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


Their Magistrate. because lac - not mem.
Der ol the executive department., nor he.
redifary because he does not derive from
paternal succession, he may be consider
, ed as unaffected by this article of he Bill
Of Rights.-We are told however (Mr.
w. said) that these rights are incoasis.
! tent with the 10th art. inasmuch as thcy
have been acquired by Z" force and vio-
lenCe," not by treason aud CONNECTION"
| We say that TO force or violence have
been exercised for the acquisition Of those
| rights since the formation of this consti
tuition, And, we cannot conceive, how an
act which was passed in rs can violate a
constitution formed In rs. We say, that
with respect to our ancestors, the esta-
biishmeut of church was no crime
They supposed they were promoting the
! public welfare, when they enlisted relgi-
on on the side OF morality. Where was
the force and violence which hey exerci-
sed. The dissenters, we are told, were
taxed. The minority of the state was re-
CURED 20 contribute 10 the support Of
sect, which the majority approved. Is
! this The only force aud violence, that was
lmade use of! Perhaps, according to this
principle, there is 40 law that goes into
operation, which is not carried forward
by the force and violence of the govern
! mcnt. Perhaps there Is no law, which
does not divide the nation into a majority
and mlnoritc. Even on the present occa
sion, the same objection may be used a.
gainst this law. Force is equally the
sanction of this law which is TO deprive
The descendants OF Episcopalians of their
property. The Attorney General has
SAID, that it is unconstitutional TO continue
10 hold this pr0Per.y as it WAS acquired bv
force and violence. 1t may be asserted
however, that this clause does not relate
10 property, but to the propagation of re
| liGicus doctrine and even if it did, must
all property be given up, which was ORR
! glnally acquired by force and violence b
Shall we reIinqnish the very continent or
which We stand, because it was obtained
| by violence hom the hands cE It's Indian
! inhabitants
Mr.. w. said, that he would go farther
! IN his argument, and assert thai not ONLY
IS this retention of the Globes not incon
sistent with The Bill of Rights, but that the
attempt TO diyest the Church is contrary
to the true spirit OF the Constitution
The 10th article declares, that all men
are entitled TO the free exercise of Relig;-
on. No one will deny that associations Of
Christians FOR religious exercisHAare ne
cessary to the propagation of them belief:
| and that these associations cannot exist
Without property, Deprive the Pro,cs.
tant Episcopal Church CT these lands, and
what Will be the consequence A consi
derable interruption and SUI pension will
b. made III their religious exercises. This
principle, If carried into egcGl will, instead
81, o. universal toleration, become the bitter
est persecution. The same doctrine NAV
drive The nclmbepts from their parishes.
he very Churches may be sold over the
heads ot those, who are devoting their la
bouls TO The worship of God and The We
~ Church-Yards .hat Contain so many of
hose relics which the Episcopalian has
accustomed himself 10 veneraie and to
iove' VIII be thrown open for some pro
lane and impi6us purpose, which shall
convert ,he graves Of lis fareiathcrs into
monuments Of hun.a1 d-generacy and his
own unhappness. What federation will
this state OF things introduce?
From this series OF statements, Mr.. w.
concluded, that these Rights were vested
IN the Church at The time OF, the revoiuti-
On, and that they were not Invested by
that event, nor by the Bill Of Rights. He
could support this argument if it were
necessary by colemporaneous exposiii-
on OF the Constitution. This argument
Is not necessary, because we have with.
cut il, eXuberant proofs Of the position,
aud because cotemporaneous exposition
IS not conclusive but in ambiguous cases.
lie migh', however, have put all the act,
OF the Convention together, the validity of
all of Which could not be disputed accor-
. ding to the English doctrine, that the
scls passed at one session of Parliament
are law.
! The Attorney General, has, however,
( applied the doctrine of identity TO this
subject, and attempted to prove, that as
this was nol the same Church which ex.
isIed before the revolution, it could not
: paTiake oi the same rights. Mr.. w. OBJ
served, that he was no Metapbysician.-
lie had heard Of a great many very subtle
distinctions drawn by that class Of men
which he should never have dreamt Of
IL