the church and parish. 1t was whether
property was to be taken from A and Civ.
en- to b. Had the legislature then any
right to decide this question:
?. Whether this was a right which be-
longed to The legislature or not, cannot be
decided on abstract principles. We must
| not so on to enquire what was done by
Henry VIII of England, or by the revolu-
tlonists of France. The first might plead
an arbitrary power; the advocate of the
last has founded their vindication en- the
! exigency Of the times. Neither Of those
pleas can be of any avail to the legislative
body. They had plain chart to go by,
which restricted their powers, and which
necessity did not compel them to abandon
| They had the constitution before them.
They might have read in that, the con-
domination of their proceedings. The third
article of the constitution declares, that
4" the legislative, executive and judiciary
departments shall be separate and dis
! tinef," IF this article means any thing, il
/ devolves on the courts exclusively, the
power ofdeciding on propcrty. This pri-
yilege has been assumed by the legisla-
ture on the present occasion. The aGls
( Of 1898 and 1901, are consequently I'M